Review Round-up: Hotel Transylvania 2, Macbeth, The Martian, Sicario & Crimson Peak

I've been very busy of late due to starting a new job (yay!), so I've not had a lot of time to write any reviews or article for this blog.  To remedy this I've decided to put my reviews in to a shorter format, once or twice monthly.  So welcome to the first of my Movie Roundups!  Here are summaries on my thoughts regarding the films I've seen in the last few weeks...

Hotel Transylvania 2

The worst kind of sequel is one that is made purely because its predecessor made money, and this is the prime motivator to make another - even if there aren't the story ideas to justify, or sustain it.  Animated films are now the worst example of this, and 'Hotel Transylvania 2' is a case in hand.  The first has a couple of amusing riffs on the popularity of 'Twilight', through the prism of the classic portrayals of the Universal Monsters.  This one has one idea, and doesn't have enough jokes or visual inventiveness to sustain itself.  Kids will be diverted enough by it if you have to go see it over the imminent half-term, but expect to be bored and very rarely amused.

Verdict: Avoid (unless you have kids, then my condolences - you probably won't be able to...)

Macbeth

I'll admit it, I was one of the weirdos who actually enjoyed doing Shakespeare at school.  It's a shame that having his works thrust upon you during your GCSE's puts so many people off, because his stories are pretty much the archetype of every great yarn today - full of lust, love, revenge, heroism, villainy, sex, murder and violence.  This new take on the Bard's 'Scottish Play' tries very hard to be accessible to a mainstream audience, with its superb, A-List cast (Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine), and really bringing forward elements of the story that feel timely (Fassbender plays the title role as a PTSD-stricken soldier), as well as emphasizing the more shocking plot points.  With its mix of violence, sex, murder and infanticide, this really feels like Shakespeare reinterpreted for the 'Game of Thrones' generation.  But this has been done without diluting or dumbing-down the Bard's prose or turn of English, and as such this film may be impenetrable to a lot of people.  I must admit, following the dialogue takes a great deal of concentration (unless you're a scholar of the Bard), and at times it did feel like trying to watch a foreign language movie without subtitles.  However the cinematography is stunningly beautiful, with atmospheric and often haunting imagery, and coupled with the performances means that the viewer is never entirely lost to the plot.  This version of the famous play will be the one that will define it for at least this generation, and possibly many years to come.

Verdict: Recommended

The Martian

Following on from the last couple of years' space-based sci-fi movies ('Gravity' and 'Interstellar'), this film drops the philosophical and sentimental elements that some people had a problem with in those films, and instead focuses on the hard science, in its portrayal of a single astronaut (played by Matt Damon), and his struggle to survive after being left alone, for dead, on Mars.  Don't let this approach fool you - this film is a ton of fun, it is more flat out entertaining than the aforementioned sci-fi dramas, without ever compromising on it's portrayal of hard science.  A very witty script, with a very geeky sense of humour and references, means that this film is never dour or downbeat - despite Damon's Mark Watney frequently being confronted by almost certain death, and being realistic about that fact.  Occasionally the plot falls in to some predictable tropes - a scene where NASA director Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) says that Watney will survive until a planned supply drop so long as nothing goes wrong is followed by a scene where - hey! - something goes very badly wrong.  But it's easy to overlook these wobbles when the whole thing is skilfully pulled together by Director Ridley Scott (this is certainly his most enjoyable film for several years), a strong cast, and some incredible production and set design (with impeccable attention to detail).  It is fun, entertaining and gripping right up until the very end - a sci-fi film that doesn't dumb itself down in order to be a genuine crowd pleaser.

Verdict: Recommended

Sicario

There's a shot during the first act of this film that is a prime example of how this film uses numerous visual metaphors to depict its story of an idealistic law-enforcer being thrust in to a world where laws, and morals, are not as clear or strictly drawn as the one she comes from.  At this point Emily Blunt's FBI agent Kate Macer is on a Military base, a stop before heading to Mexico to arrest the leader of a drug cartel, as part of a team with genial but shifty Agent Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) and mysterious figure Alejandro (Bernicio Del Toro)  They drive past rows and rows of parked Armoured transports, and grounded Apache gunships, an image that suggests a war is being fought where the normal shows of military force are of no use.  This is one of several ways that the film examines the theme of law and order - specifically, how Americans would perceive it - in other parts of the world, other conflicts, where these do not apply.  This is a slow building, tense thriller - which sadly has been somewhat mis-sold by the trailers as being a more action-packed film.  Instead, the few scenes of gunplay are masterfully crafted moments of stomach-clenching tension that conclude in shockingly brief - and realistically portrayed - bursts of deadly violence.  Director Denis Villeneuve's previous film 'Prisoners' was underpinned by an examination of how post War on Terror politics and paranoia have impacted on the collective American Psyche, and this film seems a companion piece: asking to what extent American concepts of justice and order apply in conflicts that - through one way or another - are being perpetuated or exacerbated by US influences.  If none of that interested you, then the film is anchored by excellent performances from its cast - especially Blunt, who (following from 'Edge of Tomorrow') is cementing herself as an excellent leading actress.

Verdict: Recommended

Crimson Peak

With this film director Guillermo Del Toro proves that he is both a versatile director, and one possessed of a very distinct artistic vision.  Whilst many of the hallmarks of his previous work are present (insect forms, clockwork and machinery, ghostly forms, and quite a lot of blood), this film is much more of a Gothic-tinged period romance than any of his previous films have gone to.It evokes 'Jane Eyre' or Hitchcock's 'Rebecca' or 'Notorious'.  Funnily enough, whilst there are ghostly elements to the story, a couple of genuinely horrific touches, and a sweeping romance, this film never quite does enough with each of these elements to mark it as belonging to any one particular genre - and as such it does feel quite a mixed bag.  The first act of the film is possibly the weakest, set in 1900's New York state where young woman Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) meets charming English Baronette Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddlestone), who is trying to raise money from her wealthy father to invest in a machine that will revive the Sharpe's ailing fortune.  When Edith's father uncovers a secret regarding Sir Thomas and his sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain), he warns them away from Edith - before a tragedy throws Edith in to Sir Thomas's arms, and marriage.  The film then moves to Allerdale Hall, a fictional mansion somewhere on the same bleak, windswept moors where a Bronte novel might be set.  Here the film hits its stride, in the amazing, beautiful and creepy setting of the Hall - a decaying, gothic mansion that is incredibly realised with impeccable design and attention to detail.  From the imagination of Del Toro, we would expect no less.  The story is a tad predictable, probably because Del Toro's inspirations are so clear, and once the film moves to its Gothic home the highly earnest dialogue feels more comfortable.  The cast are effective in roles that are suited to them, even if they are a little archetypal of the kind of story being told; but the role of a charming nobleman, betraying just enough of his desperation, and the darkness behind him, is a perfect fit for Hiddlestone - as is that of Chastain for his possessive and jealous sister.  This might not be the best or most effective of Del Toro's films, but it is a visual feast with its incredible design and striking imagery, such as blood-red clay seeping through white snow nuder foot.

Verdict: Worth A Look


That's it for now - I'll be back with more film reviews soon.

Monthly Marvel Musings: Creating a rivalry between Marvel and DC movies is pointless and counter-productive

I'm about to start a new job, which I'm super excited about, but a minor down-side is that it'll involve a bit more commuting than my current one - as a result I'm anticipating I'll have a lot less time for this blog.  Especially over the next 6 months as I'll be intensively involved in finishing a course I'm doing.  So after this post things might go more quiet than they have been recently, but rest assured - I'm not giving up on it entirely.  Here's a post I've been planning on writing for almost two months - thanks for reading!

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Why a rivalry between Marvel and DC movies is pointless

If you enjoy comic book adaptations and the Superhero genre, this really is a golden era.  We've had a take on Batman that has embraced the fact comic book characters can have real world relevance, and make commentary on real world political situations.  We've had a take on X-Men that, over several films, have fully grasped the social commentary that underpins these characters, as well as the cinematic potential of portraying their mutant powers on screen.  And Marvel Studios are demonstrating that it is possible to turn cult, or less well-known characters, in to box office gold by focusing on what has made them so enduring in print - interesting characters and memorable stories.  Sure, there are still stumbles along the way - some adaptations don't work as well as others - but on the whole if you enjoy films, and you enjoy superhero stories, you've got to be pretty happy at the moment.

"Marvel's better than DC because-" "No, DC are better than Marvel!"  Err, hey, it IS possible to like both, okay?

Sadly this isn't enough, and with Warner Bros finally getting their act together and developing a shared big-screen universe for their DC properties, the rivalry between Marvel and DC is being reignited by many fans - regardless which company's work they prefer.  On one side, DC fans point out how most Marvel characters are 'imitations' of DC Characters established well before them - which is a good point: before Quicksilver there was The Flash; before Mr Fantastic there was the stretching Plastic Man; Green Arrow wielded a bow over 20 years before Hawkeye did; and many more besides.  On the other side of the argument, Marvel fans point out the popularity and success of the Marvel brand, with many characters becoming as iconic - more so, in a lot of cases - than DC.  On top of that the success of Marvel Studios, is being used by Marvel fans to sneer at DC.  But since the trailers for 'Batman vs Superman' and 'Suicide Squad' dropped some DC fans have gone on the attack, using the darker and more serious tone of these films to justify a point of view that they are making better Superhero movies than the Marvel ones.

To me, these attitudes - all of them - are pretty idiotic, and in fact completely counter-productive.  To my mind, whilst there is a difference in aesthetic and tone that will set the two franchises apart, key to them are two things: respect for the source material, and drawing upon why these characters have been, and still are, so beloved by fans after decades.  I would argue that these are the foundations that have given us films like Donner's 'Superman', Singer's 'X-Men', Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  All of these films are very different in their ways, and at the same time have been influenced by its predecessor.  For example, Singer made no secret of his love for Donner's first 'Superman' movie, and it influenced him making X-Men.  You can see how the success of the X-Men film - taking a fantastic concept (people with mutant powers), but honing in on the part that makes it relevant and grounded in the 'real world' - arguably spurred on Warners' decision to make their Nolan directed Batman reboot very realistic, grounded, and believable.  Kevin Feige, head of Marvel Studios, has spoken about how the success of Warners' Batman and other DC films enables Marvel Studios to keep making their films - and inspiring them to make them better.  And you can argue that without the success of 'Avengers Assemble', Warners/DC would not have got their act together and started the process of bringing the Justice League to the big screen.

'Batman Vs Superman' is looking to be a very exciting prospect - despite the initial scepticism of many (myself included)

So when you start banging a drum about which companies' characters are getting the better films, or the better on-screen shared universe, I do believe that you cheapen BOTH sets of films.  For example, 'Man of Steel' and 'Batman vs Superman' director Zack Snyder has spoken about his enjoyment of some of Marvel Studios' movies, and emphasising the difference in approach and tone the Warners' DC films are taking.  I can appreciate that - to me, it's not that the DC films have more 'real world' relevance/relatability (Marvel films have been doing this, only without banging on about it as vehemently - take 'Captain America The Winter Soldier's references to the ethics of drone warfare, or 'Iron Man 3's satirical swipes on the War on Terror, with a 'manufactured' threat to justify continual militarisation for arms companies to profit from).  I'd say the big difference is that Snyder is focusing upon the iconography of the comic portrayals of Batman and Superman, and also the 'mythic' qualities of the two, as representations of two sides of America's psyche (and how it is perceived by other countries).  Marvel, on the other hand, are very much about the characters, and bringing their iconic moments and stories to the screen, in a way that respects the source material and also works cinematically.

Sure Zack... DC Characters are always more serious than Marvel, and are making a big, sweeping, mythology.  Bet your faithfulness to the source material won't extend to putting a moment like this one in your DC films... (source: Cheezburger)

Unfortunately, Snyder recently made disparaging comments that suggest he looks down at certain comic/Superhero characters as somehow being lesser or inferior, when he described Ant-Man as a "flavor of the week" superhero.  After spending so much time emphasising his respect for the source material, looking to much admired and respected stories, authors and artists to inform his soon-to-be-released film, Snyder has arguably undone much of that with this comment, as it betrays a lack of respect for the history and significance of these other characters.  For example, although Ant-Man has never been as popular as many other superheroes (either Marvel or DC), it is a character with over 50 years of history, and in terms of story has been an integral part of many memorable and influential events: Ant-Man was in the original Avengers comic line-up, and was the creator of Ultron; not only that, the original Ant-Man Hank Pym was portrayed with significant psychological issues (including spousal abuse) long before the likes of Frank Miller began delving in to those that motivate a character like Batman.

So whilst some of his comments have been by and large neutral, Snyder's recent comments do seem to betray an opinion that Warner's DC movie universe will be 'better' than Marvel's.  This is highlighted by comments, not just from him, but other execs from Warners, that their films are 'serious' and relate to the 'real world'.  I've touched upon the 'real world' issues Marvel films have at least made reference to, but this is more about Marvel Studios including more moments of levity in their films - something that DC will avoid.  Putting in a witty one-liner, or a moment of humour, does not detract from making a comic book/Superhero movie a serious adaptation - it's a matter of putting these moments in the right place, at the right time, so that when there is a dramatic, shocking or emotional moment, these aren't undermined.  Making out that the DC movies will be 'better' because they're side-stepping this is disingenuous - although a serious tone suits Batman, DC fans would have to admit that in the comics there have been no end of goofy, silly, and pointlessly-funny moments (some better than others) - and that goes for Marvel comics too.  Look at DC characters on TV - the 'tone' is probably closer to what Marvel is doing, and it works - 'Arrow' and 'Flash' have been entertaining, fun when it's right, serious when it's right, emotional when it's right, witty when it's right to do so.  As great as it is when a writer really takes the psychology or social commentary inherent in a particular character seriously, people read comics first and foremost because they're fun (and because Superheroes are, most of all, awesome!).  So the people steering the DC films need to acknowledge this, and stop suggesting a 'serious tone' is better than including moments of levity.

Snyder is clearly aiming to take his visual cues from the depiction of the characters from the comic artwork, which a welcome approach and has got comic fans excited.

And it's not just approaches to the tone or the source material where Warners' have been making digs at Marvel; an executive suggested that Warners' DC movies would be better than Marvel Studios, as they would allow Directors to bring more of their creative voice and ideas to the DC property(ies) they direct.  Firstly, this is nonsense, because when you watch nearly all of the Marvel Studios films it is possible to see the influence of the Director - in fact, Marvel Studios choose their Directors because their previous work reflects the tone they want for the film.  Take Joe Johnston's 'Captain America The First Avenger' - with its pulpy tone, period setting, and retro sci-fi, it harkens back to Johnston's earlier film 'The Rocketeer', which has a massive cult following.  When you watch Jon Favreau's Iron Man movies, part of the reason they work (admittedly better on the first than the second) is the improvisational space he gives the actors, allowing them to bounce off each other and bring real charisma to the film.  And look at 'Guardians of the Galaxy' - it has just as much heart, sarcasm, wit and inappropriate humour as James Gunn's previous films as a director (like 'Slither' and 'Super') and writer (like the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake which - hey! - Snyder directed).  Having said that, there is a process these films go through - the producers know what they want to do, how they want to steer the franchise, and which parts of the comic they want to follow or take more from.  This means that compromises have to be made when Directors want to add something that they want in the film.  Gunn has acknowledged this, and Joss Whedon made no secret of the battles he had over parts of 'Avengers Age of Ultron' he wanted, and that the Studio wanted.  Warners are no less immune to this - further highlighting that the comments are nonsense, despite stating this, they fired planned director Michelle MacLaren from Wonder Woman, as her vision did not match what the studio wanted.

Who is right in these situations?  Is it the Director, who is struggling to bring artistic integrity to a film that is, at the end of the day, part of a corporate brand?  Or is it the studio, who wants to stay close enough to the source material so as to please fans and audiences with a satisfying (and financially successful) adaptation?  I'd say both, and to get there does require compromise, that is clear.  So for Warners to make out that their DC films will be more director led, and therefore have more 'creative' or artistic worth' but then lose a director because they didn't want her artistic and creative interpretation, again shows that this is at the very least and unhelpful (and arguably false) view.

For comic book and Superhero fans, the prospect of seeing the Trinity of Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman together on the big screen is a fairly momentous and exciting one...

Ultimately, trying to argue that one company's creative output in the same genre is better than another, at this point in time, is fairly pointless.  I grew up with the Donner Superman film, watching Batman on TV, reading Spiderman in comics, and thanks to Tim Burton's Batman and Singer's X-Men, I have never lost that fascination in these characters and stories in to my adulthood.  I will watch films based on Marvel or DC characters, and my expectation will be the same for all of them: that they will entertain me, that they will reinforce what it is about these characters that make them so enduring and flat-out cool; and I will be told one of the many stories that have enthralled readers for decades - in a way that is cinematic: visually thrilling and absorbing.

For the record, I am absolutely thrilled about seeing Batman Vs Superman, and Suicide Squad next year, and I am looking forward immensely to seeing the Justice League on the big screen, including all the characters that have made up that team in their own adventures.  Just because I am an avowed fan of the MCU does not mean I cannot be excited about the upcoming DC slate.  Sure, it may be that some of these movies don't live up to our hopes and expectations - that is always the way with this genre.  Marvel Studios has got its weaker films, and there are weaker entries in every other Superhero franchise (Marvel and DC based).  Ultimately, if you're someone who has ever enjoyed Superhero stories - regardless of whether they're in comics, as a cartoon, a tv drama, or a movie - you should be grateful and excited that we're in an era when Studios, Writers, Directors and Actors not only take the genre seriously, but want to make each film the best and most faithful adaptation they possibly can.  Arguing over which company does it better just mars this enjoyment, creates opinions that don't really stand up to much scrutiny - and is arguably counter-productive.

Instead, we should be very grateful that we are hopefully going to see great adaptations of characters and super-teams who've yet to have their shot at big screen success (The Flash, The Inhumans, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, Justice League).  Whether they're Marvel creations or DC characters, I am excited to see their movies, and hope they get the treatment they deserve.  You might prefer the DC characters over Marvel, or vice-versa, but when either does well it is to the benefit of the other - whether it's the inspiration to do better, or showing that the risk of investing a budget to get the adaptation right is worth it for the Studio.  That is more productive than a silly argument whether Justice League are better than The Avengers...

Why 'Mad Max: Fury Road' was the best Blockbuster this Summer

To Hollywood this past weekend (the Labor Day holiday in the US) officially marks the end of the Summer, and with it the annual 'blockbuster' season.  This summer has been quite a good one at the Box Office, with notable record-breaking successes, some surprising hits, and the usual handful of (mostly unsurprising) misfires.  Whilst most of the blockbusters to hit at the Box Office have been solid, if unspectacular (Age of Ultron, Jurassic World, MI: Rogue Nation), there is one film this summer that has stood out as truly special.  It is a film that, given its journey to the screen, is remarkable it exists at all - the fact it turned out as good as it is, is almost miraculous.  I mean, who would have believed that a new entry to a franchise, coming almost 30 years after the last, with a completely different actor in the lead role, would turn out to be so great?  But 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is a phenomenal achievement, and this year's best blockbuster - here's why.

It is a thrilling, gripping and exhilarating action movie

While a lot of action blockbusters get criticised for weak or underdeveloped plot, there's also been a recent trend of some being criticised for having too much plot - being convoluted, confusing, or being full of holes.  'Fury Road' eschews both issues by being stripped down to almost a primal level - it is a relentless and intense chase movie.  The visuals inform the story without requiring reams of tedious expositional dialogue: the savage, yet strangely beautiful, sun-blasted desert wasteland, and the filthy, sore covered remnants of humanity, both tell the devastation of the post-apocalyptic world in a powerful and haunting way.  The fanaticism of the War Boys, throwing themselves from speeding vehicles with glee to certain death, and the wild and terrifying modifications to the vehicles, all speak of the madness that has consumed the human race after the fall of civilisation.  Using these effective sweeping strokes enables the film to concentrate on fulfilling its chief aim - of being a thrilling, almost continuous chase.  Part of the film's success at this is also down to some 'old school' film making approaches...

Actual people actually leapt from actual moving vehicles that were actually driving at high speeds... how was no one killed making this film??!?!?!

It defies the CGI trend with practical effects and stunts

Let's just stop and think about this for a moment: director George Miller had all these crazy and dangerous looking vehicles built for actual real, took them and the actors to the Namib Desert, then preceded to crash them and fling people from them.  At high speed.  At lethal speeds..!  And Warner Bros happily gave Miller the money and permission to do all this!  And we get to reap the benefits of this approach and the decisions behind it, because - for all the digital wonderment in films like 'Age of Ultron' and 'Jurassic World', seeing real vehicles and real people performing insane, lethal looking stunts added an incalculable amount to the tension and thrill of the continual chase that makes up most of the movie.  I don't think any other film this year had stunts as jaw-dropping as this film - mainly because, as you watch, you can't help but think that someone must have died, or at the very least been seriously injured, making this film?  Surely?!!?  The fact the stunts look so incredibly dangerous adds to the effectiveness of the film's action scenes; you feel there is a real risk of harm to the characters, making the stakes even greater than in many other films today.

Every character is given a sense of humanity

In the midst of all the action and insanity, Miller still manages to give each character a depth that few other blockbusters can manage, even when they have more dialogue or 'plot twists'.  It comes down to simple touches, but even the villains - easy to make stock characters with the depth of cardboard - are depicted with an eye that is at times neutral, even compassionate.  For example, take the first scene we meet central villain Immortan Joe - worshipped as a god by the War Boys, we see a frail old man, covered in weeping sores, reliant on oxygen canisters, before he dons the war plate and body armour.  Other villains are presented similarly, depicting their grotesque deformities alongside clothing  accoutrements that suggest they have some concept of the civilization that has gone, but has been distorted by madness.  Then there's Nux (Nicholas Hoult), who has one of the most convincing character arcs of recent films.  He goes on a genuine journey, so to speak, from a fanatic willing to die for Immortan Joe, having a crisis over what he believes in, before making a decision of whom he should rightly fight for.  The film also subverts a typical romantic sub-plot, when we see one of Immortan Joe's fleeing wives, Capable (Riley Keogh), develop a bond with Nux through a sort of fascination with him.  Instead of having them 'couple up', this platonic relationship is part of what enables Nux to move through his development as a character.

The typical 'romantic' sub-plot was neatly subverted by Nux and Capable's relationship - another thing that sets this head and shoulders above most other blockbusters

This is a film that empowers women

Look, I've previously discussed where I fit in with feminism, let's say I am sympathetic to any point of view that says that ANYBODY who is victimised or oppressed for any reason should not be treated in that way, or should accept that as their 'place' in life.  After growing up watching 'Aliens' I have no problem accepting strong, tough, female characters who are central at driving a plot or a movie - and this film delivers a superb example in Charlize Theron's Furiosa.  She is driven, resourceful, tough, yet compassionate.  She gets some excellent moments, including some the demonstrate ways that she is more capable than Tom Hardy's Max (like when she uses him as the stand for her rifle!), or in different ways to him.  There have been criticisms that she is more prominent than Max, but her centrality does not steal the film from Max - after all, it is  through Max that we get our way in to this world gone mad, and it is Max who leads their return to safety, finally confronting Immortan Joe and the War Boys.  There are some imbeciles who claim the film has an anti-male message, or belittles men.  No, the film treats men and women equally, and if you think that a film filled with cars, action and violence is pandering to feminism, then you're a complete ass-hat.

Furiosa was a revelation in this film.  But does her being a strong female character diminish Max's role at all?  No, he's still an absolute bad-ass, and - as the title suggests - has a couple of screws loose...

'Mad Max: Fury Road' delivered intense thrills, astonishing visuals, and a surprising level of depth, setting it head and shoulders above the rest of the Blockbuster batch this year.  That Warner Bros allowed George Miller to have $130 million +++, to go drive crazy cars around a desert in Africa, 30 years after the last film in the series, is remarkable.  That the resultant film is as outstanding as it is feels almost miraculous, and makes me feel we have been fortunate to witness it..!

Monthly Marvel Musings: How to (finally) get Fantastic Four right

This month I had intended to write a piece about the pointless ‘rivalry’ between Marvel and DC movies, but given the failure of ‘Fantastic Four’, and the fallout around it, I wanted to reflect on whether there is a future for these characters on screen.  In a nutshell, I am pleased to say that – despite everything – there is.

MONTHLY MARVEL MUSINGS

Although many people have gleefully laid in to the new ‘Fantastic Four’ movie with a glee bordering on the macabre, I’ve got to admit the film’s failure has made me sad.  I saw the film a second time last week (I had promised to take my son), and as I began to enjoy parts of the first half of the film (especially the traumatic depiction of the accident that gives the team their powers), I actually found it saddening at the same time.  There was clearly an attempt to do something interesting and different with this superhero comic adaptation – but for various reasons it failed.  There’s mud-slinging going on from both sides, but ultimately it comes down to two things: Fox didn’t really want to make the film Josh Trank wanted to make – and the film was clearly rushed in to production to beat the deadline for the rights expiring, but before the script and plot had been properly settled upon.  This will be a film that people will take great pleasure in analysing the troubled production and fall out for many years to come – even though Fox claim they want to move forward with a sequel, it is likely they will consider the negative publicity, and box office failure of this film, to have tarnished the franchise too much.

Seems like everyone's got it in for the Fantastic Four lately...

It may be that, in months to come, Fox will sit down with Marvel Studios to discuss the rights to Fantastic Four.  If this happens it will be a good thing for comic book fans – despite the previous failed attempts to portray these characters correctly on the big screen, there is arguably still a way to get them right.  And that especially goes for Doctor Doom, the greatest Marvel villain, who Marvel Studios could incorporate in to some epic story lines and future movies.  If Marvel and Fox do start these discussions, how can a future movie based on Fantastic Four succeed where the previous ones failed?  Here are some of my ideas…

(Partly) set it in the era they were created – the 1960’s

It’s a well-known fact that over 10 years ago ‘Ant-Man’ director Peyton Reed was developing a '60's set Fantastic Four movie, which Fox abandoned.  It’s one of those great cinematic ‘What-Ifs?’, but it’s easy to imagine that that version would have been better than the films which were eventually made.  But I think this is a good starting point for any future FF movie – ‘Captain America The First Avenger’ and ‘X-Men First Class’ demonstrated that comic adaptations, set in the era they were first created, can work very well.  In the dream scenario that Marvel Studios get to work FF back in to the MCU, you could depict the forming of the team and them gaining their powers during that era – matching the same pulpy, retro Sci-Fi tone that was an element of the first Captain America film.  However, I say ‘partly’ because, well we’ve seen two origin stories for the team on film so far – the next version would be better to have the team already with their powers established, but show flash-backs to when they gained their powers (we've already had two version of their origin story on film).  This might make you question why, if they’ve been around since the '60's, have they not been mentioned or seen in the MCU before?  There’d be a very good reason for that…

Make this Marvel’s version of ‘Star Trek’

…this film would be an outer-space adventure, along the lines of Star Trek or the ‘Lost in Space’ series.  Although in the comics the FF are mainly earth-bound, many of their most famous and memorable stories have them encountering (and occasionally battling) various alien races and beings.  In fact several comic stories have them traversing across galaxies and dimensions, so why not their films?  This could tie back to their origin, and the ‘60’s setting: why not combine the classic origin story with the Ultimate version (which the current film takes its cues from), and have the team and Doctor Doom (more of which later) developing a new form of rocket that includes a very experimental form of drive which (unbeknownst to them) uses technology capable of crossing dimensions?  When the rocket is first tested there is an accident of some sort, which sends the team across space to an unknown galaxy – and giving them their powers as they cross alternative dimensions to get there.  

Several Fantastic Four stories take place in outer space, on alien worlds, or other dimensions - if you can't make them work 'on earth', why not set their stories in space then?

The film could then set up how the team are trying to make their way back to our galaxy, and earth, and encountering the aliens they’ve famously battled in the comics as they do so.  This approach would give Marvel Studios an opportunity to make a film in a genre they’ve not yet used (Kevin Feige is keen that each film is at least inspired by, or done in the style of, a different genre pic e.g. ‘The Winter Soldier’ = conspiracy thriller, ‘Ant-Man’ = heist movie) – the sort of Space-faring adventure that made ‘Star Trek’ and ‘Lost in Space’ so popular in their time.  This would give the comics fun tone, with its famous ‘family’ dynamic, a setting where it would feel more appropriate, and so (hopefully) work better.  Having them trekking (!) through space would reflect their classic team /family dynamic: Johnny Storm would be the pilot, Ben 'The Thing' Grimm the ship's engineer, Reed Richards the Chief science officer, and Sue Storm the vessel's chief medical officer.  You could feed them in to the MCU through a future Guardians of the Galaxy film (they could be introduced in a cameo or post-credits sting) before depicting their own adventure, which in turn could set up the coming of Galactus and Annihilus – surely worthy of being the antagonists of a future Avengers movie?  But that’s not the only villain you would be getting in to the MCU…

Doctor Doom could finally be portrayed right

Even if the current Fantastic Four reboot had been better, it still would have arguably failed in one important area: faithfully and effectively portraying Doctor Doom on screen.  As I mentioned in my review, the film portrayals need to stop trying to play down all the elements that make up the character, and fully embrace the near-operatic scope.  I would argue Doom could be introduced before the FF themselves, as a back-ground villain/threat, in the same way that Thanos has been used in the MCU so far.  Certainly, in the comics, he is the most powerful Marvel villain (he recently stood against inter-dimensional beings capable of destroying entire universes!) – but he has surprising nuances.  Whilst he is a totalitarian leader of his native Latveria (making a nice counter to Captain America and his espousing of democracy and freedom), under his rule the country and its people have prospered.  As well as being a scientific genius and strategic master, his background is marred by tragedy; in the comics there are a number of stories where he is trying to rescue his mother’s soul from hell and the devil himself.

A successful translation of Doctor Doom on screen should completely embrace the part where he is the ruler of Latveria

I think this can be reworked slightly to make Doom an amazing villain in the MCU.  Over the course of several films, the heroes could discover (or inadvertently discover) links between their films’ villains and Latveria.  Over time it becomes clear that Doom is behind these – but no one can act because he is hidden behind a diplomatic wall as ruler of Latveria, where he rarely leaves.  Eventually, someone discovers what Doom is trying to do – create a transport to cross dimensions.  He has been doing this because his father, almost 70 years ago, had been experimenting on the very same thing – and during one of the experiments Doom’s mother was sucked through to another dimension (a change to the comics that would feel plausible, but allowing potential crossover with Doctor Strange, as in the source material).  Ever since, Doom has made it his life’s work to perfect the technology and rescue his lost mother.

This is how he became involved with the Fantastic Four – he helped them to develop and build their rocket as a way of furthering his own experiments on the dimensional crossing technology.  Of course, he still hadn’t perfected this, resulting in the accident which banishes the Fantastic Four, and leaves him with the disfigurement requiring him to live his life in a suit of powered armour.  As his experiments continue, the Fantastic Four (who have been tracking Galactus as a way of finding their way back to Earth) and other MCU characters (e.g. Doctor Strange) realise he is drawing dangerous beings towards Earth – beings such as Galactus, the devourer of worlds.  Desperate to intervene, but unable to due to international political will, SHIELD sends a covert team to Latveria (Secret Avengers) to try and stop him – they fail and Doom retaliates by attacking New York and the UN.  Eventually Galactus reaches earth – and it takes the combined might of the Avengers and the newly returned Fantastic Four to defeat the cosmic being.  Another team of heroes eventually defeat Doom, but not before he has activated his technology – and brought the attention of other extra-dimensional beings (e.g. Annihilus), setting things up for the next phase of MCU movies.

Doom hasn't only taken on the Fantastic Four - he's possibly the most central of Marvel's villains.

Taking this approach would arguably give enough space to develop a portrayal of Doom that is respectful and faithful enough to the comics to work on screen.  Here you would have a Doom that is as powerful – intellectually, politically, and of course in terms of abilities – as he should be; but also nuanced and interesting enough to make him a great movie villain, worthy enough to sustain several films.  Because as great as the Fantastic Four could potentially be, Doom has possibly the greatest value in terms of potential stories to adapt.  In the comics he has crossed over with pretty much all of the Marvel characters at some time – The Avengers, Iron Man, Spiderman, X-Men – so there is enormous potential.  Not to mention the fact he is not just a one-dimensional villain, but a comparatively nuanced character with at times morally ambiguous motives, and a surprisingly sympathetic element to his backstory.  But, he is a proper villain, who would think nothing of sacrificing any who stands in the way of fulfilling his plans – and most importantly he has the power to achieve these (not to mention overcome the heroes).

This franchise needs to go home

There’s little doubt, almost everything about Fantastic Four – including the villains – would be much more at home in the MCU; so hopefully in the coming months there will be financial pressure on Fox, following the financial failure of the latest ‘Fantastic Four’, to negotiate the return of the rights to Marvel Studios.  Because even though the fans are saying that this is what they want – there’s even a petition calling for this – any discussions between Fox and Marvel Studios will only happen because the accountants at Fox decide the only way for the franchise to make money is either selling it back, or sharing (ala Spidey/Sony).  And this is the strange thing in all of this – whilst it is sad to see a talented director and cast potentially have their careers tarnished as a result of this film, on the other hand it is potentially exciting that Fantastic Four might finally have their chance to join the MCU.  Time will tell!

Please Fox - sell the rights back to Marvel Studios! They'll be happy.  We'll be happy.  The Fantastic Four will be happy.  You'll be happy !  Well, happier than you were when the box office for the current film's opening weekend came in, I should imagine...

Movie Review - Fantastic Four: Not even a heroic failure, more like a failed experiment

Each summer blockbuster movie season, there has to be the whipping boy, the one film that everyone seems to want to fail, even before it has finished filming.  Since the growth of the internet, and everyone thinking their opinion is the one that matters when it comes to film making, this has become infinitely worse.  This year the dubious status has befallen the attempt by Fox and Director Josh Trank to reboot 'Fantastic Four'.  To start with, there has been a general perception that, as they couldn't get these characters quite right with the first attempts, perhaps the rights would be better back with Marvel Studios (who, in contrast, have yet to fail to find the right way to put their characters on screen).  As well as that, the two previous (and widely derided) films are still fresh in most people's minds, adding to a sense of pessimism that they'd get it right.  Side-stepping the completely dumb casting controversy, since talk emerged earlier this year of re-shoots, and confirmation that Trank and the Studio hadn't seen eye-to-eye (leading to him quitting a planned Star Wars Anthology spin-off movie), the knives have been out for this one in a big way.  But still, I went in to this film with an open mind; I wanted the nay-sayers, doubters and haters to be wrong, I really did.  I wanted this film to succeed, and give us the definitive adaptation of these characters fans want to see.  Unfortunately, while the film is by no means a disaster, it is pretty mediocre: a superhero film that wants to focus on drama, and a sense of body horror, but doesn't pull off the 'super' or 'team' part when the story needs it to.

Rather than the classic Stan Lee version of these characters, this film is mostly inspired by the post-Millennial Ultimate version, which has a younger team of scientists undergo changes, gaining super-human abilities, as a result of cross-dimensional travel.  The film starts off with scientific prodigy Reed Richards (who will become the stretching Mr Fantastic) as an 11 year old boy, telling his class his ambition to teleport a person from one place to another.  He becomes friends with Ben Grimm (who becomes rock 'monster' The Thing), whose family owns a scrap-yard, helping him with parts to make his first attempt at a teleporting machine.  The film fast-forwards 7 years, and the pair (now played by Miles Teller and Jamie Bell respectively) are teenagers, presenting Richard's latest attempt at the machine at the county science fair.  This catches the eye of scientist Professor Franklin Richards (Reg E. Cathey), and his adopted daughter Sue Storm (Kate Mara), who it transpires have been attempting to use similar technology to make cross-dimensional teleportation a reality - and Richard's machine is the key to not only sending, but bringing something back from the parallel dimension.  Joining with disenfranchised and cynical former protégé or Professor Storm, Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebble), and the Professor's rebellious son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), they successfully crack return travel between dimensions.  When the team of youngsters decide to be the first people to make the trip, before NASA takes over the project, things go wrong - Von Doom is left behind, assumed dead, and the others return with bizarre physical abnormalities.  However, the Military sees a use for their powers, sending them on covert missions, whilst promising to find a cure for their conditions.

Don't let the smiles fool you - the Fantastic Four don't seem to find much of what happens in this film particularly 'fantastic'...

It's pretty clear that Trank and the Studio had two different visions for this film, and unfortunately they don't gel.  The Director seems to have wanted a character-driven dramatic approach to the subject, whilst the studio wanted typical superhero blockbuster fayre, to set up a franchise and allow for cross-overs with the X-Men franchise.  The first half of the film, which shows the characters forming friendships as they work on the dimensional crossing, is the most successful part of the film - Trank shows the same flair for getting a believable and easy-going camaraderie out of his cast as he did in 'Chronicle'.  This aspect of the film starts to unravel once they make their fateful journey across dimensions, largely due to some plot decisions that don't really make sense character wise - but are there as a reason to give certain characters their 'powers' later in the film.  After this, apart from a couple of scenes which manage to capture the 'body horror' tone Trank was going for, the plot becomes tepid, and tragically the lead actors begin to look lost in their own film.  It is a waste of the cast - separately each actor has demonstrated in other work (films and/or TV) what they're capable of, but once they powers and special effects come in to play they look as though they are struggling to convey how they should be reacting to it all.

Speaking of special effects, they are frustratingly inconsistent throughout.  Whilst The Thing and Human Torch are well portrayed and look as realistic as possible, other parts don't; there's a terrible CGI monkey, for example.  The alternate dimension is well portrayed, if a bit on the drab side, until some pretty poor looking green ooze-stuff starts erupting.  The stretching effects on Reed Richards are inconsistent too; it's clear that Weta (who handled the effects on this film) could have done with more time to complete certain shots - but they were only given less than a year from principal photography to get them done.  The film does suffer as a result.

While this version of Doctor Doom is more powerful and dangerous than the previous take, it is still a massive failure to properly put the character on the Big Screen.

The final act proves the film's biggest Achilles heel, as it shoe-horns in an 'end of the world threat' that seems tonally out of place with what's preceded it; it relies on some characters making snap judgements that, again, aren't consistent with their previous attitudes/behaviour; and by wasting Doctor Doom.  Why is it Fox don't seem to be able to grasp how to bring this character to the big screen?  In the first half Kebble manages to make Doom seem more than a one-note, scenery chewing villain (unlike the previous films' version), but when he returns from the alternate dimension he has become the typical 'mad' villain, who wants to destroy the world as he has clearly 'gone insane'.  They manage to make him more threatening and genuinely dangerous than the last version - he actually racks up quite a body count - but considering this character is the most famous of all Marvel villains, arguably, he is given little to do (apart from, mainly, recite some pretty awful dialogue), and the threat is resolved with shocking ease by the Fantastic Four.  When the film goes for its CGI fuelled action set-piece it is almost completely weakened by feeling out of place with the tone of the rest of the film, and by dispensing with the film's only threat in an almost inconsequential matter.

Despite their best efforts, it's really clear that Fox simply do not know how to handle Fantastic Four, nor the potentially outstanding villain they have in Doctor Doom.  Marvel have shown that it is possible to capture the pulp and fun side of their characters while bringing some real story-telling heft to them.  Fox needs to embrace this aspect of the Fantastic Four, and they definitely have to embrace the almost operatic scale of Doctor Doom's story.  It's hard not to imagine Marvel Studios doing a far better job of incorporating Doom in their on-screen universe - such a big character, and significant threat, deserves to be set up over multiple films, as they have been doing with Thanos; establishing his power, the massive threat he poses, but also the tragedy in his background that motivates him.

It's not likely Marvel Studios will get Fantastic Four, and therefore Doom, back soon, as it is likely this new take on comic's 'first family' should do well enough at the box office to enable Fox to retain the film rights and proceed with a sequel.  I sincerely hope, however, that they will acknowledge the struggle they are having realising these characters, and talk to Marvel Studios for creative assistance - the same way Sony have done with Spiderman.  Whilst this film is nowhere near to being a dismal mess like 'The Amazing Spiderman 2', neither does the dramatic approach carry enough weight to give the film a slightly redeeming feature, like the heroic failure that is Ang Lee's 'Hulk'.  In the end it's a mid-level comic book superhero flick that, despite its aspirations, is on the whole forgettable.  I wanted to like this film, but it seems like it needs to be third time lucky for the Fantastic Four....

Iconoclast: 'Chronicle's portrayal of a bullying and abuse victim arguably weakens the film

When 'Chronicle' was released at the beginning of 2012 it was met with an enthusiastic reception, both critically and at the Box-Office.  It put Director Josh Trank on the map (leading to him getting the 'Fantastic Four' reboot gig), and established lead actors Dane DeHaan and Michael B. Jordan as talents to watch.  It is, admittedly, well directed and acted - the effects work as the boys develop their psychic powers is impressive, and the camaraderie of teenage lads larking about with them is believably portrayed.  But it's a film that I have some problems with, basically down to its portrayal of someone who has been the victim of bullying and abuse.  This film touched a nerve with me, when it came to the scenes where Andrew (DeHaan) is bullied and ostracised at High School - basically I had a pretty sh*tty time at school with bullying, which panned out to being an almost complete social pariah by the age of 15/16, when most kids are too old to push someone or trip them up, or laugh at it.  There was one particular kid at school who behaved like a nasty, arrogant piece of work - because his dad was a local TV sports presenter on one channel, and because he apparently played guitar, he behaved like he was better than everyone else on the planet. He made my life - and that of several of my friends - something of a misery.  As we got older, and towards the end of high school, I mainly based myself in my small group of genuine friends so as to avoid people, but any encounters with him mostly consisted of me being sneered and laughed at derisively.

In a lot of respects this film gets that experience right, but it doesn't adequately capture a significant part of it - the anger and rage that is felt by the bullying victim.  Sometimes this is turned inwards, sometimes this is directed at those closest to them, but mostly this is stored up and simmers beneath the surface.  When it erupts, it can have tragic results - or it can be used to refocus and drive a person.  In 'Chronicle' though, Andrew doesn't just face bullying at school - he faces it in his neighbourhood, where he is picked on by local thugs (it's suggested they have physically assaulted him, and even mugged him, before the events of the film).  Worst of all, he is subjected to abuse at home at the hands of his alcoholic father, who (it is strongly implied) beats him.  When, at the end, Andrew unleashes his powers against those who have abused him, the good work that the film has done leading up to it in terms of naturalistic performances and characterisation is arguably undermined.

'Chronicle' authentically portrays the camaraderie of three teenage lads larking about.  Only, with Psychic powers...

Firstly, just because Andrew is bullied and abused at home and school did not necessarily mean he would 'turn bad'.  The film partly tries to justify this shift through the device of his mother's slowly succumbing to cancer.  When there's no money to buy her medication (because his dad has spent it on Alcohol) Andrew turns to crime to get it, using his powers to do so.  Whilst this is partly believable, I believe that it would take more than that to push someone like Andrew to using their powers in 'bad' ways.  In real life (speaking from experience), surviving bullying is easier with the support of genuine friends - but before he slides to 'evil' we see Andrew becoming isolated from his two best friends - and, again, I'm not sure this is convincing.  The falling out stems from an embarrassment involving over-drinking and vomiting at a party, and besides the fact it puts Andrew back at the bottom of the social hierarchy amongst his peers, it never feels like a convincing reason for him to kill Steve (Jordan).  Apart from, of course, to show how he is 'turning bad' in how he uses his powers.  He falls out with his other friend, his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), when he uses his powers to get back at one of the bullies we see assaulting him earlier in the film.  Matt confronts him and lectures him about how they agreed not to use their powers on living things, but this brings me to my second issue: Matt's reaction shows how the film doesn't really sympathise with the experience of being bullied.

The film sort of justifies Andrew's descent in to 'villainy' due to the abuse and bullying, but then it bizarrely tells the audience we shouldn't sympathise with him.  Eh?!?

After we've seen all that Andrew has endured at the hands of his peers at school, the local thugs, and his abusive father, the audience is supposed to side with Matt when Andrew starts using his powers against those who have bullied and abused him. Whilst DeHaan has the right look and acting ability to pull off a troubled person, it feels like a cliché when he is contrasted with Matt, who is the stereotypical square-jawed, tall dark and handsome leading man.  It is a lazy kind of short-hand that the film uses with this approach to casting the actors, which basically says "you are less likely to turn bad if you are stereotypically handsome, and more likely to turn bad if you're not".  It is a lazy way of making the audience get behind Matt during the final act, as opposed to arguably where the audience's sympathy should lie, with Andrew.  It cheapens what he goes through over the course of the film, and the way in which it contributes to where he ends up in the final act.

If the film really wanted to show us how bullying and abuse would have pushed Andrew in to using his powers in a 'bad' way it has also failed in this respect - because, arguably, it doesn't go far enough.  Again, demonstrating how the makers either don't fully appreciate how bullying really feels or can make the victim feel, there is a holding back when we finally begin to see Andrew striking back against those who have made his life a misery.  Having felt the rage that being bullied creates, looking back to my school days if I'd have had powers, like Andrew, I'm not sure I would have killed the people bullying me, but I would have wanted to hurt them.  And not only that, I would have wanted to humiliate them for all the times they'd laughed at me and made me feel inadequate in front of the rest of the school.  Pulling out teeth would have been a start, but why do just do that, when he could have thrown them around, broken a limb or two - then pulled their clothes off and left them naked and exposed in front of their peer group?  Again, when we see him turn the tables on the local thugs and use his powers to mug them, putting myself in his shoes I would have used the powers to afflict more psychological terror before bringing physical harm on them - pay back for all the times they'd intimidated and threatened me.  I can partly understand why the film makers held back at this point - budgetary reasons, and no doubt not wanting to push the film's rating up too high and cut off potential box office from a younger audience.

But what is totally unforgivable is that the one character who is completely irredeemable, who totally deserved the full force of Andrew's anger and to meet their death at his hands, is rescued by Matt.  In pure story-telling terms Andrew's dad (Michael Kelly) fulfils the role of an antagonist who surely deserves to be killed off.  We see him completely oblivious to the suffering of his wife as she slowly succumbs to cancer, due to his alcoholism, as well as being oblivious to the misery his son is enduring at school.  Not only that he adds to this misery by directing his rage towards Andrew - there is no moment of remorse or contrition over this, his anger and Andrew is sustained throughout the entire film.  And to top it all, he blames Andrew for not being there when his wife finally passes of her cancer, unleashing a furious tirade at him - despite Andrew being the only person trying to get his mothers' drugs and ease her pain.  There is no reason from a story-telling point-of-view for him to survive the film,and  the moment when Matt saves Andrew's dad is completely frustrating, serving little purpose than reinforcing the poorly set out 'good/bad' dynamic which is supposed to define the pair in the final act.  Andrew would throw a man to his death, therefore he is irredeemably bad, while Matt saves that man, so is clearly the good guy who we must root for.  Again, it just cheapens what Andrew has been through, how he has by and large been the victim throughout the film.

My biggest problem with the final 'battle' is that the audience are given more reasons to sympathise with Andrew, but are expected to accept Matt as the 'hero' - who happens to have stereotypical 'hero' looks, unlike Andrew...

It is also a lazy way of setting up that Andrew must die at the end.  We're supposed to believe that he is so consumed by his grief-stricken rage that there is no way back for him - however, there are moments earlier in the film where Andrew has acted out of anger but shown genuine remorse, so there is a precedent that suggests he may have calmed down.  Although Matt's attempts to do this are seemingly futile, it would arguably have made sense to try and remove him from the city to an area where his rage would have caused less harm and less danger to by-standers.  However, that wouldn't have made for such a spectacle-filled final act, would it?

On the one hand I get that 'Chronicle' isn't meant to be a super-hero movie - it is framed more like a horror film, in certain respects.  And underneath the narrative is a 'counter-point', if you like, to the origin story of, say, Spider-man: like Andrew, Peter Parker is bullied at school and something of a social outcast, but he has the loving upbringing and guidance of his Aunt May & Uncle Ben to inspire him to use his powers for good.  This film highlights that, if he hadn't have had that, he'd have probably turned in to a little a**hole after the spider bite.  But aside from that, having been through bullying myself (though thankfully not domestic abuse) I ultimately feel the way the film handles it shows a real sympathy or understanding of the experience.  I think the biggest clincher is that the film seems to suggest that if you're bullied and socially shunned by your peers at school, you're more likely to turn 'bad'.  As I said at the beginning of the article, the experience of being bullied did not turn me bad, or violent, but I chose to turn the hurt and anger in a different direction.  I became interested in music, and found an outlet for my feelings through playing the drums.  And above all it made me want to be a good person, not like the bullies - contributing to making me work as a volunteer with elderly and disabled people, and campaigning for development charities in my late Teens and early 20's.

As for the bully I spoke about, well things didn't turn out so well for him after school.  His apparent talent for playing guitar never lead to a career, and he fell in to drug abuse - dying of an overdose a couple of years ago.  I don't know what drove him to that, perhaps it was the same issues that made him a bully, perhaps he was so mean to people to distract from those issues.  If I'd have known what they were, or how his life would end up, I don't think I would have allowed myself to be bullied by him when I was at school.  I probably would have just felt sorry for him. But then, things might have been different if I'd have developed psychic powers at that age..!