Slither - "Like Finding A Needle In A Fuck-Stack"

Who'd have though that the writer of the live action Scooby Doo movies would be responsible for one of the best alien invasion movies of the last decade? Well, any body who's paid attention to director James Gunn's career would know that he wrote the superb remake of Dawn Of The Dead, that's who.

Slither is a low budget comedy horror, riffing off of '50's science fiction like Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and Invaders From Mars, as a bunch of aggressive extra-terrestrial worms take over Micheal Rooker and chums an a small American township. It's character driven, with the focus on the love triangle between bombshell Elizabeth Banks, her over possessive husband (Rooker), and local Sheriff Nathan Fillion (on top, quotable, witty form).

It's amusing and offbeat, the effects are well up to par, and the cast excellent. If you were ever a supporter of giving Michael 'F**king' Rooker an Emmy or allowing Nathan Fillion to be in 'everything', this will only strengthen your beliefs.

Vengeful Red Lady Mullet

It might have taken me over 25 years, but I'm now in a position to confirm that Arnold Schwarzenegger has, not three, but four shit films on his resume; Conan The Destroyer, Batman & Robin, Jingle All The Way, and now, Red Sonja. It's not total crap. There's a decent score by legendary composer Ennio Morricone and the production design, while cheaply realised in places, is pretty impressive too.

But the rest is laughable from the paper thin plot, amateur practical effects, misguided humour, the worst edited action sequences from the 1980's and a bland tone that's neither the ultra-serious posturing of Conan The Barbarian nor the tongue in cheek fannying around of Conan The Destroyer.

The best thing about the film is also the worst thing about it. Arnold Schwarzenegger sure is an iconic movie figure, especially when in his bodybuilding prime and playing off his popular Conan persona. And Brigitte Nielsen as the title character is not only a strikingly attractive woman in her youth, but also an imposing physical foil to Arnie. The thing is neither can act; not a jot at this point in their careers. So when they share a scene together it's like two mannequins in a staring contest...nothing interesting happening here.

When Two Wizards Go To War

The Harry Potter film series has been one of the most successful and most unique in cinema history. There’s not many franchises that can boast reaching 8 film, with most of the original cast intact, with each entry making nearly a billion dollars at the box office…not to mention income generated form DVD sales, TV rights and merchandising. And with the final film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 destroying box office records around the world the big question is does the series go out with a bang or a whimper?

The answer is a most definite ‘bang’ as Part 2 in by far the best of the series. To be fair most of it's success as a stand alone film has to do with where it's placed in chronological order in the franchise and what role it plays in the overall story. With all the transitional story having been set up in the last two films (Voldermort's rise to power and the knowledge of what Harry and friends must do to defeat him) Deathly Hallows 2 gets to pay everything off. Apart from a couple of dialogue scenes at the films start to recap events and to lay out the direction of Harry's quest for the final part of the saga, and then a grand action sequence involving a bank heist, there's little more set up required. About 25 minutes into the film, from Act II onwards, there's no let up. The cards are on the table, all the chips are down and all bets are off. The good guys and the bad guys know what the endgame is and they understand what's at stake for themselves if they lose; it's now simply a matter of who can achieve their goals first.

The meandering nature of the majority of the films actually plays to Part 2's success. The longer the set up...the more time we've had to invest in the characters and to understand the Potter-verse, the more dramatic and apocalyptic the events in the finale feel. The TV series Babylon 5 (which told a single story spanning 110 episodes over 5 years) did this to great effect when it slowly but surely built to a moment 54 months into it's run where the characters had to make a fight or submit decision that would forever alter the direction of the narrative. And boy did that pack a punch like no other story I've seen. The longer the set up the more powerful the pay off. In fact it makes me wonder if the Harry Potter saga might have played better if it had been a TV series instead.

The simplicity of the plot strengthens this film. It's a war story, plain and simple. Harry and friends are the men on a mission with victory or loss of the war dependent on them. The students and teachers are the soldiers and the school itself, the setting for the majority of the series, now the battleground. It's a thrill to see the peripheral characters, usually so benign, rising to the occasion whether it's Maggie Smith's kickarse School Mistress or Matthew Lewis' once-weakling student, Neville Longbottom. The buildup to the siege of Hogwarts is filled with nervous anticipation and a doom laden expectation that thing's aren't going to end well for the small group of defenders while the final battle itself doesn't disappoint.

David Yates direction is typically restrained, maybe too restrained for some tastes, but it means the more sentimental stuff isn’t overwhelming, and is probably more powerful because of it. Whether it's Ron and Hermione's kiss or Harry's ghostly encounter with his parents, Yates keeps the emotion bottled up, making it even more moving when he let's it of the leash in brief but powerful moments. And Part 2 has many powerful scenes, the best realised of which are the revelations into Alan Rickman's Professor Snape's past. While it was always pretty clear that Snape’s motivations weren’t entirely evil, the reason for his past actions is pulled sharply into focus, and Alan Rickman rises to the occasion with a beautifully judged performance that's unquestionably heartbreaking.

On top of that you've got an elegant score by Alexandre Desplat, some of the best production design of the series, flawless effect on a grand scale and the best of British acting talent re-assembled for one last get-together. Daniel Radcliffe won't ever be in the same league as Gary Oldman, Michael Gambon or John Hurt..especially when it comes to larger, more theatrical thesping...but he shines in the quieter moments like in an early encounter with Warwick Davies (also never better).

Yes it's the hero myth playing out again. And yes, if you've been paying attention these past years the outcome and how it comes about isn't hard to fathom. But like any World War II boys own adventure, it's not the destination, but the journey...and this is one hell of a final stretch of road.

Conan: Destroyer Of Sequels

While I'd seen the original 1982 Conan movie many, many years ago I'd never got round to checking out the 1984 sequel Conan The Destroyer until now...mainly because I perceived it as shit. But watching the opening credits unfold before me my hopes were lifted. Instead of the ultra cheap cash in I expected a glossy title sequence appeared before an epic landscape. The names in the credits are impressive too; director Richard (20,000 Leagues Under The Sea) Fleisher, editor Frank (Total Recall) Urioste, set designer John (Waterworld) Bloomfield, cinematographer Jack (Rambo II) Cardiff and producer Dino (Dune) De Laurentiis.

Despite my high hopes, my predictions were correct. Conan The Destroyer IS shit. Any realism, style or sense of wonder the original film had is replaced by a dumb, silly tongue in cheek tone that gives it that pungent direct to DVD feel. It looks a million dollars in some scenes, and cheap as chips (like a Golan Globus Production) in others. The effects are mainly terrible, the acting stilted (thank God Grace Jones doesn't have much to do), it's appallingly written, terribly paced (rescue the princess from, not one, but two fortresses), the action slow and awkward and the demon monster at the finale crude and laughable.

Still, Arnie might not be a good actor, but at least he shows off the charisma and screen presence that would later define him as the biggest movie star in the world.

Conan The Austrian

I never liked the Sword and Sorcery genre that much, me being more of a science fiction kind of guy. But watching Arnold Schwarznegger's first hit movie, Conan The Barbarian, it's hard not to get swept up in the brutal fantasy landscapes and outrageous action, magic and characters. Writer/director John Milus takes things ultra seriously, only throwing to the revenge tale in a few moments of levity when appropriate (drunk Conan!).

The world Milus creates is epic, convincing and stunning to look at (great photography and set design), is told in a wonderfully cinematic way (like The Terminator, Arnie's dialogue is minimised to show of to minimise his onscreen weakness...acting) and is accompanied by Basil Poledouris' magnificently sweeping, omnipresent score. The supporting cast is great too, especially James Earl Jones as snake demon sorcerer Thulsa Doom, while you have to give credit to Sandahl Bergman as possibly the most 'mannish' leading lady in movies until Kurt Russell dressed up in drag in Tango & Cash.

And of course, who can forget the classic lines of dialogue like, "What is best in life?" Conan: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women..." Great movie. There's nothing out there in cinemaland like it; not the sequel nor the pile of Conan wannabes that sprung up afterward.

Planet Of The Minkeys

If you want to watch a Planet Of The Apes movie you're far better off watching the 1968 original starring Charlton Heston, rather than Tim Burton's inexcusable clustercuss remake starring The worst Leading Man In History, Mark Wahlberg.

It's much smarter, looks like a big budget blockbuster rather than a set-bound play, and it has the perfect woman in it in Linda Harrison's Nova (utterly beautiful, semi-clad and completely mute). Not only is it a great, high concept sci-fi film, it's an exciting, sprawling adventure flick and there's lots for the gray matter to consider as well. Apes explores prejudice and racism, the class system, and perhaps most topically, the tensions in society between religion and science and how that perspective prejudices the policies of the lawmakers. It's shocking how the discussions of the ape politicians regarding archaeological discoveries mirror the debate in the US between those that believe in evolution and the popular,but bonkers, right wing believe that God made the earth only 10,000 years ago.

It's very much a product of it's time from the 60's experimental direction, Jerry Goldsmith's themeless score and the rather static dialogue scenes, but the story and ideas are so compelling, Planet Of The Apes rockets along to that shocking, iconic moment. "God damn you all to hell!"

Beneath The Planet Of The Minkeys

While no where near as good as the 1968 original, the sequel Beneath The Planet Of The Apes has some strong ideas and a fresh enough take on the concept to make this a follow up worth checking out. James Franciscus gets to relive the first movie as the astronaut who travels through time and space to discover a planet ruled by simians. As with the original, although much faster, he soon encounters Lina Harrison's Nova (dude, I filled the cup) and Kim Hunter's chimp scientist Zira, before heading off to discover he's landed on a far future Planet Earth. So remake, so good.

It's the second half where things get interesting as Franciscus encounters some future humans, all mind powers and mutanty, who worship an end-of-the-world, doomsday missile. Then the minkeys turn up, so does Charlton Heston, and things go boobies up for the memorable apocalyptic ending (in an failed attempt to out-shock the original). Civilization's obsession with war and destruction is explored, both from the humans and the apes point of view, and it's a much shorter, much faster paced film than it's predecessor, but this isn't in the same league. A worthy sequel though.

Lapping Up Spanish Porridge

Given my love of hostage dramas (Die Hard) and high concept thrillers (Speed) it's amazing this story hasn't been done before. On his first day at work, a prison guard gets stuck inside the maximum security wing of a major Spanish Prison. In attempt to survive he pretends to be an inmate while negotiations with the outside authorities proceed. That's the premise of Spanish thriller Cell 211.

It's a great concept from the outset, allowing for a multitude of scenes where hero Juan may, or may not, get sussed out and killed by the killers he's locked up with. It's well directed, has great performances from Alberto Ammann in the John McClane man-on-the-inside role and Luis Tosar as the imposing Duke Of New York king-of-the-prisoners role.

And in any other movie, 'Die Hard In A Prison' would be enough to satisfy my entertainment needs. But Cell 211 bravely goes further pushing Juan into areas which blur his (and our) perception of good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil. It pushes it to the point where our view of the Prison Service is seriously tarnished and our view of the violent and ruthless lead criminal, Malamadre, is softened to that of an anti-hero of sorts. A great film from start to brilliant finish.

The Magnificent Medieval Seven

Poor James Purefoy, until recently his biggest claim to fame in the movie world was being replaced by Hugo Weaving in V For Vendetta. But Purefoy' seems to have found his niche as medieval badass warriors in Soloman Kane, TV's Camelot and now Ironclad. The movie would have you believe it's charting events that happened in England following the signing of the Magna Carta in the early 13th century...but it's really a middle-ages, actionfest, reworking of The Magnificent Seven.

And jolly good it is too. It's not directed with any particular flair, and the budget looks like it could snap at any moment, but it's fast paced, exciting, and looks good for an expenditure which is vastly smaller than Ridley Scott's Robin Hood.
Purefoy is an imposing screen presence, Brian Cox, Charles Dance and Derek Jacobi add gravitas, Kate Mara brings the sexiness, Paul Giamatti gleefully chews the scenery and the rest of the merry men (including Jason Flemying and Mackenzie Crook) liven up the drab castle they're defending. And boy, is it brutal. I'm pretty comfortable to see decapitated limbs flying all over the screen but I was pretty impressed with King John's use of Brian Cox's rebellious Baron in his giant catapult.

It's not entirely historically acurate and you get the nagging feeling that if it were directed by Centurion's Neil Marshall that Ironclad would be twice as cool, but it's pretty entertaining as it stands.

Carry On Kidnap

If someone asks you if you want to see a film with American starlet Odette Yustman in it, then it's a proposition worth considering. If someone asks you if you want to see a film with American starlets Odette Yustman AND Amber Heard...you say YES!!!

Bizarrely based on an English movie written by Brit TV legends Brian Clements and Terry Nation, And Soon The Darkness follows the exploits of two young women finishing off a cycling tour of Argentina. The problem with the movie is you know everything that's going to happen. You know Odette is going to get kidnapped. That the cop is in on it. That Karl Urban is a red herring and is, in fact, looking for his missing girlfriend. And you know that Amber is going to have to kick ass to escape, when she's inevitably captured herself. It's the tourist kidnap movie rulebook played step by step.

However, it's directed with confidence, has a unique look thanks to it's Argentinian locale, the small cast are very strong and it thankfully rises to a tense, anything-goes finale. And as for the girls, yes they're as sexy as a truck load of sexy...but both the girls can act (Heard confirms she's a strong leading actress and Yustman has all the bubbliness and energy to dominate the romcom industry for years). Just pick something less obvious next time girlies.

Movie Murderer Wes Craven Strikes!

As horror films, I don't think the Scream franchise has been that effective. They're generally not that gory (like the Friday 13th series) or that atmospheric (like the original Halloween series), but I do think they've been solid whodunnits and pretty effective in delivering tense stalk and slash sequences. Scream 4 is no different and is probably the best thing director Wes Craven has presented in a over decade.

Still using the post-modern, self-referential theme, Scream 4 now riffs off more contemporary Horror movie staples like referencing torture porn movies, the fact the bad guy can win and get away with it and, most importantly, that reboots are all the rage. So Scream 4 subverts the genre by becoming both a sequel, and a reboot, of it's own franchise. It does this by juggling the returning original cast (the wholesome Neve Campbell, the bitchy Courteney Cox and the dopey David Arquette) with a new cast of teens (Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere and Marielle Jaffe)which is rather a lot, but manageable, to keep track of.

There's some clever cameos, riffing off Drew Barrymore's iconic scene in the first Scream, from Lucy Hale, Kristen Bell, Anna Paquin as well as some more attractive, yet disposable, supporting cast members in Aimee Teagarden, Alison Brie and Marley Shelton. An ingenious use of existing Cox/Arquette marraige plays into the characters they play, as is Emma Roberts part of the younger, less famous cousin of a bigger celebrity (just as she is in Julia Roberts cousin in real life).

All in all it's an effective, solid thriller that does a pretty good job as a whodunnit, much like the original. In fact not only is it the best Scream movie since the first, but also director Wes Craven's best film since that same franchise starter. Of course, that's not saying much but it's still worth noting.

Live Action Star Blazing

I first came across Space Battleship Yamoto as a 10 year old tourist on a visit to North America many years ago. It was in its American incarnation of 'Starblazers' but it captured my imagination as the animation was similar in style to Battle Of The Planets, another Japanese Anime that had been altered and dubbed for the western world, that I adored as a kid. It's premise is similar to Battlestar Galactica, or more recently the Babylon 5 spin-off series Crusade, which deals with a dying home planet and the warship and her crew that has been dispatched into deep space to locate a cure/find sanctuary.

After three decades Space Battleship Yamoto has been given the big-budget, live-action treatment...and it's pretty darn cool. Now, when it comes to space opera, far future space ships, interstellar dogfights, alien civilizations and intergalactic empires, I'm pretty biased; I'm going to like it to some degree it no matter how shoddy it gets, but this space adventure holds up pretty well.

The visuals are great. The effects, while minimised to keep the budget in check, are epic in scope and of sufficient quality to make this worthy of the big screen. It's got a suitably Manga feel to the production design and costumes and unlike it's not afraid of it's wild outer space/far future setting. While the dialogue can be a little corny at times (a cultural thing?), and the film is a little too talky (a bigger budger in needed), it's generally well paced with some huge world-in-jeopardy action sequences thrown into the mix.

Great stuff (but of course I would say that.)

Transfomers - Dark Side Of Uranus

After the major disappointment of the first Transformers sequel Revenge Of The Fallen two years ago I was somewhat hoping director Michael Bay had listened to his critics and made a better film with the latest installment, Transformers - Dark Of The Moon. In order to succeed Bay had to scale back on the childish humour (usually involving Shia LeBeuf's parents or Section 7 Agent Simmonds), reintroduce the sense of magic and surprise that the first Transformers movie possessed and then simply have the plot make some kind of sense.

While Dark Of The Moon is better than Revenge Of The Fallen, it still falls way short of the entertainment value of that first movie. It's a film of two distinct halves. The first half, dealing with a conspiracy which leads to a large alien invasion is utter garbage. Although Bay has wisely minimised the appearances of John Turturro, Kevin Dunn and Julie White, he then stupidly casts John Malkovich, Frances McDormand (both actors I love) and Ken Jeong in roles that eclipse the franchise regulars in terms of annoyingness. It's the same with the irritating robots; Bay ditches racist robot's Skids and Mudflaps from the last movie and replaces them with much smaller, but just as stupid, mini-clones. Bay also disposes the stunning looks and non-acting ability of Megan Fox and replaces her with the stunning looks and non-acting ability of Rosie Huntingdon-Whitley (actually I don't think she's awful awful...she'd be right at home in Hollyoaks or Eastenders...but she's a posh Brit uncomfortable acting in a dumb American movie).

Even the regulars are short changed. Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson have no character development scenes of any kind while poor Shia is turned into an insecure, whiny, unlikable bitch for the first half of the film, fretting about his girlfriend's boss, his lack of funds, his lack of job and the general lack of respect from everyone and everybody. Problem is when he's this much of a selfish twat, I don't care about him either...a bit of a problem when he's your lead in a $200 million blockbuster.

And then there's the plot. Bay said that the terrible story in Revenge Of The Fallen was down to the fact they shot a rushed first draft script completed just before the writers strike kicked in back in 2008. Dark Of The Moon had no such industrial action inhibiting it's script but the narrative is just as convoluted, just as dumb, just as badly structured and just as confusing as the last sequel. I'm a guy who's proud to say they can follow the plot of Sucker Punch and Inception but an hour into Transformers 3, I just gave up. As usual there's a MacGuffin both the Autobots and the Decepticons want and whoever gets it first rules the world....so I just switched off and waited for the robots to hit each other.

That's where the good news begins. When the action starts...and there isn't much in the first half...so does the movie. This is the best 3D I've seen since Avatar. The extra dimension actually helps you distinguish the mass of pixels from one another, making sure the robots and the backgrounds don't blend into one another as in Transformers 2. Since the 3D has meant Bay has had to slow down the pace of his editing (apparently it takes the eye 3 seconds to process a complex 3D image)the action is much better than in most Michael Bay movies. Characters are easier to distinguish, the geography of the action is much easier to follow and the fact that there's more attention to the quality of the image as opposed to the sheer quantity of edits means the action is much more exciting. And since there's more of Bay's trademark slow-motion on display, the number of ultra-cool slo-mo shots has increased tenfold. Whether it's the burning wreckage of assault helicopters plummeting past parachuting combat troops or a suddenly vehicle less passenger freewheeling through the air above a still occurring freeway pile-up, Bay has managed to turn the restrictions of the 3D technology into a major victory.

The effects are staggering, up there in scale, quality and detail with Roland Emmerich's 2012. The whole skyscraper based action scenes in particular, with our heroes climbing over, through and under a collapsing megastructure is mindboggling and it's stuff like this that Bay proves that he's a master craftsman. Like the first Transformers movie, the objective of the action is made more clear, making the stakes seem higher and the drama more urgent. Setting the carnage in the middle of a western city, rather than the middle of the desert, also helps to engage the audience as the setting is more relatable.

Never have I seen a film so divided within itself. The lack of comprehensible story, universally unlikable (or completely blank) characters, the lack of any major action and the over-the-top, misguided attempts at humour made me want to murder, maim and torture the projectionist to encourage them to make the film stop. And then, a bit later on, I watched with mouth agape, giggling like a 7 year old on Christmas Morning, at the stunning action and imagery I was witnessing.

While I liked large chunks of what I saw in this sequel I'm just glad this is Bay's last Transformers movie.

Murder, Insanity & The American Dream

American Psycho was a controversial movie even before it's release. One because it was deemed unadaptable to a film format, it's sick ultra-violence and dense, descriptive passages were thought to be too much for a conventional film. And it was also expected to be Leonardo DiCaprio's follow up film to his break out success in Titanic. Fortunately not only did director Mary Harron manage to to give us a faithful and rich adaptation, but the part of Patrick Bateman, the psycho of the title, went to upcoming A-lister Christian Bale.

Bale is stunning, still his best work in my mind despite winning turns in The Fighter, The Mechanic, Public Enemies and The Prestige. It's quite a broad performance at times, but it perfectly fits the black comedic tone that director Harron is going for. Bale captures the persona of a man who strives for wealth, status and acceptance and superiority in society, as well as the shallow, moral-free man whose psyche is crumbling beneath the precisely groomed exterior.

Like the book, the film is a critique and parody of the American Dream, exaggerated to the extreme. Greed, consumerism and social and class status are targeted with Harron revealing the underlying madness that awaits us if society continues on this path. At the end Bateman's murder spree is in doubt along with his sanity and even his identity. But it's a commentary on all of us; if we define ourselves by our belongings and our looks, then perhaps we lose our own identity to those superficial personas. Darkly funny, smart and compelling.

Red Dawn Over Oz

Ever since Twilight came out to huge box office and generated an obsessive teen fanbase, Hollywood has attempted to capture lightning in a bottle once again. But no matter how many I Am Number Fours, Red Riding Hoods or Beastlys that they make, they've not been able to recapture the success of that film series (even if they are mind-numbingly boring). It's cool to report that the Australians have been Hollywood to it with Tomorrow - When The War Began, based on the series of teen adventure novels by John Marsden.

The plot is simple...that of 80's action movie Red Dawn. Oz is invaded by an unnamed Asian military menace and a group of teens, camping away from their smalltown Australian community, have to grow up fast and fight back. Considering this is written and directed by the dudious talents of Stuart Beattie, writer of GI:Joe and the first Pirates Of The Caribbean, it's the script that really makes this film special. In virtually every American teen movie I've seen recently the gang of youths have been largly unlikable, prompting me to wish them a swift annd brutal death. But in Tomorrow, the kids are all distinctive, likable, and most importantly humorous. The way they talk and interact with each other is both realistic and fun. They're conflicted and multi-layered and you actually want to spend time with the rag tag group...both before the invasion and after. It even wisely keeps the romantic elements to a minimum, although they are there.

It's shot in an old fashioned kind of way, steadily paced without many irritating modern movie making techniques, and has a couple of well staged action sequences in amoungst the drama. It's not a big scale production by any means, but it's premise is strong enough, it's direction is cinematic enough, and it's great cast of morally questioning characters is riviting enough to make me yearn to see the soon-to-shoot sequel.

Mars Need Moms, Disney Needs Hits

It isn't often these days that you see a major blockbuster flop. If a studio has invested upwards of $150 million in a broadly appealing family adventure, you can rely on the Hollywood marketing machine to work it's magic and dupe an audience into checking it out, whether the film is any good or not. But Disney Animation's Mars Needs Moms bucked the trend and crashed big time. No one was interested. No one came. The tale of a kid who mounts a rescue mission when his Mom is abducted by Martians was ignored.

While it certainly doesn't deserve to be a big hit, it doesn't deserve to be shunned either. It comes from Robert Zemekis' production stable so it has to it's credit that family adventure/Amblin Entertainment feel to it...although not as good as the Amblin classics OR Zemekis's own Monster House production. It looks good, moves at a brisk pace and has a spirited central (mo-capped) performance from Seth Green as the kid.

On the downside it's an all too familiar tale (a kids version of Avatar), it's way too sentimental, Dan Fogler's manchild 'Gribble' is an annoying c*@#, and the performance capture stuff is as creepy as anything in The Polar Express. So while this is one of the biggest flops in recent Disney history, it's not that bad...certainly not in the same league of awfulness as Pirates Of The Caribbean 4.
Go Disney!

July Pick N Mix

Here's an 80's animated He-Man spoof with Irish TV Presenter Terry Wogan...



All the swearing in Pulp Fiction in one concise Supercut...



A not-as-funny-as-it-thinks-it-is but facinating geek discussion on Batman's effectiveness in Gothan City...

Why Batman Is Secretly Terrible for Gotham -- powered by Cracked.com

A trailer for the comedy-buddy version of Game Of Thrones...



And finally, a mash up of Tron Legacy and computer game Angry Birds...

First Class By Name, First Class By Nature

When I saw the new superhero sequel X-Men First Class, I found the question wasn't 'Is the film any good?' but instead, 'How does it compare with X2?' The question of quality is answered pretty quickly with a story that's amongst the very best comic book adaptations yet made for the bigscreen, but it's the nagging thought that the new film is better than Bryan Singer's 2003 X-Men sequel which saw superheros be taken much more seriously than before, balancing character with action with intelligence.

Comparing the two, side by side, it's easy to see Singer's trademark slow editing and the way he directs actors to much more restrained performances than Kick Ass's Matthew Vaughan does, as well as giving his first two X-Men movies a more slow burn, adult thriller tone. And in some scenes Vaughan emulates Singer's style, keeping things mature in tone and grounded with respect to the performances. But he also allows himself to deviate from the established tone to deliver a film broader, not only in narrative scope, but in tone as well.

1/ The film is fun, and much funnier than previous X-Men movies. James McAvoy's Xaviour is far removed from Patrick Stewart's regal portrayal, making him a cocky, lover of the ladies who likes a few drinks down the boozer, and he ensures much of the film doesn't take itself too seriously. The recruitment scene is laced with humour while the naming sequence, as the young recruits choose their superhero names, is almost cartoon like in it's staging.

2/ There's some powerful, iconic or memorable sequences, some dark (Erik's Marathon Man style persuasion of a Swiss Banker), some emotional (Erik's training breakthrough), some dangerous (the outstanding Argentinian revenge sequence), some touching (the Raven/Hank relationship), and some uplifting (Banshee's first flight). And then there's the gobsmacking...Magneto using his newly unlocked powers to raise a submarine from the ocean. In fact, the climax to First Class is one long parade of thrilling moments as the team triumphantly conquer their fears and master their powers.

3/ With the exception of the Wolverine vs Deathstrike fight from X2, the action is much more exciting and more varied than what's come before. Whether it's Erik's attack on villain Sebastian Shaw's yacht, the Hellfire Club's invasion of the Men In Black CIA facility, the Russian mansion raid or the action stuffed finale...the set pieces are dramatic, involving and original.

4/ The cast is superb from top to bottom with Michael Fassbender perfectly complementing McAvoy in a performance that's just as charismatic as his counterpart, but with a determined intensity rather than a posh superiority. In fact, this is the film that finally makes Fassbender deservedly A-list, and the one which clearly dictates that he's the front runner to the James Bond crown when Daniel Craig finally hangs up his hat in a few years.

5/ There's some great cameos from the coolest Hollywood character actors around like James Remar, Michael Ironside and Ray Wise. Plus Rebecca Romjin shows her face for a neat appearance while a certain adamantium touched mutant appears to beautifully deliver the one 'F' bomb you're allowed in a PG-13 release.

6/ The entire cast are wonderful. Jennifer Lawrence exudes a confident sexuality and a hidden vulnerability as a young Mystique, Nicholas Hoult balances his outward geekyness with a simmering frustration of his condition and Kevin Bacon has fun with his playboy super-mutant. January Jones, the ever-gorgeous Rose Byrne and Jason Flemyng get short changed in the running time, but this is really a Professor X and Magneto movie, so their lack of meaty dialogue is understandable.

7/ Style wise this is a very cool movie. The early 60's globetrotting evokes the Connery Bond era, which is echoed in Fassbender's ruthless, Bondian performance. Weaving the plot with the real life events of the Cuban Missile Crisis is inspired. Not only does it add an air of authenticity to proceedings but those events are gripping by themselves...adding a mutant superhero plot just heightens the drama further. The 60's trappings are downplayed for the most part, so it retains a contemporary vibe, much like the Men In Black film series.

8/ The effects work is mostly excellent, especially those provided for the Missile Crisis climax by Peter Jackson's WETA outfit. Others are a little underwhelming, perhaps down to the rushed production schedule, but none as bad as Wolverine's wobbly claws in the disgraceful X-Men Origins feature. There's some retro tunes thrown into the soundtrack, particularly Gnarl's Barkley's hit 'Run' and Henry Jackson's Hans Zimmer-esque score is one of the few recent blockbusters with strong recognisable themes and music cues that work as independent tracks, separate from the film.

Overall this is a fantastic summer blockbuster that has it all; smart, fun, amusing, cool, exciting, thought provoking and touching. It's what summer movies should be all about. For me it ranks alongside X2 as the best X-Men movie (I love the original but X2 trumps it in every way). Singer's film is tonally too different to give it a fair comparison, but as a piece of entertainment it's equally as gripping as X-Men First Class.

Finally, at long last, it's great to be able to say that Twentieth Century Fox have released a great movie. It's their best since Peter Weir's Master & Commander in 2003 (although I Robot, Die Hard 4.0, Borat and of course Avatar, and that's to be commended. Is this the turn to quality we've been hoping for? Possibly. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes looks pretty darned cool and they've got Cameron Crowe's WE Bought A Zoo, James Mangold's Wolverine and Ridley Scott's Prometheus on the horizon. Only time will tell. But one has to remember this is the same studio that's pinning it's hopes on a third Chipmunks sequel this Christmas. We're not out of the woods yet.

Monolithic Sequel

2010, Peter Hyams 1984 sequel to Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001 A Space Odessey, is either a dumbed down, cynical cash in of the original movie, or a clever sequel and intelligent science fiction thriller in it's own right. Being a fan of Hyams work (Capricorn One, Outland, Timecop) I fall into the latter camp.

It's a far more accessable tale than the more art house and profound Kubrick take on author Arthur C Clarke's material, which has as much to do with it's eccectic cast as Hyams assured direction. Roy Scheider might be playing a top scientist but he's been one of the most charismatic and likable leading men in movies (why the hell wasn't he a bigger star?) He's got great support from a cast of character actors as diverse as John Lithgow, Bob Balaban and Helen Mirren as the Russian Cosmonaut Captain.

Although it's a little dated in terms of look (did computer screens really look that huge?) and story (it's has a familar Cold War plotline mimicing the Cuban Missile Crisis) it's an involving narrative that weaves the enigmatic purpose of the Monolith, the mystery concerning the killer natutre of the HAL 9000 computer and the conflicted nature of human society.

As with a Peter Hyams movies it looks a million dollars thanks to some glourious photography by Hyams himself, some realistic yet futuristic set designs and some career best stuff from Richard Edlund's effects house. Yes it might not leave as much of the subtext to the imagination as Kubrick did, but it's still a facintating exploration of the solar system, the nature of God and mankind's place in the universe.