The Amazing Spider-Man

Seems like almost every review I'm writing at the minute is about superheroes, doesn't it? I mean, I'm not going to pretend I'm unhappy about it, because deep down the vast amount of comic book films coming out is slowly leading me to believe that deep down, I may only be one unfortunate accident involving radiation and a random animal (I'll go with griffin, because they're totally not fictional) away from becoming a superhero too. And that's...that's just awesome. But yes, time to look at the next offering from the Marvel cinematic world: The Amazing Spider-Man.

Let's admit it now and get it out of the way, shall we? This summer is all about one superhero, and that is our pointy-headed chum in the Dark Knight series. If not him, then the attention has been all over (and rightly so) The Avengers earlier in the year. Furthermore, the Spider-Man 3 was a great big, steamy pile of Spider-Plop. It crucified an iconic Spidey villain, and decided that the best way to keep people entertained was to make the already slightly irritating Tobey Maguire make faces like this:

Or even worse, we were supposed to feel sympathy for Spider-Man, whilst he pulled faces like this:

So it would be fair to say that the masses had sort of given up on Spider-Man. After all, we now have a fully functional Iron Man, Thor, Incredible Hulk, Captain America and friends to turn to, do we really need to go back to the story we saw unfold just ten years ago? But think about it, the conclusion of Sam Raimi's trilogy killed the franchise, it needed an injection of a little more tongue-in-cheek realism with the wise cracking Spidey we all wanted. Plus, lots and lots of cool "hey look at these amazing new powers" scenes, and less of the "I must be a bit evil now, because I have emo hair". So yes, yes we did need a new Spider-Man, even at the expense of the first two movies, anything to wipe out the memory of the last one will do.

The plot is essentially a re-hashing of the basic Spider-Man origin story, but with a lot more thought put into Peter Parker's parents. Peter is left in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May while his parents mysteriously disappear after the burglary of Richard Parker's study. The Parkers are killed in the plane crash, and neither Peter nor Ben or May know exactly what secret documents they were trying to protect, or who from. All grown up, Peter stumbled upon said documents in a hidden compartment in his father's briefcase and tracks down his dad's former partner, Dr. Curt Connors, who was working on cross-species gene splicing, inspired by the loss of his own right arm. Peter, a brilliant scientific mind, figures out his father's work and offers it to Dr. Connors, but is bitten by one of the gene-spliced spiders bred by Richard: voila, a Spider-Man. The work produces a formula which transforms Connors into the Lizard and rampages follow. It's not exactly The Shawshank Redemption, but it's a good, solid one.

The most notably impressive performance from the cast is of course Spider-Man himself, Andrew Garfield. He simply nails the slight awkward confidence of Peter Parker, and resembles exactly the sort of superhero that inspired the non-superhero in Kickass; wise-cracking and bad-guy catching. Even in moments where all that is required of him is a geeky grin Garfield excels, simply put, the franchise would be more mad than a sackful of Tom Cruises to replace him in any sequels. Then there's Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Peter's love interest. Her character is one of quiet strength, she doesn't tend to actually say that much in the film, but whenever she does, she's relevant and not "THAT WAS A DEFINITE PLOT MOVING DEVICE", which is always good. Furthermore, the chemistry between Stone and Garfield is brilliant and believable, the whole awkward teen thing down to an art. Rhys Ifans plays Dr. Connors/Lizard, and is basically what you expect from him: energetic, fully committed and just a hint of slightly deranged for the perfect can-you-trust-him sort of good guy/bad guy. Unfortunately, his character is a little more obvious, and a you tend to find yourself thinking he only says things that are there to make sure everyone in the audience fully follows what's going on. And of course, there's a good support from the naturally flawless Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben and ever-pleasing Sally Field as Aunt May, just what you'd expect. I know he's been acting for ages now, but I still love seeing Denis Leary turn up on screen, and this time he's Captain George Stacy, head of the police and Gwen's dad, and he does exactly what's needed, and definitely doesn't sing about being an a-hole. Oh, and naturally, Stan Lee has a cameo again, and it hits the mark once more.

All round the effects are very good, if a little guilty of being too inclined towards looking spiffy in 3D. The scenes of Spidey swinging his way through New York are even more impressive than those in the previous films, which, despite the years that have passed, is still an achievement. The Lizard on large is pretty good too, never looking obviously out of place like oh so many CGI monsters in the past, though you can't help but think (as most of the internet now does), that he has an uncanny resemblance to Goomba, from that awful Mario Brothers film...

There is one moment involving Freddie the three-legged lab mouse that unfortunately nearly ruins the credibility of the entire movie, thanks to a mixture of SFX and the actual idea itself. The mouse becomes a tiny version of Dr Connor's new form, and well...it's just ridiculous. Yes it less Peter Parker know what's going on...but I mean...seriously? Okay so maybe I thought about it too much, but it really is a little stupid.

But all in all, that's the only massive complaint I had about the entire film, which is nice, given that I'd already admitted I was prepared for the worst going into it. It's not on the same plane of existence as the recent Batman films, but then again, it's not supposed to be, it's a light-hearted superhero movie with the occasional moments of brooding emotion, not the other way around. And what's much more, it makes you actually struggle to remember that in a previous film Spider-Man fought with becoming Venom by dancing down the street like a pimp...

3.5/5  - I don't really like giving decimal ratings, it's a bit of a cop out, I know. But I'm still torn a little. It's definitely a good film, and it's very much better than probably two of the previous trilogy. Yet there were just a couple of things that grated on me and left it lacking. The aforementioned wobbles with the Connors/Lizard character, and the ridiculous lab mouse scene were negative points, and there seemed to be moments where the flow of the film was disrupted by oddly timed cuts of scenes. However, this is a Spider-Man movie more in the spirit of the comic, and whilst it may not be 100% brilliant, it is a little bit amazing (sorry) in places. Very enjoyable.

P.S.

Stick around after credits! Yours truly forgot it was a Marvel film and didn't observe the rule of "sit till something mysterious has happened".

The Dark Knight Rises

After around eight years in the making, the countless army of Batman fans have the moment they've been waiting for: a culmination to two of the greatest superhero films of all time. Yes, chaps, chappettes and all in between, it's time for The Dark Knight Rises.

Let's not waste any time clarting around here, we all know that Batman Begins was a film of near flawless quality, only surpassed by it's sequel, The Dark Knight. Director and writer Christopher Nolan re-established the dark, brooding feel of the Batman icon we all loved from either the comics, the animated series or Tim Burton's two movies. There is a sense of bizarre plausibility in these films; yes we know the idea of the villains is a little ridiculous, but they aren't beyond the realms of possibility, and it is this closeness to reality which makes the films what they are. They are the perfect mix of reality and faithfulness to the comics without succumbing to the campiness of Joel Schumacher's efforts in the mid-nineties. So we already know that Nolan's third instalment is going to be more of the same, he simply wouldn't have done it if it wouldn't be.

Right, the story - it's pretty damn good. Basically, Bruce Wayne has been living the life of a recluse in Wayne  Manor since allowing Batman to take the flack of the deaths of Harvey Dent and his victims in The Dark Knight. Dent's death allowed the Dent Act to be passed, meaning that Commissioner Gordon was able to keep all the criminals of the city imprisoned in Blackgate with no chance of early release; Gotham has since passed through eight years of relative peace. However, when Gordon is kidnapped and taken to a secret underground city, he discovers that supervillain Bane, a former member of the League of Shadows like Bruce Wayne, is seemingly leading an army to rise against Gotham. Gordon's escape alerts Wayne, who reluctantly makes a return as Batman to confront Bane. And then there's a MASSIVE amount of spoilers, which I may very well discuss in a separate post, as the film is just that interesting; but I stand by not spoiling it for anyone here, as that'd make me want to falcon punch a kitten if the roles were reversed.

I will say it now, just to get it out of the way; there are some plot holes in the story. A notable one being the recovery time of a certain Mr. Wayne at the mid-point of the film. It's nothing short of miraculous, and that's before you even consider the time it then takes him to get back to business in Gotham. However, fortunately, the plot holes that are present in the story are the kind of "mistakes" that you can happily ignore, but the film ultimately runs smoothly despite them, and is still very much enjoyable. And let's be honest, are there really that many stories out there that don't have a "hmmm, that didn't make too much sense, did it?" moment or two?

When it comes to the cast, there is a series of familiar faces that we already know the majority of the character background for. However, pretty much each of these characters have a certain something ectra about them now that eight years passed in storytime. Christian Bale bring an older, wiser Bruce Wayne, although one that can also be a little reckless, due to the pain he still feels for the death of Rachel Dawes. His performance is exactly what you wanted; just him being Batman, because he really is just the man we'll think of as the Caped Crusade for many years to come (you know, unless you really like nipples on your Batsuit). Gary Oldman adds a certain soldier-eager-to-jump-over-the-line quality to Commissioner Gordon, which appropriate represents his uneasiness at the peace running through Gotham. Michael Caine's limited screen time is still a masterclass for anyone wanting to learn the trade, in what must be under 10 minutes of actual face time, Caine displays not only the dry humour we've come to associate with his Alfred character, but also a full on display of sheer sorrow and loss at varying points throughout the film, notably when he is trying to persuade Wayne to keep Batman in retirement. Morgan Freeman is Morgan Freeman again as the Lucius Lox character, and provides much the same as in the previous instalments, which is again pleasing all round. There's even a brilliant cameo for Cillian Murphy as Dr Jonathan "Scarecrow" Crane, quite possibly the best cameo since Bill Murray got reflective in Zombieland.

But of course, we have a couple of new faces to look at this time. The most notable of which is definitely Tom Hardy as Bane. Hardy beefed up an extra 30lbs of pure muscle for the role, he's basically as huge and terrifying as he was in Bronson. Now consider the character of Bane from the comics and cartoon, he is both physically enormous and mentally brilliant; he is definitely not the giant brute of a henchman the hero is used to coming up against. And Hardy conveys this magnificently in his performance. He has to speak through a face mask which gives echoes of Darth Vader sinisterness, but at the same time, he speaks very well and very gently, the physical threat is always imposed by extremely intimidating yet subtle body-language. In short, Hardy is fantastic, and what Nolan did to the character is genius, a slightly altered backstory allows him to fit in perfectly with Nolan's Gotham universe. Then we have Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, who is thankfully never referred to as Catwoman (methinks that would be a tad too cheesey), who as some critic rightly said, comes dangerously close to stealing the show for herself. Hathaway seems to have studied the Kyle character relentlessly, as she talks, walks and fights exactly how we imagine her to, she is the epitome of the reluctant hero, concerned more with stealing for herself than the big picture for others...or is she? It's this hot-cold theme we're so used to with the Catwoman character that runs through Hathaway's performance, and she too is fantastic. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a new character in the series, a plucky cop named John Blake who resembles the young Jim Gordon, and his performance as such does the job needed, perfectly fits into the plot and never gets irritating, despite a large amount of screentime. And, completing the Inception-connection, Marion Cotillard plays Miranda Tate, a powerful business woman who is extremely interested in helping Bruce Wayne's clean energy project and on-off love interest. Again, she does exactly what you'd expect...and then a lot more, she's probably one of the hidden stars of the whole film.

I almost feel I don't need to look into cinematography or effects, as frankly, as we've all seen in the previous two movies, they are faultless. Everything is shot beautifully, and every time any kind of CGI is needed, it is done so well that you sort of forget that a computer will have been used at all. It is this which I believe adds a great strength to the film, as it merges a feeling of comic book style in the gadgets and disasters used, but avoids making them seem ridiculous or out of place. The whole thing runs smoothly.

All-in-all, the film takes you on such a journey that it by climax, you are close to letting out an embarrassing cheer. You're taken through so many emotional points for a great deal of the characters, and you end up sympathising with a surprisingly large amount of them too. And there is definitely a couple of unexpected twists and turns along the way, most of which yours truly genuinely did not see coming right up until they happened. What's more, there are a geek-pleasing amount of nods to the Batman universe, with mentions of Killer Croc being one and SPOILER being another...but less of that for now.

5/5 - There was not a single thing about this film that I did not enjoy. To me, it was everything I expected, and in parts, it even delivered more. Admittedly, I did enjoy The Dark Knight a little more, but honestly, that film would be worthy of a 6/5. As a member of the not at all insane Reddit community described it, I fully expect Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy to enjoy a place in culture that Star Wars has enjoyed. First film: Classic, nothing we've seen before. Second film: Definition of great film making, better than the predecessor. Third film: Amazing conclusion, if a little flawed. This trilogy is arguably the best since Star Wars, and The Dark Knight Rises may well have it's flaws, but it is simply phenomenal.

Potential For Evil - Dark Knight Forgotten Villains

Well, as I am currently tearing my own eyelids off in anticipation of finally getting to see The Dark Knight Rises on Tuesday, I thought I'd have a bit of a musing on the villains Christopher Nolan chose not to utilise in his Dark Knight trilogy. Basically, this is a nerdy "wouldn't it be cool if" kind of affair, so yeah...bail out while you don't think you can stomach such indulgence.

Nolan's take on the Dark Knight universe thrives on the basis that despite how fantastical the villains and eponymous hero may be, they are at least a little feasible. However, some come with a bit of a twist - Harvey Dent would most likely not come down with a sense of injustice and near psychotic levels of a breakdown if he'd been blown half to hell, more than he would instead be left with a serious case of deadness. So, here is where we apply the "superhero" rule; say one outrageous facet of each character becomes accepted as normal, and KAPOW! you've got a Nolan take on a Batman villain.

So who else would have worked? Why would they have worked? Why would they have been a total disaster? Who would we have liked to play them? Allow me to splurge about it for a while.

The Penguin

Why: Imagine, if you will, a faithful to the comics crime lord, holding reign over a syndicate of bookies, clubs and factories in our favourite fallen city. Basically, the Vito Corleone of Gotham; but instead of hmi being of the thuggish Marone ilk, he's all sinister and nearly cartoonishly disfigured with a hunch, hooked nose, is under 5ft tall and has an exceptionally creepy voice. Yep, it'd be pretty awesome.
Why Not: I genuinely though that the Penguin in Tim Burton's Batman Returns was superb. That character, if you toned down the campyness a level, would fit fairly easily into Nolan's version. Therefore, we've already seen it, and there's not much point in doing pretty much the same thing again.
Played By: I'd just stick with DeVito really, the character really was just that good.

Harley Quinn

Why: She could have slotted in right after the capture of The Joker. Cue a rampage of misguided revenge from the unhinged number one fan of Mr. J, possibly leading to a collaboration of the two characters in their quest to crush the Bat.
Why Not: Well there are a couple of problems here. First, on face value of that plot, it was already done in The Dark Knight, there wouldn't really be that much of a point of having Batman face off against the same villain but with a new accomplice. The second problem is obvious, the death of Heath Ledger means that no collaboration is possible, and I would question if the character is strong enough to really hold her own as a lead villain.
Played By: Ellen Page? Forgetting the Nolan connection, she's young enough to play the character, has a good amount of comedy timing and is seemingly open to quirky roles. So just throw in an extra bucketload of crazy and voila, you'd have Harley Quinn. Also, remembering the Nolan connection, almost every actor in Inception has been in at least one of Nolan's Batman films, so there's that.

The Riddler

Why: As enjoyable as I found the film, the Jim Carrey version of the Riddler in Batman Forever was so camp and ridiculous that he wouldn't have worked if the film wasn't as mad as he was. However, I think there'd be a good way of using him as a way of getting the caped crusader to frantically comb the city, looking for the answers to the Riddler's questions before some poor bystanders are blown to bits. And if anyone could come up with something complicated and confusing, it would be Nolan.
Why Not: The boat hostage situation in The Dark Knight means that we've already seen what it'd be like if Batman was faced with a conundrum by one of the supervillains. Also, it'd be in serious danger of running very similar to the plot of Die Hard With A Vengeance, and I'd probably end up waiting for Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson to turn up and put him to rights.
Played By: Now here there are loads of options. Personally, I loved the rumours of Robin Williams for the role when we were speculating on the villains for The Dark Knight Rises, as he can certainly do crazy-creepy very well. There had also been rumours (or, people making stuff up and hoping) of Johnny Depp, Jude Law, David Tennant, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and more being lined up for the role. However, and it once again goes back to a Nolan connection, my personal choice would have to be Guy Pearce. He's flat out spectacular in most things, and has does the off-kilter take on reality before in Memento, would have been a goodun.

Victor Zsasz

Why: Well, as we saw him being released with all the other inmates in Batman Begins (being played by the lead singer of the band James, no less), many of us thought we might see a little more of Mr. Zsasz either later in the movie or later in the franchise, but it never happened. Nolan's Gotham is exceptionally dark and overflowing with a sinister breed of criminals, and not all of them need a super-power type gimic. Zsasz is a serial killer of repulsive proportions, cutting a notch on his body for each of his victims, what could Batman find less useful than a straight forward nutjob murderer tearing through the streets when he's trying to take down the more circusy villains?
Why Not: Things would quite probably run a little too close to a Silence Of The Lambs meets Se7en sort of plot. Also, like Harley Quinn we have to consider if Zsasz would be a strong enough villain to warrant a starring role, or if he'd even keep Batman busy for long enough.
Played By: Jackie Earle Haley would have it nailed on for me. He already has that whole "I don't mean it, but I look a smidge like a serial killer" thing about him, and has shown he can do it with his version of Freddy Krueger in the reboot of A Nightmare On Elm Street.

Honorable Mentions: If they were a little less fantasy, it'd be nice to have seen the likes of Poison Ivy, Clayface or Killer Croc in film as good as the current trilogy. Furthermore, had his story not been so brilliant in Arkham City, Hugo Strange would have been a good watch too. And of course, it would have been amazing if Nolan had given us a way to reclaim Mr. Freeze, blocking out all images of this:

I'm sorry...I'm so, so sorry.

On that horrifying note, I'm off to put on my utility belt and sit perched on top of my bannister, watching over the rotting, crime ridden corners of...my living room.

Until the review of The Dark Knight Rises, thanks for reading.

Snow White and the Huntsman

It's fairly commonly accepted that when someone makes a re-imagining of a fairy tale, what you tend to get is a bit of a beige nothing of a movie which is destined to spent eternity trapped on ITV Saturday afternoon tv slots. Then on the other hand, you have what happens if you try to go too far into a re-imagining...trying too hard to go all Tim Burton or deep and dark, until what you're left with is drivel far too akin to the Twilight mess. So keeping in mind that the title role of this movie is a certain Kristen Stewart and you might understandably have low hopes for this one, the newly imagined, definitely darker Snow White and the Huntsman.

It's a classic story, and anyone who doesn't know it is either too young to be able to watch a DVD without pooping themselves, or too old to remember if they've pooped themselves. But of course, there's a new perspective on this one: the evil Queen Ravenna tricks the recently widowed King Magnus (father of Snow White) into marriage, only to murder him in the marriage bed and assume control of his kingdom. Our Princess is then locked in the highest tower for fifteen years, whilst the youth obsessed Queen literally drains the life out of all young attractive women she can get her hands on. When the famed Magic Mirror reveals that the newly adult Snow White is fairer than the Queen, she sends her brother to kill Snow White, only for the Princess to escape to the Dark Forest. Cue the hiring of Eric the Huntsman to find her, only to have a charge of heart about whether to hand her over or not, and he helps her on her quest to overthrow the evil Queen. Simple? Yeah it's pretty standard stuff, but that's basically all the story needs.

If you're expecting ground breaking performances, you're probably in the wrong place though. Stewart's Snow White a strong-willed but gentle and innocent character, and while you certainly get that impression from the actress, I (and several other punters who left the cinema) simply cannot get over the fact that she barely ever changes her facial expression; so much so that when she does smile, I found it slightly disturbing in unfamiliarity. Not to mention a ridiculously over-the-top English accent to boot. She's not that bad, but she is basically just Kristen Stewart wearing armour and speaking with a daft accent. Chris Hemsworth channels his best Thor accent mixed with a bit of a Braveheart feel as the Huntsman, and he's a character you do feel a little sympathy for, but his history is rushed hastily into the plot, and while you like him, you get the impression it's only because of Hemsworth, and not for what the character has experienced. Charlize Theron is quite probably the most impressive of the cast, as she's simply too many flew over the cuckoo nest as Queen Ravenna; utterly mental but in an intimidating manner, pretty much all that is asked of the role. Kudos too must go to Sam Spruell as Finn, the maniacal, completely detestable brother of the Queen.

Of course, what would a Snow White movie be without the dwarves? Indeed they do show up, and are fairly Lord Of The Rings-y (but we'll be coming back to that) in appearance. Unfortunately, whilst the dwarves add a sense of mischief and are an easy source of comedy for the film, they sway the darkness of the picture almost too much out of focus. Similarly to the Huntsmen, you feel that their backstory is simply a side-issue to the all-important Princess, not to mention it's a bit of a tired one (things were prosperous, Queen arrived, things aren't prosperous any more). There are genuinely enjoyable moments with the dwarves, but the most fun I got out of them was working out who plays them; amongst them we have Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Johnny Harris, Toby Jones, Nick Frost, Eddie Marsan, Brian Gleeson and Ray Winstone, who plays Ray Winstone, but this time in dwarf form.

One thing that this film is extremely guilty of, I must say, is that it seems to take a little too much inspiration from fellow fantasy movies. As previously mentioned, there is a lot of Lord Of The Rings in the appearance of the dwarves, not to mention a near carbon copy shot of small people trekking up mountainous terrain as seen from a helicopter. Another that really stood out was a glaringly similar take from The Never Ending Story, involving a horse and a swamp...tissues at the ready.. And there's more than a little bit of a Willow feel to the later interactions between Snow White, the dwarves and mother nature herself, though it's still fun enough if a little cheesy.

The strength of the film is definitely with the special effects. If you have a scene with Queen Ravenna in it, prepare for something spectacular. The movie goes all out to impress with weird and wonderful magic for the Queen, whether that is in the form of her phantom army and soldiers made entirely from shards of glass; whether it's the manner in which she transforms herself to and from a conspiracy of ravens; or if it is simply the way in which her physical age changes back and forth rapidly throughout the movie. It genuinely surprises me that they didn't attempt to release the movie in 3D, as the effects are already impressive, you can only imagine how much more impressive it may have looked with that bonus lovely dimension.

2/5  - It's enjoyable, and the all round feeling we got was "it's alright". It's better than most fairy tale imaginings, yes, and it's probably not going to be an ITV classic. However, the back stories are all rushed, other than Snow White herself, who is simply not interesting enough. Although it is extremely shiny and fun to look at.

Prometheus

As far as highly-anticipated movie releases go, this year has them by the boat-load. We've seen The Avengers storm box offices, The Hunger Games open up a new franchise, The Muppets made a long awaited comeback, not to mention The Dark Knight Rises and The Amazing Spider-Man and the first part of The Hobbit all due for release later in the year. But the announcement of the first return to science fiction for Sir Ridley Scott since his 1982 masterpiece Blade Runner. We are, of course, talking about Prometheus.

First, let's dispel the first rumour about this movie: it is not a prequel to Scott's other sci-fi great Alien, in the strictest sense of the word. However, it clearly takes place in the same universe as the Alien franchise, and indeed, many references and nods are made to those films, and indeed, I believe this proves to be an original story for the Xenomorph species, however, that is not the focus of this movie. This movie is about the scientific and spiritual pursuit of the origin of mankind - where we come from, and if there is somewhere we go once we're gone - therefore, it is key that you consider we don't actually have those answers before you get frustrated with this film, because otherwise, you might be left a little underwhelmed.

Let's have a quick round-up of the plot, before I try to get all deep and meaningful. A team of archaeologists discover the same pictogram across Earth, thousands of years in age difference, where no communication could have possibly taken place, of humans worshipping alien beings pointing to a specific star. The team interpret this as an invitation to a planet of creators, or Engineers of the human race, and that's where they travel to. After being woken from hyper-sleep by David the android, the team arrive on their destination moon and begin exploring the seemingly abandoned alien structures in search of proof of their makers.

The title of the picture is imperative also, as it refers to the eponymous Greek God, who stole from Zeus in order to aid mortal men - the creation of life. Scott is presenting to us a fantastical perspective of what could have started our existence. The theme runs thickly throughout the movie, whether through the obvious of the creation of the human race on Earth, the sterility of Dr Elizabeth Shaw, the inevitable ageing of Peter Weyland or the android perspective on existence of David. The philosophical aspect of the plot is sheer brilliance, but it can be considered flawed, as, understandably or not, no questions asked by the film are directly answered. Yet consider this; it is while we have nothing but theories on our existence that things remain calm and controlled in the movie, but the moment Dr Shaw's team begin to unravel the mysteries of their creation that everything descends into chaos - the universe makes perfect sense whilst simultaneously being completely insane - there are no simple answers to a simple question.

The cast is pretty superb, and the lack of A-Listers in the key roles immerses you into the crew of Prometheus without instantly knowing who is going to have a gets-the-girl predictable story. Noomi Rapace stars as Dr Shaw, and although I don't particularly want to do it, it's inevitable that this is the first of many mirrors of Alien, as she is the strong, defiant female presence on the ship, a hell of a lot like a certain Miss Ripley. The supporting members of the crew each fill their role perfectly too, whether that's through Logan Marshall-Green's Dr Charlie Holloway or Sean Harris' Fifield, you become somewhat engaged with each who have prominent speaking roles in such a manner that you truly care for what happens to them. Charlize Theron provides a suitably disliked figure of corporate authority as Meredith Vickers, the apparent face of the Weyland Corporation aboard the ship. He's extremely good for his tiny part on screen, but you'll do well to immediately recognise Guy Pearce as Peter Weyland. But if there was a show stealer amongst the cast, it was definitely the consistently impressive Michael Fassbender as David. Even without the prior knowledge of how untrustworthy spaceship androids can be from the Alien franchise, David is both a bizarrely likeable and yet utterly unsettling and sneaky character, particularly for one who is apparently without emotion. Whether it's his uncanny impersonation of Peter O'Toole in Lawrence Of Arabia or his relentless pushing beyond the chain of command in opening pretty much any door he finds in the alien structure, I for one am now entirely convinced that Fassbender is in fact a robot, possibly the first one purpose built for acting.

Visually, the film is absolutely stunning, and whilst I am usually sceptical of the need for 3D cinema releases, Prometheus certainly puts it to amazingly good use. The appearance of the ship (inside and out), the alien buildings, the futuristic technology and even the landscapes are kept extremely simple, but with what I can only call a bit of a space-y feel to them, nothing too ridiculously over the top. And yes, again, the workings of the Prometheus do indeed have more of than a bit of a look of the Nostromo to them. Basically, this is science fiction imagery done correctly.

If I had to pick fault with the film, it is simply that, despite realising that we cannot possibly hope to find out each and every one of the mysteries of our own existence through a film (and that is sort of the point), very few questions really are answered. Not only this, but the frustrating confrontation between the team and the surviving Engineer is a little underwhelming, largely due to the fact that we don't know why he is so determined to wipe out the Earth. However, the ending pretty much screams a sequel, and there is apparently already word that Scott is working on the preliminary procedures for a second film, so you never know. Having said that, and as I stated before, it might be infuriating that you don't get the answers you wanted, but surely that's the point of the film, unless Sir Scott does actually know that we were put here by a race of alien versions of ourselves, of course.

4/5 - Very much enjoyable, deeply unsettling in places and visually spectacular. It might drive you insane, but it's a great ride whilst doing so. The movie stands strongly by itself, but features a great deal of references to the Alien franchise, which fans will love. Disappointing only in that it left me wanting to see more, which I suppose is also sort of a good thing. Go see it!

P.S.

You barely have to wait for it, but stick around after the final fade to black...

Men In Black 3

Well here's something I genuinely did not expect to see, and it's something that I even denounced in my post of which films we'd be looking forward to coming out this year. Yep, after the horrendous second instalment of the franchise had seemingly killed off the whole idea, it was time for the third outing for Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in Men In Black 3.

Let's be honest, if you, like me and many thousands of others like me loved the original film, you were more than a little disappointed with what a hatchet job was made of the sequel. Men In Black 2 has become one of those films you fully expect to see turning up on ITV3 at least once a month, swapping places with The Scorpion King and Van Helsing as a throwaway piece of filler material on an otherwise program-less channel. The spirit of Men In Black was completely lost, no quirky mystery, smart if slightly simple jokes were traded for cheesy gags and product placement was king. But remember, when Men In Black was first released, it was so unlike a majority of films of the time, it had that sense of coolness about it, and was a refreshing display of how to make family-friendly, fun and, most importantly, good science fiction movie. So whilst we weren't expecting much of this third film, a lot rested on the shoulders of director Barry Sonnenfeld, who was responsible for both previous offerings.

Quick, spoiler-free plot summary, as is standard: extremely dangerous criminal Boris The Animal (Jermaine Clement) escapes from prison on the moon and heads to Earth to seek revenge on the man who locked him up in 1969 - Agent K (Jones); Boris travels back in time and kills K, leading Agent J (Smith) to head back to 1969 to stop Boris and save his younger partner - played by Josh Brolin. Got it? It's actually quite a well-worked plot, and given how dangerous time travel stories can be to a movie (see Star Trek Generations or Back To The Future sequels), it sticks with minimal plot holes. Don't get me wrong, there are a couple, but each are largely addressed later in the film...so you'll just have to trust me on this one, because I'm not spoiling it for you. There's a very nice cyclical feel to the story, as the first film saw K training J, and being saved in the process, the second film saw K saving the day, this time they're saving each other, and bring the franchise to a very nice, totally worked out point.

For the entire movie, we, like Agent J are constantly asking what the major event that triggered Agent K's trademark sourfaced, emotionless look on life, which seemed to commence on one fateful day in 1969. Naturally, this is the climactic scene of the film, and believe me, it's a goodun. It's a twist for sure, and you're not necessarily likely to see it coming until seconds before it happens, but it provides an extremely well-thought out sense of meaning to all three films, and will add a particularly pleasing peace of sentimental value for fans of the first release. But you'll have to go see it for yourself...

The comedy aspect has been kept totally intact this time round, and the chemistry between J and K is definitely back to the original level. However, this is slightly more impressive, given that the Agent K we see on screen for the majority of the film is Brolin, not Jones. It is Brolin who steals the show here, his impression of Tommy Lee Jones is frighteningly accurate, but is more importantly faithful to the K character, whilst also recognising that he is a more expressive version of the Agent. There are some funny and some touching moments between Brolin and Smith as their characters explore the unfamiliar versions of each other, and we're certainly allowed to enjoy every minute of it. With Will Smith, you know exactly what you're going to get if it's a comedy-happy role, and he is essentially exactly the same as he is in the first two films, but with the occasional nod to the added 14-odd years of experience added to his belt. Similarly, Jones gives an as-you-were performance, but with a note of sadness, which is key to the story...spoiler, no more, sorry! There are pleasing little appearances from Emma Thompson as Agent O (replacing Agent Z as the head of the MIB), and Michael Stuhlbarg as a multi-dimensional being - both adding a sense of warmth to the film, whilst the latter in particular is also an integral piece of the plot. Serious respect needs to go to Jermaine Clement also, in his performance as Boris The Animal; whilst his appearance is greatly aided by impressive - and occasionally skin-crawling - CGI, the extremely bizarre vocal display is fantastic, and truly in the mould of previous MIB villain, Edgar the Bug. Watch out for cameo roles from Bill Hader and Will Arnett too, as well as a host of pleasing references to the previous films, especially ones involving a certain four-legged furry agent.

If there's one criticism I can throw at any member of the cast, it's to Nicole Scherzinger, who "plays" Lily, the unfortunate girlfriend of Boris. Given that she is only on screen for about 60 seconds, and speaks no more than five times, it's remarkable that someone can turn in such an unconvincing performance to a role; exactly how do you manage to overact with less than 30 words to your role? Her appearance had me fearing the worst for the movie, as she was all too similar to the Serleena character from MIB II, but thankfully her role is cut very short, in what I'd like to feel is the writers way of saying "we're sorry for the last film, here's more of what you actually wanted." And they delivered.

The effects? What did you expect? They're fantastic again, and each alien you see on screen is either brilliantly original, or tipping the hat to sci-fi films of the past. But once more, the focus here is on Boris The Alien; whoever dreamt up the appearance of this guy is either seriously skilled at what he does, or seriously messed up, as the end product is amazing.

4/5  - I concede defeat. I thought this would be a wimper of a movie, but it certainly proved me wrong. The fun and cleverness is back in the franchise. The story is brilliant and well presented, even moving in places. Should the franchise continue? If they do, they've set themselves back on the right path, if they don't, they've ended it on a much stronger footing. We finally have the sequel the original deserved.

If you want a fun movie experience, go see it.

Dark Shadows

What have we been missing so far this year? A slightly spooky, with a hint of gothicism and extremely colourful film release with a cast of extremely familiar actors? Well then, I guess it's time for a rummage around of the spooky, gothic-y, eye-gogglingly colourful world of Tim Burton.

Indeed (probably the most used word in the film right there), it is time for the give-or-take bi-annual traditional Tim Burton/Johnny Depp collaboration of the weird and wonderful that we've become very much used to in the last decade. Again, the pair have worked together to create a re-imagining of a previous production, in the mould of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd and Alice In Wonderland, Dark Shadows is the re-working of a cult American 60s-70s gothic horror soap opera of the same name. So you all know basically what to expect, right? Some whimsical opening sequence with lots of swirls and skeletons and whatnot, or perhaps a trippy hallucinogenic intro to the story? Actually no, this time we're just thrown right in there, for a quick ten minute round up of Depp's character, Barnabas Collins, who moves from Liverpool to Maine in 1760, grows up, spurns the love of a witch, who then kills his parents, his lover, curses him to the existence of a vampire and buries him in a chained coffin for nearly 200 years. Got it? Spiffing.

The concept of the film is fairly simple; set in the 1970s, the current Collins resident at the family estate are on hard times, as their fishing industry is falling to the shallow waters of a local competitor, upon Barnabas' escape, he wishes to rejoin the family and help them escape their plight. The bumps along the road to success are equally as simple to breakdown, because I don't know about you, but the witch who cursed Barnabas looks an awful lot like the owner of the company running the Collins' into the ground, don't you think? So cue a rivalry between main attractions, Depp and Eva Green.

A huge piece of the enjoyment you get from the film stems from the charm of the first hour or so of Barnabas' attempts at grappling with the cultural changes of nearly two centuries. There's a lot to be said for the comic timing and delivery of Mr Depp, with particular favourite moments of mine coming through the mixture of 18th century dialect thrown into 20th century living. You know what you're going to get with Depp, and yes, his accent is basically just a Ichabod Crane-Jack Sparrow-Sweeney Todd mash-up, but there's a nice vampirey twang to it now as well. Furthermore, there is great chemistry between he and Green, who manages to be both genuinely funny and loathsome at the same time, sort of a Burtonified version of Annie Wilkes from Misery.

Of course, what would a Tim Burton movie be without the Tim Burton cast? Not only do we have Depp in the lead role, but we have another staple of the Burton tradition, Helena Bonham Carter starring as the funny, slightly unhinged supporting role; this time she is Dr Julia Hoffman, an alcoholic psychiatrist determined to stay young for as long as possible, who develops something of an unhealthy fascination with Barnabas. And yes, you know she's going to be good at the role, because she's done it a good few times, but it's still enjoyable stuff. Michelle Pfeiffer is also back in a Burton movie, this time as the current Collins matriarch, Elizabeth Collins Stoddard. In all honesty, her character is barely developed at any point in the film, despite featuring an awful lot - Pfeiffer does a decent job of making you half-remember a character who is almost totally forgotten in the overall plot of things. There's even a cameo for lord of all that is silver screen, Sir Christopher Lee, who I'm beginning to think might actually be evil now, and not acting, he's been doing it so long - you don't need me to tell you if he's any good, he's Christopher DRACULA SARUMAN SUMMERISLE Lee. Honourable mentions should also go to Jackie Earle Haley as Willie Loomis, the slightly dim-witted caretaker, who gives a funny, if a little cheesy-in-places supporting performance, and future headliner Chloe Grace Moretz, who gives a brilliant and almost unnerving showing of weirdy teenage angst in the form of sister Carolyn Stoddard.

As is the standard of a Burton movie, this one looks spectacular. Every scene uses colour to perfect effect; it's just the right kind of dark and weird for the spooky scenes, and it's the exact purple and hippy for the full-on 1970s snapshots. The effects are pretty good too, particularly the climactic sequence between Depp and Green, where the latter's skin takes on an egg-shell quality. The music used is very cleverly done too, capturing the 70s feel in a fitting manner, but definitely through the eyes of Burton, with contributions from the likes of Iggy Pop and The Moody Blues; and naturally, Danny Elfman is the man behind another Burton score.

However, the film just seems to lack some final special quality. Yes, it's entertaining enough, but by the time the final half an hour of the film kicks into action, you begin to realise that the story is extremely condensed in places. As mentioned, Pfeiffer's character fades into the background disappointingly; much is initially made of the want-away low-life dad Roger Collins, before he too (and quite literally) leaves the story altogether; and the climax of the movie just seems to throw in some quirks for two minutes of screen time to the characters that will have assumingly been present in the original series. It all just seems a little rushed after a promising start. It would appear that Burton wanted to make an homage to a show he loved, had fun with the comedy aspects of the set-up, but seemed to lose control of direction towards the end. I hate to say it, as I'm a huge fan of some of his work, but this is becoming something of a trend in Burton's films, particularly those with Depp involved, as I felt, Sweeney Todd, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice In Wonderland and Corpse Bride all suffered from the same exact same symptoms.

2/5 - You'll seriously enjoy the first half of the film, you really will. However, a growing sense of cheesiness, bordering on laziness and same-old-Burton-story seems to creep up on you. Strange, not a total disaster, but it could have been so much better.