Does the success of Game of Thrones mean we‘re ready to see our heroes die in movies?

If you'll forgive me, I'm turning my attention away from films (kind of), and talking TV again.  I've already written once before about how movies could look at what's happening in many of the best and most popular series on TV at the moment; well I've been watching the reactions to the current series of Game of Thrones with some interest.

Now, two things to start with: firstly, there'll be SPOILERS for Game of Thrones up to date, and for other TV series, so proceed with caution!  Secondly, I should point out that I don't actually watch Game of Thrones.  You see, I have a problem with dealing with people that do bad things in films and TV programmes.  I get very, very impatient waiting to see a villain/antagonist get the come-uppance they deserve for their terrible deeds.  This exhibits itself in some, well, less than sociable behaviour; I basically start shouting at the screen/TV, exhorting the protagonist/hero to afflict all sorts of terrible, horrible pain and injury upon the villain.  I also cheer very loudly when said villain finally receives that mortal blow.  My wife will attest to how bad I am with this; I actually, literally, made a couple who were sat next to us sprint from the cinema at the end of 'Elysium' (after I cheered at one bad guy getting spectacularly pulped by a railgun)!

So why does this mean I can't watch Game of Thrones?  Well, I find it very difficult to watch anything if I know a villain/antagonist is going to go unpunished for committing terrible acts.  I've been known to get half way through a series of '24', getting so angry that the villain keeps getting away, that I just put on the last episode and skip to the point where they finally get caught/killed.  Heck, I did the same with BBC's recent 'Happy Valley' - after watching the first episode I knew I wouldn't be able to wait another 5 hours to see the antagonist get the beat-down they deserve, so tuned in for the very final few minutes of the last episode this week, just at the point that he does (and pretty satisfying it was too - though if I'd have written it, he'd suffered quite a bit more..!)

I watched the first Episode of Game of Thrones (just before the current series started), and at the end of it I was pretty indignant.  I then had a conversation with a friend about it:

Me: "So when do those evil, child-murdering Lannister bastards die?!?!"
Friend: "Errr.... they don't actually..."
Me: "What?!?! But when do the Stark's get revenge on them???!"
Friend: "Well... the Starks all get murdered, pretty much..."
Me: [rages like a mid-transformation Bruce Banner]

I decided at that point that if I wanted to watch a programme about evil, murdering, raping, scheming gits committing terrible acts and NOT being brought to task for it, I'll turn on the news and watch our elected representatives in their office of government, thanks George RR Martin!  (Yes, thank you, thank you, I'm here all week - please, try the fish...)

Last week‘s Episode ('The Mountain and The Viper') is another example of this.  It's been drawing no small amount of controversy because of a shocking and bloody moment of violence, but what I found staggering about it was that the 'victor' in this scenario was basically confessing to the rape and murder of the wife and children of the 'victim'.  Reading about this has made me glad that I haven't been following this programme - unless I had fore-knowledge that the murderer in this scene was at some point going to die a suitably slow, painful, torturous and humiliating death in the near future for their wrongdoings, this scene would have infuriated me quite spectacularly!  It's had a lot of the fans reeling too, as this series is becoming infamous for basically killing off the characters that the fans warm to and embrace the most.

Your favourite character goes up against a ‘villainous‘ one - you know how this usually turns out in the movies, right?  Well, not in Game of Thrones...

However, the more I've thought about this over the following days, the more I've come to appreciate, and even applaud, what this series, through George RR Martin's storytelling, is doing.  Basically, it is breaking down the biggest narrative conventions that is prevalent in TV and Cinema:

That is, the villain must receive some sort of punishment for their evil acts, and the hero can never die.

Now, it should be said that the reason so many great stories (regardless of medium) are so treasured and memorable is because the hero/protagonist succeeds, despite the trials and tribulations thrown their way - their motivations (love, redemption, revenge, survival) help us to empathise with their plight/quest/mission and cheer when they finally succeed.  And it helps if in doing this there is a detestable villain/antagonist who deserves to be foiled/punished/avenged by the hero.  Also, it can be pretty depressing to have a story where the hero ultimately fails.  Of course, there are notable exceptions to this, and where it is true to the genre, or the intentions of the storyteller, having the hero(es) not succeed can be the right thing (see, for example, 'Seven', or 'The Usual Suspects').

But what is interesting about how people are compulsively following Game of Thrones is that, despite the clear shock at seeing a sympathetic or apparent 'heroic' character die at the hands of a more villainous one (although I do appreciate that for the  most part the characters are generally somewhere in the middle morally), people are sticking with the series - and they can't seem to get enough.  This makes me wonder whether a) movie makers should be more daring and embrace 'darker' storytelling like that, and if b) audiences in general are now ready to accept this?

I know I harp on about the Marvel Studios movies a lot, but let's face it their linked approach to move-making is paying off dividends at the moment, both in terms of box-office success and quality of film.  Now, let's say, they took one of the major characters - and killed them off.  And I mean, ACTUALLY killed them off (there's that joke about the only character that stays dead in Comics is Uncle Ben...).  If done correctly, in a way which made sense, and wasn't done in a 'cheap' or 'weak' manner, it would be a completely epic and unforgettable moment - not just for the franchise, but for cinema in general.  The only other time I can think of something like that happening is in the 1980's animated 'Transformers' movie with the death of Optimus Prime - although that had little to do with storytelling than with highly cynical marketing on the part of the company making the Transformers toy line ("hey kids, you know your favourite Transformers characters, like Optimus Prime?  Well, they're all DEAD, so you have to buy these new toys, okay?").

Once again, I think move makers should look at Game of Thrones and be emboldened.  Heroes are dying left, right and centre in that series, but the fans are staying with it - in fact, it's becoming more popular all the time.  When done correctly, audiences can completely embrace an ending which is not the conventional 'hero wins/villain fails' one - take for example, 'Empire Strikes Back' recently being voted the greatest film of all time by a large number of movie fans.  You might argue that it was only after the trilogy that film was part of was completed - and the heroes had defeated the villains - that appreciation of that film began to truly flourish.  Even so, it remains a favourite amongst move fans, and not just of that particular film series.

Turns out we don‘t mind if the villains come out on top now and again...

Coming back to the Marvel movies, following on from the recent Captain America sequel, many comic fans have pointed out that certain characters have been introduced in to the franchise that have key roles in a comic storyline which sees Captain America assassinated - yes, he actually dies (though, yeah, Marvel did bring him back after a couple of years...).  Interestingly those who have made these connections are actually in favour of this happening in the movies - and I must admit, I agree.  Chris Evans is only contracted for one more Captain America and Avengers move after next year's 'Age of Ultron'; if he did want to leave the role, and Marvel chose not to re-cast, then the death of Captain America could be a truly unforgettable, heart-breaking, but nonetheless epic moment in that series of films; IF it is handled correctly, and done in a way that still makes for a satisfying story.  Whether they will is yet to be seen - I'm sure that the merchandising opportunities that Captain America presents may affect this final decision ultimately...

So I think that movies should take HBO's and George RR Martin's lead, and perhaps start killing a few more of their heroes off - when done in the right way, this needn't drive audiences away.

And does this mean I will start watching Game of Thrones?  Well, I might have to wait and see what the final outcome of the series is down the line, before I decide whether to give it another go; just so I know I'm not going to have any more outbursts at the TV screen..!

Movie Review: Edge of Tomorrow - any sense of deja vu is probably intentional...

Tom Cruise has become something of a divisive figure lately - despite a solid level of acclaim for his films and performances, there are more than a few people who can't discern between his movie-star persona and his private life, and level a lot of criticism at him; at the same time, some of his recent films haven't quite been the Box Office successes he's had in the past.  Strangely, this is a film which should appeal to both camps.

On the one hand, you have Cruise taking the lead in a Sci-fi action movie, a genre he's proven time and again that he has the chops to handle and carry an entire film.  But the twist is that as Major Bill Cage, he gets stuck in a time loop which sees him reliving the same final two days each time he dies fighting an alien invasion; so if you're a Tom Cruise detractor, you get the satisfaction of seeing him die - again, and again, and again...

Standing apart from almost every other Blockbuster offering this summer, 'Edge of Tomorrow' is unique in the sense that it's not a sequel, prequel or reboot/remake.  Having said that, it is still an adaptation of a Japanese Manga (known as 'All You Need is Kill'), and has a premise which is immediately familiar - the time loop elements of Groundhog Day and Source Code, and the plethora of action-heavy Sci-fi alien combat movies, such as Aliens or Starship Troopers.  What makes a change is that this is a film which realises these similarities, and wears them like a badge of honour - see, for example, the casting of Bill Paxton as a grizzled Sergeant.

The set-up sees humanity struggling to repel an invasion of aliens known as 'Mimics', so called because they are able to adapt to the tactics the humans have attempted to use against them.  But having won a first major victory against the aliens in Verdun, the military forces of humanity are about to launch a major counter offensive on all fronts.  Press-ganged in to this is Cruise's character, a military press/media officer who has never seen a day of combat.  In his first day on the front line, at the spearhead of the assault on the beaches of Normandy, Cage witnesses a massacre of the human forces - it's as though the aliens knew they were coming.  Within minutes Cage is killed by one of the Mimics, but then he wakes up the day before the attack.  Somehow he has hi-jacked the aliens' ability to 'reset time', and must figure out how to halt the invasion.  He discovers he has an ally, veteran soldier (and poster-girl for the military's efforts) Rita Vrataski (played by Emily Blunt) - who is the only person able to understand what is happening to Cage.

Tom Cruise's Bill Cage goes from coward to Alien-fighting, Exo-suit wearing bad-ass...

Initially, this film isn't easy to like - after being betrayed by a senior officer, thrown in with dis-likable soldiers who heartlessly joke about Cage getting killed, it's easy to think that if this is what humanity's final defenders are like, then maybe we deserve to be wiped out by these aliens!  However, as Cage replays the same day over again he grows from something of a coward, to trying to save the lives of his squad-mates.  Once Cage has met up with Vrataski and realised what they must do to stop the invasion, the film hits it's stride - just as well, as there are points that it feels like the film threatens to become a repetitive training montage.

As an action Sci-fi Blockbuster, this film hits the right marks - the battle scenes are suitably intense and pretty brutal, and feature some cool military tech in the form of the Exo-suits.  These are particularly well realised pieces of kit, a nice use of some practical effects in this CGI-led age.  Also, despite the potential bleakness of the story and setting, this film has a surprising amount of fun - the film relishes in a cheerfully black sense of humour in some of the deaths that it subjects Cage to!  IT occasionally allows for some fun with the narrative, as scenes are played through before it is clear that this isn't the first time Cage has been through that moment...

The film wears its action, military Sci-fi inspirations and influences on its sleeve with pride...

Having said that, it's a shame that, unlike some of the films which it is evoking, it doesn't use the premise to explore the potential philosophical implications of the time-loop premise - especially in relation to the war setting; there could have been the opportunity to examine the futility of war, that the cycle of killing can only end in mutual annihilation - no one can truly win.

But ultimately this film knows what it is - an entertaining Sci-fi action blockbuster, that has fun with the premise of the time-loop, and the potential for some impressive battle sequences.  It could have been more - but in a Summer loaded with sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots, this is a film which not only stands out, but should be embraced by audiences looking for something relatively original.

Movie Review: X-Men Days of Future Past - making for a brighter franchise future...

Well it's been a few weeks since my most recent review.  So how about two (almost virtually) together?  I'll start with a film which I guess a lot of people will have seen by now, but I still think it's worth weighing in with a few words on it (especially the implications it has for other films in the genre).  Following this I'll review a film which has just opened in the UK and elsewhere globally, but doesn't hit Stateside until this coming weekend - so my American friends, consider it a heads up!

Anyway, here's my first review...

When Marvels 'Avengers Assemble' hit biiiig in 2012, the studios holding the rights to other Marvel characters (principally Fox and Sony) reacted in two ways.  Sony, with the rights to Spider-man, decided to emulate the model of Marvel Studios of creating an ongoing 'universe', linking storylines and characters across multiple films; the results, so far, have been pretty mediocre, considering the potential of the character and his stories.

Fox, with the rights to the vast X-Men catalogue of characters and storylines, reacted differently - the success of 'Avengers Assemble' didn't mean the Marvel franchise model should necessarily be emulated - rather, it has made them raise their game.  Judging by how successful 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is, this franchise is likely to go from strength to strength.

Based on one of the best-loved storylines from the X-Men comics, the film commences 10 years in the future and sees a dystopian vision of a war where Mutantkind - and humans that sympathise with their cause - are either rounded up in concentration camps in the blasted ruins of once great cities, or are hunted down by virtually indestructible robots called Sentinels.  The X-Men are losing this war, and in the impressive opening sequence we see just how outmatched they are, despite their impressive powers.  In the midst of this, the team discover that Kitty Pride (Ellen Page) - the girl who can walk through walls - can use her powers to send someone's consciousness back in time to their own, younger body.  The plan is hatched to send someone back to their younger body, in 1973 - when an assassination carried out by a prominent mutant kick-starts the development of the Sentinel programme.  As Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is the only one whose body is able to endure its mind being sent back that far (thanks to his regenerating ability), it's up to him.  He has to unite recent enemies Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik 'Magneto' Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender).

It wouldn‘t be an X-Men movie if Hugh Jackman didn‘t get to show off that physique now, would it???

This set up could have been needlessly complicated, but thanks to some brief but concise lines of exposition, once this plot kicks in to gear and hits the ground running.  This film has clearly been influenced by notable other time-travel adventures, and there are some fun nods to that - not long after reawakening in 1973, Wolverine makes a polite request to some thugs for their clothes and car keys (you can probably figure out how that goes)!  But while this film knows when to have fun like that, it knows when to keep things serious, and the tone never gets muddled.

Director Bryan Singer returns to the franchise he started over a decade ago (and, you might argue, the genre he helped to define) - and it's clear that he is relishing the potential of the X-Men universe as much as he did then.  It's clear that he enjoys the creative and technical opportunities the Mutants and their powers give him, and there's a sequence involving a newer franchise arrival - Peter 'Quicksilver' Maximoff (played by Evan Peters) which is on a par with the astonishing intro to X-2.  He also handles what could have been a very dense and cumbersome plot and cast skilfully - although some characters might not have a lot of screen time, it is never to their, or the narratives, detriment.

Whilst the theme of acceptance and tolerance of those who are different - 'Mutantkind' is a metaphor for pretty much any group you want to isolate due to ethnicity, creed, or sexuality - was at the fore in those earlier films, in this one it takes a bit of a backseat; the questions being raised here are more philosophical.  Is it possible to change a preset path - is time immutable, or can the past be improved?  Can it be improved by an individual (or group) if they, themselves, can change for the better?  This might feel an unusual shift from the previous films in the franchise, but it makes sense for two reasons.

Firstly, this film aims to take the X-Men franchise in to the Science Fiction genre further than before, with its time travel elements.  As the best works in this genre are not just about the spectacle of whatever technology or power that drives the plot, but are more interested in using this to pose philosophical or even spiritual questions, so this is the case here.  And it feels right for this film to adopt this genre - after all, it seems to be that the most successful Super-hero/Comic Book adaptations of recent years have taken the approach of using established genres to fit the story and/or characters.

Secondly, this main crux of this film is continuing what was set up in 2011's 'X-Men First Class'.  That story established the relationship between Charles and Erik, and this film carries this onwards.  It‘s McAvoy‘s Xavier that gets the greatest arc - moving from a broken man, verging on alcoholism and substance addiction, to someone who embraces their powers and abilities to the betterment of Mutantkind and humanity.  Perhaps Magneto‘s path as the main villain is too preset for similar development, but if this prequel series is about the growth of Xavier in to ‘Professor X‘ and the assembling of his ‘X-Men‘ team, then this part of the story is handled assuredly.

Despite the warnings from the future, Magneto still behaves like b*st*rd - but he wouldn‘t be the series villain if he didn‘t!

When you have a film that juggles two different time lines, virtually two sets of cast, and not to mention a plot that sets up the potential for head-scratching time paradoxes, the end result could have so easily been a mess.  Perhaps more time could have been given to establish the motivations of certain characters - but enough is done so that those upon whom the plot hinges, such as Jennifer Lawrence‘s Mystique or Peter Dinklage as Bolivar Trask, are fleshed enough that their intentions are never fully depicted as broadly ‘evil‘; there‘s enough done to sympathise with some of their motivations, if not to entirely agree with them.  Again, the economical script allows enough to be done with a few lines so that a sufficient picture can be drawn.  It might not be enough for some people, but arguably the narrative isn‘t weighed down so in my opinion it‘s job done!

Finally, this film really restores the potential of the series, after the disappointments of ‘Last Stand‘ and ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine‘.  If ‘First Class‘ was the franchise equivalent of correcting the direction of an immense ship, here we can say things are finally heading the right way.  And it sets up an intriguing and positive future for the franchise - both for the ‘First Class‘ cast, and those of the original films.  I won‘t spoil anything, but the end is beautifully done - it is clear the makers wanted to make up for those previously stated disappointments, and they have done so in a way which almost brought a tear of joy to my eye.  I hope that Sony and the team of writers they‘ve got currently failing to do Spiderman justice have seen this and taken note!

And to top it all, a post-credit scene sets up a great villain from the comics, and demonstrates that the team in charge of this franchise are taking its potentially seriously.  After this movie, the future, and it even its past, are indeed looking brighter.

Movie Review: Godzilla - it's a bit of a monster!

'Godzilla' is big.  That might seem like the most obvious thing to say about a monster big enough to tower over sky-scrapers, but actually I was referring to the scope of the film itself.  This film starts in the Philippines, crosses to Japan, then (almost literally) swims the entire Pacific Ocean from Hawaiian islands to the West Coast of the US, with a  bit of a rampage across Nevada thrown in for good measure.  There are epic vistas of destruction as giant monster leave a literal trail of destruction; cities are devastated; and battalions of military are mobilised in a vain attempt to steer the monsters away from populated areas.

I'll come to these monsters later, but I'll start by talking at the story and the script.  This film takes the subject seriously - we're introduced to the concept of ginormous, primordial creatures - but never during any of the exposition is there a nod or wink to reflect that these are pretty fantastical creations.  The tone is very serious, and appropriately so, as we have scenes of devastation which evoke many recent tragedies and disasters - 9/11, The Boxing Day Tsunami; this may be a monster movie, but there is a serious message: mankind is powerless in the face of nature - we might think we're in charge, but we're not.  It's a shame that the script doesn't feed the human characters in to this an a particularly impacting way.  The focus is on the Brody family, initially Joe (Bryan Cranston) and his son Ford, who are devastated by the loss of their wife & mother (played very briefly by Juliette Binoche) in an apparent accident at a Nuclear Power Station.  We then pick up 15 years later, Ford is now a grown man (played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson), a Bomb Disposal Technician in the Army, with his own wife (Elizabeth Olsen) and son.  It's clear to see what the writer and director are doing here - give a clear human focus in the midst of the carnage and devestation wrought by the monsters.  However, it doesn't quite work, as once the focus shifts from Cranston's Joe to his son, there aren't enough scenes that create enough empathy.  He gets one scene with his wife and son, and we never see him in action in the army - we're meant to accept, when we're told, that he is an 'expert' Bomb Disposal Technician and all-round heroic guy.  Aside from these characters, the rest of the cast are pretty much there to be exposition relayers - which is a shame, as there are some great actors in the cast.  Perhaps it's the script, or maybe the direction, but a few of these supporting characters come off as quite wooden - especially Sally Hawkins and Olsen, who we've seen do far better work in other films; it's a shame they're wasted in this.

Bryan Cranston features prominently in the trailers and marketing, but it's Aaron Taylor-Johnson who is the main lead as his son Ford.

On top of this, there are some parts of the plot which don't entirely make sense - they decide to use a nuclear bomb to destroy some of the monsters, yet ironically nuclear radiation is what these creatures feed on; coupled with the fact part of the plan is to get one of the nukes on a boat off the coast from San Francisco although they're trying to steer the creatures away from populated areas, then there are elements of the story which left me scratching my head a little.

If you hadn't guessed by the names of the main family, director Gareth Edwards is definitely influenced by, and trying to evoke, the feel of great Spielberg films, such as 'Jaws' and 'Close Encounters'.  He doesn't quite pull this off - in those films Spielberg really put you at the level of the central characters so that you feel their awe and terror at what they're encountering.  There are a couple of moments which aim for this - there's a neat little beat involving fire fighters at a hotel in Las Vegas - but away from the central characters it doesn't quite work.

Having said that, this film does manage to inspire awe in other ways - chiefly, with the monsters themselves.  After a greatly derided 1990's version, there was a lot riding on this film's realisation of the creatures, but my word, have they pulled it off.  Godzilla is up against two 'Mutos' here, and these are frightening in their size and ambivalence towards the humans - rightly so, given how huge they are! - but at the same time sympathetic enough that it doesn't affect the 'realism' being aimed towards by the film; ultimately these are two animals looking to do what all animals do - find a mate, procreate, and ensure the safety and prosperity of their offspring.  Their look is insect-like with a smattering of reptile or bat features - they look 'ugly' enough that when they face off against the titular monster, our sympathies are with him.

The titular monster is only seen in brief glimpses until the final act - but it's worth the wait!

And so they should be, because Godzilla is rightfully restored as 'King of all Monsters' here - returned to his rightful status as a cultural icon.  We're given fleeting glimpses of him until the final act, and the look and execution of this monster are perfect.  Although the hopes of the humans are with Godzilla when he finally faces off against the 'Muto', he is still ambivalent enough to us so that he remains a terrifying and awe-inspiring figure - as one scene set at the Gold Gate Bridge demonstrates.  Above all else, Godzilla - the creature itself - was the one thing this film needed to get right, and it does so emphatically.

So despite the problems with script, some of the performances, and a couple of wrinkles with the plot, this film succeeds on the power of its titular star.  Given that this film has just opened to huge Box Office in America and around the world, we're guaranteed a sequel (in fact, they've just announced it!); there's enough here to build on, if more attention can be given to the central human characters and the script.  But so long as the portrayal of this great monster is as good as it is here, then another monster mash is something to look forward to indeed.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-man 2 - not even remotely amazing at all, actually...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  What just happened Sony?  You've got the rights to easily the most identifiable Super-hero (after a certain indestructible extra-terrestrial), with a 60+ year history, and many great and memorable story-lines, not to mention a smorgasbord of interesting and great villains (even more-so than the rogues gallery associated with a certain Caped Crusader).  You've got a talented cast, a hot up-and-coming director, a team of proven screenwriters, a massive budget for jaw-dropping effects...

...and this is the best you can come up with?  Well, 'The Amazing Spider-man 2' is possibly the least satisfying super-hero adaptation that's ever been made.  Yes, even more so than the despised 'Spiderman 3', and even the disappointing 'X-Men: The Last Stand'.  So where does this film go wrong?  Well, I'll start from the beginning.  The film opens with two sequences which, admittedly, are pretty strong.  The first deals with a narrative thread (which was just one that was poorly handled - read completely forgotten about by the final act - in the last film): the fate of Peter Parker's parents.  The next scene is a fun action sequence, as Spider-man, still played with confidence and passion by Andrew Garfield, goes after some Russian gangsters stealing a van loaded with Plutonium.  At this point it's easy to believe that the writers (all FIVE of them - if that's not an indication enough of problems to come!) have finally nailed a tone which befits a super-hero who, beneath his mask, is ultimately a sarcastic teenager from New York; there are some amusing wisecracks, and Spidey moves and fights just like you'd imagine he does from the many years of his comic and cartoon portrayals.  The previous film felt at times it was almost ashamed to be a Spider-man film - while its portrayal of the teenage Peter Parker hit the right notes (thanks again to Garfield's performance), the Spider-man scenes generally didn't meet the potential of the character.  It didn't help that the whole film seemed to take place at night, like the makers felt this would add some 'grit' or 'authenticity' to it; but for the sequel they've gone for a bright palate which is completely right for Spider-man.  However, there are still problems with this scene.  Alright, there is a certain ludicrousness about the whole idea that a van full of Plutonium is going to be driven through crowded, rush-hour New York city - but then this is a film which contains a man who is made of electricity, so I guess you can excuse some of the outlandishness, right?  Where the cracks start to show is in some of the special effects, which verge dangerously close to looking like some kind of live-action cartoon.  It takes the sheen off of what is otherwise a decent sequence.

The first sequence almost makes you think this could be a decent Spiderman film.  Almost...

The film then moves to focus on the relationship between Peter and Gwen Stacy (played by Emma Stone) - Peter is haunted by guilt that he promised her Father (who died at the end of the previous film, remember?) that he would stay away from her to protect her.  One of the saving graces of the previous film was these actors' portrayal of this relationship, which felt like a very well observed and believable burgeoning teenage romance - helped in no small amount by the chemistry between the two actors.  Again, this is probably the sequel's biggest redeeming factor - the scenes between the two are some of the better ones in this film.  Generally, it has to be said that the acting - like the previous film - elevates the whole endeavour; Garfield and Stone, again, are great at the relationship stuff; there's a great and emotional scene between Garfield and Parker's Aunt May (Sally Field); and Dane DeHaan does a good job with Harry Osborn, treading away from scenery chewing and actually making him at times a sympathetic character.  Other actors joining the franchise are under-served by the script to be honest - Jamie Foxx's Max Dillon, who becomes Electro, isn't given enough to do before his transformation to villain, meaning that when it happens there isn't as much of an emotional punch as there could be.

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's portrayal of Peter & Gwen's relationship is still the strongest point of the film..

But if he, and other actors, aren't given enough to do, this is down to what almost derails the film almost entirely: the narrative.  Now, it's been previously stated by the Studio that they're 'universe building' with this franchise now, setting up spin-off movies for Villain Team 'The Sinister Six' and Venom - while planning two more Spidey sequels; it's pretty obvious what they're trying to emulate here.  In practice, this seems to mean the writers think they can get away with sloppily editing the story, leaving threads dangling in unsatisfactory and confusing ways.  This was a huge problem with the previous film - Peter Parker suddenly forgets about finding his Uncle Ben's killer (which is only one of the most important aspects of the character, for goodness sake!!), the issue of his parents is frustratingly vague, and an entire character just vanishes without explanation, as though forgotten by the director and writers.  One of the criticisms of 'Spiderman 3' is its uneven tone - well this one takes a shift at one point in to territory so camp it is almost on par with the abhorrent 'Batman and Robin'.  Really, what it's the point of a badly stereotyped German scientist who wears make-up for no discernable reason???!?

You'd have thought the writers (like I said, FIVE of them on this film) would have learnt from their mistake - but no, they do the same thing again.  For example, again Peter goes off at a tangent to uncover the fate of his parents, and he does discover something significant: but then it's completely dropped and forgotten about, leaving you thinking what the significance was.  Then there's the introduction of new villains - the fact this film would handle three, like the problematic 'Spiderman 3', has been a source of concern amongst many people since the first trailers for the film broke last year.  As I've stated, Electro could have done with more time on his character prior to his transformation (even though he gets a couple of impressive scenes taking on Spidey), but the introduction of Green Goblin is rushed and unsatisfying.  And then there's Rhino... I'm afraid I'm going to have to share some SPOILERS at this point, so read on with caution!


This is where the film angered me the most.  The trailers have teased a great smack-down between Spiderman and this character, and all through the film I was looking forward to seeing it.  But frustratingly, what you see in the trailers is literally all you get in the film.  It's the final scene of the film, and I don't know who is responsible for this decision - the writers or Director Marc Webb - but they have committed possibly the worst sin you can with a super-hero movie:

YOU DO NOT END A FILM RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIGHT BETWEEN THE HERO AND A SUPER-VILLAIN.  IT IS STUPID, IT IS FRUSTRATING, AND IT LEAVES A VERY BITTER TASTE IN THE MOUTH.

At the end of the film, as the screen cut to black at what could have been the film's high point, I turned to my wife absolutely flabbergasted, beyond disbelief.  I still cannot believe they chose to end the film the way they did.  And, given what came before, it is an ending which robs the final act of it's emotional punch.  You can tell that the writers wanted to make this film the 'Wrath of Khan' or 'Empire Strikes Back' of the franchise - however they undermine this by blatantly foreshadowing what's going to happen by certain lines characters say (you know in old War films where the next solider/pilot/sailor to die is the one who, a few moments before, is showing his comrades a photo of his girl back home?  Well, some of the things certain characters say in this film are on that level of obviousness).  It doesn't help that certain characters do not react in a way which it seems likely they would - if anything, this film could have ended on a much darker and sombre note; it actually would have been better for it, and given what had preceded it the emotional weight it deserved.  It would also have been a more effective 'cliff-hanger' ending than simply cutting to black in the middle of a scene which was just getting going...

In all, between its narrative issues, and a frustrating and unsatisfying ending, 'The Amazing Spider-man 2' is a real disappointment.  It fails to make right the mistakes of the previous film, despite having the same assets - a great cast who elevate the material.  And given the source material they have to work from, this is unforgivable, verging on criminal.  I genuinely believe that based on this film Disney/Marvel Studios should put up some cash and get the rights to Spiderman back from Sony - this isn't just to add Spidey to their ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe (although that would offer some moments with the potential to melt my geeky brain); simply put, Marvel Studios know how to treat their characters and the wealth of story-lines that go with them.  Sony, on the other hand, are doing a worse job of handling Spidey with each release.  Sadly though, he's their cash cow now, and they'll milk him for all they can get out of him.  I guess it just means that comic book fans, and fans of the character, will have to resign themselves to more disappointing films like this one....

Spidey-sense tingling?  It must have been this review, sorry...

Movie Review: The Raid 2 Berandal - hitting like a fast-flurry of punches about the head...

Gareth Evans' 'The Raid' (or 'The Raid: Redemption' if you're State-side) was like a swift punch to the solar-plexus when it arrived a couple of years ago: a low-budget, yet intense and densely compact Indonesian martial arts action film which won over just about anyone that saw it.  With the sequel, Director Evans' budget has increased, as has his ambition to tell a story with greater scope and breadth.  Following on directly from its predecessor, 'The Raid 2: Berandal' sees the first film's protagonist, good cop Rama (Iko Uwais) thrown further in to the deep end when he is ordered by one of his superiors to go undercover and gain the trust of the son (Arifin Putra) of a prominent gangster-cum-politician.  Only, this requires him to go to jail, as said miscreant is serving time.  Alongside this, revenge is not far from Rama's mind, as he mourns the death of his brother at the hands of another ambitious gangster, Bejo (Alex Abbad).

If you were a fan of the first film (and rightly so), you'll be pleased to hear that the fantastic martial arts fights, and absolutely wince-inducing portrayals of the resulting injuries, are still present - and handled with the same level of aplomb by director Evans and his highly talented martial-arts expert cast.  What marks this sequel, though, is a more measured pace: Evans, who also wrote both movies, is clearly aiming to tell an epic crime/gang story, introducing a greater number of characters, and even sub-plots.  However, this sometimes makes the over-arching narrative seem a bit muddled, and at times difficult to keep up with.  Thankfully, you don't have time to be confused for long, as another great (and bloody brutal) action sequence comes along.  To some viewers, the martial arts sequences might get tiresome - although a number of new antagonists are introduced, the sequences which see them dispatch several anonymous henchmen with bone-crunching ease do verge on the repetitive; especially if you're already confused about the plot and who is who.  In some ways too these new characters are set up but aren't given enough to do - a shame, as the appropriately named Hammer Girl and Baseball Bat Man make for fun, if appropriately brutal, master-assassins.

Hammer Girl and Baseball Bat Man.  Doing exactly what it says on the tin...

On top of this, there are - literally - events referred to which don't actually occur in the film; this is deliberate, as Evans has stated that he wants another sequel (that's right, 'The Raid 3'), to be set both before certain events in this film, and after.  Whilst this is an ambitious plan, it doesn't always help the clarity of the plot, and comes in danger of making for an unsatisfying narrative.

Just when you think the film might begin to falter, Evans manages to balance things out with the introduction of Prakoso (confusingly played by Yayan Ruhian, who played an entirely different character in the first film!) - a hitman hired by the heads of the gangs to take out lower ranking gangsters who are getting ideas above their station.  He's a somewhat pitiful character, almost mistaken for a vagrant at his first introduction, but when we learn his backstory the parallels between him and the protagonist Rama are clear.  Evans wants to show a picture of what might become of the hero if he can't complete his mission, escape from working for a gangster, and reunite with his family.

Whether you're confused at the plot, or beginning to grow fatigued by the martial arts fights, by the final act everything comes in to focus, and we're treated to two incredible sequences - a fantastic car chase, and a final showdown between Rama and a character known only as 'The Assassin'.  This latter will surely be remembered amongst the greatest martial arts fights put to film, as here we have two fighters who are at the peak of their chosen discipline (an Indonesian martial art known as Silat).  The rate that blows are exchanged are truly breath-taking, as well as the damage being meted out by each combatant to the other.  It's also the longest fight sequence of the film, and never feels to outstay its welcome as it manages to throw in a couple of twists to keep it interesting.

Rama takes on 'The Assassin'.  This fight has to be seen to be believed...

Ultimately, if 'The Raid 2' doesn't have quite the impact of its predecessor, it's simply because the first film was quite unprecedented at the time; although it might not feel as fresh, it's clear that it has greater ambition in terms of story-telling scope.  The draw is the same - tremendous and brutal action sequences, delivered by a director who can film them with aplomb, and actors that are masters of their martial disciplines.  The films few flaws aren't enough to stop this from being a highly recommended action movie.

The Most Relentlessly Awesome Films Ever: Shaun of the Dead

On to the next instalment of this regular series - and I've chosen this one not just because it's such a great film, but this month sees the 10th anniversary of its UK release date...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS EVER - PART FOUR:

SHAUN OF THE DEAD

Here's a probably not at-all-interesting, and mostly pointless fact related to 'Shaun of the Dead': this film has the honour of being the only one I've been to the cinema to watch with my Dad.  The weekend it came out my parents had just separated, and me and my then-girlfriend (the less said about her the better! *shudders*) decided it might take Dad's mind off things and cheer him up a bit to take him to the cinema.  I don't know whether he found it took his mind off things, or cheered him up, or if he actually enjoyed it all (I can remember him saying afterwards something along the lines of 'that wasn't exactly the greatest film I've ever seen'!).  Goodness knows what he made of it at all to be honest; I'm not sure if the humour was his kind of thing, or whether he appreciated the romantic bits, or the zombie bits, either.  Whilst I don't think any of it was his type of thing, 'Shaun's (till then) unique blend of genres - all the time taking treating them with the utmost seriousness and respect - really struck a chord with audiences, and it remains Simon Pegg's and Edgar Wright's best known and arguably most loved work.

Here's another story - but first I feel that I should be open and say that I am the type of person who feels a very intimate connection to Pegg & Wright's work - almost a 'spiritual' one, if you will.  This is a connection based on the fact when these two collaborate on something, they do so from a place which shows they *get* whatever subject they're looking at, in the same way true fans do - because they *are* true fans.  The moment I felt this connection was when I watched the third Episode of their seminal TV series 'Spaced', way back in the early '00's.  My first brush with this TV show was the second Episode - I can remember enjoying it, being drawn to a more down-to-earth setting for a comedy (a humble bed-sit - sorry, flat!), in contrast for the trend at the time for US sitcoms featuring pretty-vacant 30-somethings passing themselves as 20-somethings; I think I also appreciated that the character's had posters up of their favourite films and TV shows/characters - just like I did at the time.  I enjoyed it, and next week when the next episode was on I tuned in.

Within a minute of it starting, my mind was absolutely blown.  You see, at the time I had a weird 'obsession' with the Resident Evil video games - I say 'weird obsession', it was more like a form of PTSD, as since playing them a year or two earlier I had frequently had zombie apocalypse based nightmares - all set at that point were the barricades on wherever I've been surviving come down, and the zombie horde gets in!  However, since then I've been a big fan of zombies in films, comics, TV and videogames.  So when Pegg & Wright included a Resident Evil-inspired segment at the start of that particular episode I was absolutely stunned.  It was as though they'd got in to my head and scooped out exactly how that game had messed with my brain, the frightening daydreams and nightmares I'd had as a result of playing with it.  This programme, these writers/actors/director had really grasped what was going on in my head at the time, in a way no other TV show had ever done.  So since that moment, yeah, I've got a special fondness for Pegg, Wright and their frequent collaborators.

Whilst people frequently link 'Shaun' with that episode of Spaced, I think it's easy to forget what an unprecedented thing they were doing, both with the film and that moment in the TV show.  You see, though it's difficult to believe now, but there was a time when zombies weren't in the mainstream - there weren't zombie films and TV shows starring award-winning and A-list actors; there weren't award winning books and comics involving zombies; there weren't as many games featuring zombies as there are now.  They were still very much a cult thing - to be honest, I never really 'got' zombies until I played the Resident Evil games (the first two, anyway); sure, I'd seen 'Night of the Living Dead' as a teenager, but while I appreciated its heart of darkness I can't say I found it frightening or truly disturbing.  But because of those games, I went on to check out Romero's seminal works - 'Dawn' and 'Day' - and finally I GOT zombies.

So when 'Shaun' was released, along with '28 Days Later' and the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake, mainstream audiences were finally ready to embrace the zombie apocalypse (in its varying degrees of speed and cause, if you're being pedantic!).  What makes 'Shaun' stand out from those films, apart from the fact it's not a flat-out horror, is that it does zombies very, very seriously - properly, some would argue.  Looking back, it's surprising that audiences embraced this element of the film, because if there was ever any doubt 'Shaun' is a PROPER Zombie film, it's at that point when Dylan Moran is pulled apart by the hungry dead.  But Shaun is also a proper Rom-Com, too - and arguably because of Pegg & Wright's appreciation of genre, the three elements work together perfectly.  People who fully appreciated Romero's zombie movies always knew there was a openly satirical element to them, and Pegg & Wright use this to make the zombie and comedy parts of the film complement each other; my favourite scene, and one of the funniest, is where Shaun - hung-over from the previous night's drinking session - weaves his way unsteadily to the local corner shop, completely oblivious to the zombie apocalypse happening around him.  It is a great moment that shows how spot-on the characterisation is in this film, but also where the satire becomes clear: Shaun is part of a generation so self-absorbed and unmotivated that they're completely oblivious to what's going on in the world beyond their lives.

That's right - this film really is a PROPER Zombie movie...

Of course, you don't need to appreciate this satire to enjoy the comedy of 'Shaun' - because it works as purely as a comedy in its own right; and what an instant classic, immediately quotable one!  Although Pegg and Nick Frost don't enjoy being reminded of this fact...  Well, sadly for you chaps, lines such as 'you've got red on you!' and 'we're going to the pub' have now taken on a life of their own beyond the film - tribute to the impact this film has had since its release.  But what about the Romantic Comedy elements, after all it was marketed as a 'Rom-Zom-Com'!  Well, central to the plot is Shaun's attempt's to get back with his girlfriend Liz - actually, ex-girlfriend, as part of what makes Shaun take stock of his whole life is the fact that she dumps him for, well, being a loser, really.  And the film makes no bones that this is somewhat justifiable!  But the whole zombie apocalypse setting is one way in which the film subverts the rom-com genre; usually these are marked with some kind of last-minute dash for the protagonist to win back their boy/girl after some over-blown misunderstanding.  But here there's no misunderstanding, just the prospect of imminent death at the bloody hands of the undead.  Actually, as romantic gestures go, trying to save the lives of the girl you love, her friends, and your family too, has got to rate pretty highly!  Clearly this was enough for Liz, as at the end of the film we see that she and Shaun are back together.  Does it make sense?  Yeah, in a way.  Is it plausible?  Mmmm, maybe not - but no more so than the resolution of most romantic comedies.  Does it make for a satisfying ending to this film?  Absolutely!

For the first time in his life, Shaun takes a pro-active lead...

Another way this film subverts rom-coms is the inclusion of a far greater love-story than that of Shaun & Liz - I'm talking about the 'bromance' between best mates Shaun and Ed.  On the one hand Ed holds Shaun back, but on the other there is a real mutual support between them, Ed is Shaun's rock when things get difficult.  However, Shaun still keeps Ed in his circle when he comes close to messing things up (including the group's chances of survival at one point!).  This relationship is so well portrayed, probably because Simon Pegg & Nick Frost have been friends for so long before they started their on-screen partnership in Spaced.  Heck, this film even recycles one of the jokes about their 'bromance' from Spaced, but it's such a great one it feels perfectly at home in this film.

Still a more convincing story about love beyond death than a certain series about sparkly vampires...

'Shaun of the Dead' came along just at the right time for it to be embraced by audiences - there was a re-awakening of interest in the zombie genre, and following their cult-hit Spaced, there was tremendous interest in whatever Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg did next.  It probably worked in their favour that writers/stars of British Sit-coms often failed to make a transition to the Big Screen - so any interest in their film due to that turned out to create a positive buzz.  But Shaun transcended all that because it is a genre classic - it is a brilliant, endlessly quotable comedy, it is a proper zombie movie (with barbed satirical jabs as well as the right level of gore), and has some of the most relatable and enduring characters in any film of those kind.  It is a film that I will certainly never tire of.

Now, who fancies a trip to the pub?  I'll bring a cricket bat, just in case...