Jurassic World Review

Like many, I was probably too young to watch Jurassic Park on first viewing. It wasn't the raptors in the kitchen which scared me, it was the dilophosaurus exploding at Newman, then spitting venom at him and then eating him in the car which disturbed and horrified me unlike anything I saw before it.

But like all kids, being scared is the ultimate form of entertainment and that's one of the reasons why Spielberg's masterpiece is still revered today. That and the groundbreaking special effects which even today look superb no matter how many times you think rose-tinted glasses play a role in it.

Jurassic Park never got the sequel it deserved. The Lost World: Jurassic Park was a mess which saw Jeff Goldblum return to try and save another island's free roaming beasts from an evil corporation which ends on a forty minute epilogue in San Diego which, even as a youngster, felt like padding.

Jurassic Park III in the meanwhile tried to streamline and make a simple rescue mission. What we got was an annoying female lead, special effects that looked better a decade earlier and non-inspiring set-pieces which, for intents and purposes killed the franchise stone dead for over a decade.

Thankfully, in an era of superhero movies, no ideas and nostalgia and much like the resurrected dinosaurs, life finds a way and the series is back; bigger, brighter and possibly...better than ever?

The Dark Knight Rises Review

With the amount of hype going into Christopher Nolan's final Batman movie, it's easy to loose yourself or easy to think that there's absolutely no way the film can live up to expectation and that the benchmark has been set too high.

You also have to consider that, with The Dark Knight Rises being the third and final piece of a trilogy and that in many instances; it all goes to pot. Heck, as mentioned in the Toy Story 3 review; film trilogies very rarely work, that the time is prime for unusual plot developments, recycling previous themes and failing to increase the escalation of the film's before it.

The Amazing Spider-Man - Review

I wasn't really looking toward to this movie, something didn't quite click with me during the build up, maybe it's the very widespread opinion that’s it's too soon for a reboot?? Quite possibly. But with the new franchise brings a new story, I’ve read far too many comic books to poo-poo this movie so I saw it and golly did I enjoy it!

A few words on…. Men in Black 3

The third film in a franchise, only so few have been decent, is Men in Black 3 any good or is it another cash in from the now creative-less world that is Hollywood now?

The Avengers Review

Reaching the end of The Avengers (or Marvel’s Avengers Assemble for us apparently easily confused brits), it finally dawned on me why Josh Whedon was put at the helm rather than say; a director with more summer blockbuster experience than the guy who directed Serenity.

Heck, someone who directed one of the five movies that have led us to this huge team-up would have been the logical choice. But, like the medium this film is adapted from; logic goes out the window or, so it seemed, because there is method in the studio’s madness and that is;

A look back at a Christmas classic: Batman Returns (1992) and the dreaded question: “Why Burton... WHY?!”

I’m a Batman fan boy, I might not be as intense as some of the other fan boys out there but I do own and sometimes wear themed clothing so were talking real deal here...

I can, from the POV of a loyal Batman fan, tell people why Batman Returns is one of the worst comic book movies ever made and no… it’s not worse than Batman & Robin but it’s not far off.

Batman Returns for some strange reason has been on TV a lot recently, and being the fan boy that I am I’ve watched it a few times, I don’t really like it but it’s the small gems that ARE in the movie that make it at least tolerable, although I am close to switching the abomination off most of the time.

So, I will explain why in my opinion this film is awful and why I now just can’t stand Tim Burton’s movies. I won’t just trash it; I will highlight the parts that make it watchable in my opinion, the saving graces if you like…

These are in no particular order.

The Bad

1.      Batman kills people and smiles about it.

Tim Burton has always admitted that he didn’t have a lot of time for the Batman comics, and when it comes to Batman’s combat and attitudes towards death in BOTH his movies you can see that plain as day. Batman doesn’t kill people, it’s his ONLY RULE. The Nolan’s used this and it done wonders for the characterisation of Wayne/Batman in their movies. The examples that really annoy me in Returns are when Batman throws a bomb at a gang member, I mean Christ?! It’s only made worse by the big fat grin on his face as the thug realises and is shoved into a sewer to explode. He also sets another member of the Red Circus gang on fire using the Bat mobile, he means to do this, he wants to do this, it’s so un-batman-like its untrue and shows a complete lack of respect for the character.

It’s just not Batman, it’s not the action of a “hero” out avenging the DEATH of his parents to go and kill the scum he vowed to defeat to prevent similar crimes from happening.

It’s there to see in Batman (89) too, it makes me cringe when you see him throw a guy off the top floor of a f*cking bell tower to his death, not to mention the way its implied that Batman drops Napier into the chemicals on purpose (thats how I saw it anyway) but I’m talking about Returns here not 89.

Not to defend Burton but Batman in the 30’s and early 40’s did kill people, in fact he has hung guys from his plane, used machine guns and beaten people to death, even had a few puns for them too. It wasn’t until his character and back-story was further established that the whole no-killing rule came into place, but Burton didn’t cite the early comics for his murderous Batman, in fact he barely used the comics at all for his characterization of Batman.

2.      The Penguin 

The Penguin in the comics is a savvy, clever business man who is always found wearing a Tux, who utters some odd noises and has a nose that resembles a Penguin; therefore he was teased as a child and branded… The Penguin. Tim Burton thought that was too normal so he decided to make his adaptation of the Penguin… an actual mutated Penguin humanoid, dumped into the sewers by his ashamed parents (seriously is it implied that the mum f*cked a Penguin?! how else does that mutation happen?!) and left to die, only to be saved… by a bunch of bloody penguins, who I assume taught him how to be… a Penguin.

Danny Devito was a great casting choice for the role, as a Penguin humanoid he does a fun job but this abomination IS NOT THE PENGUIN. Worse still is how he is portrayed as sex starved, pervert, especially during the interactions between him and Catwoman but I’ll get to that.

It’s clear that Burton or someone else split the Penguin into two characters as Walken’s Max Shreck is a savvy evil businessman after power and Devito’s... thing is a person who looks and acts like an actual Penguin. How Shreck manipulates The Penguin is also embarrassing, the scene when he lures him with a piece of fish makes me want to kick my TV in every time, not to mention the way he eats it and then bites that dudes nose after touching up that woman’s boobs. That whole scene to me is enough evidence that the Penguins character was a joke.

The actual style of Burtons Penguin is interesting but just too much, he looks like a monster, he’s skin is a shade of grey and he looks like he gets no sleep. He is so rounded and bulbous that they made a rather round fellow such as Devito wear a f*cking fat suit. The Gothic, Victorian looking Tux he wears for about 45 minutes of the film is rather good I thought but he should be wearing it for the whole film, the other 90 minutes of the film he’s wearing a pair of f*cking white stained pyjamas!

Oh and the green blood/goo coming out of his mouth at the end, is he really supposed to be a mutant? Because it sure looks like they want you to think that, what with his f*cking flipper hands and green blood whilst emerging from the water, it's like the reveal shot from a 50's B-Movie...  The Monster from the Green Lagoon.

3.      “Just the Pussy I’m looking for!”

Words don’t describe how much this one line infuriates me, not only is it completely out of character it’s just plain wrong. Don’t get me wrong, the more adult orientated themes in Burtons films are good, comic books haven’t been aimed at Children since the success of Frank Millers The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen in the 80’s but lines like this are just plain stupid.

4.      Max Shreck

Now this could be both good and bad, because Christopher Walken is a great actor who plays the part well, he doesn’t change up his normal acting style but that’s Walken for you. My gripe with Shreck is they split the Pengiuns character, they went with the mutated penguin man with Devito and put all the savvy evil businessman in Shreck, they also needed someone to aid in their new “origin” for Catwoman but that’s the next point.

Shreck is ok, he has some good scenes and some good lines but he could easily have just been put into the Penguin to make him more interesting and true to the character.

Also, pointing to the plot, why would Shreck put all his effort into getting an ugly little fat bloke the new Mayor of Gotham, I can understand the whole sympathetic vote and the whole press thing with him rescuing the baby in the sewer but did Burton really think that was a good plot point? Or was it just enough to get us to the next part of the “story”.

5.      Catwoman’s Origin and Demise

Let’s get one thing straight right away, I LOVE Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman, she is nothing short of awesome and easily my favourite part of the movie. However, there are still some glaring problems, her origin is somewhat f*cked up and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Selina Kyle is a ditsy personal assistant to Shreck, who finds out some dodgy info that could destroy him, so he throws her out of a very, VERY high window, she survives and is then shown to be resurrected by 20 ally cats, who took time out of their busy screwing and fighting agenda to help a dying woman with their death defying powers. She then proceeds to stagger home, to her tragic, single woman’s apartment where she drinks milk in an odd way and makes her new awesome costume. The whole transformation scene is so dark and tragic, it’s a good scene but in a Batman movie? Christ, it’s something you would see in an uncomfortable tragedy. The music, the wailing, the destroying of her previous life, it’s all so sad.

Why did they need to have Kyle pretty much killed and then brought back to life with cat-power to make her the confident jewel thief that we all love in the comics? And why does she decide to go rob stuff instead of getting revenge on Shreck straight away? What’s her goal? What’s her purpose in the film apart from adding sex appeal, a sorta’ love interest for Bruce and giving Burton yet another tragic story for one of his characters?

The scene with Penguin is also complete bollocks, not only are we subjected to constant sexual puns involving the word "pussy" and lube we also have to watch her “clean herself” like a cat and then attempt to eat a f*cking bird… Tim, Catwoman is called that because she’s a cat burglar, why can’t you understand that she doesn’t need to be a f*cking cat?! and The Penguin doesn’t need f*cking flippers?! ARRRGGHHHHH.

Her demise is somewhat uncomfortable. It fits perfectly into Burtons twisted Gotham and it mirrors her origin somewhat but its too odd and out of character, then again Burtons Catwoman is a mentally unhinged but newly confident jewel thief / terrorist / eater of canaries so anything is game I suppose. Watching her lose the rest of her cat-lives is a powerful and it ends with a big bang but it’s too sad and dark, these films should end with heroics not tragedy and sadness.

6.      The Plot (or lack there of)

What is the plot of Returns? We start off with Penguin wanting respect, Shreck wanting power and using Penguin (for some strange reason) to gain that power through sympathy, then Penguin doesn’t want to be mayor, then wants to kill Batman, then he decides he wants to be Moses and kill the first born sons of Gotham because he’s parents didn’t want a mutant baby, intertwined with Catwoman stealing stuff and blackmailing Shreck instead of murdering the bastard.

It’s all so bitty, Shreck goes missing after the botched Mayoral attempt and then is shoehorned into the end as Penguin seeks revenge and so we can have the Catwoman reveal and an end to their story whilst Bruce just stands around in Penguins lair. It’s a Batman movie, why isn’t he the centre of attention.

What is Batman part in all this? Not much, he barely has much story except for he is the guy who’s suspicious of Shreck and Penguin, even trusty old Alfred doesn’t buy into Bruce’s suspicions. Most of the time Batman is just the guy who drops in to add a bit of action, he’s portrayal kinda’ reminds me of Nemesis in the Resident Evil games, when the story needs a bit of action lets drop the Bat in and get pulses going for a bit.

There’s no challenge for Batman, in Batman (89) the Joker was a formidable opponent, in Forever he has two villains who can put up a fight, even in Batman & Robin the villains POSE A THREAT (they do… THEY DO!) but what does the Penguin really do? He tries to kill Batman by bugging his car and has a few machine gun umbrellas, oh and an army of Penguins with rockets.

It’s a Batman film where Batman plays a secondary, probably even tertiary character, he doesn’t drive the plot, he’s just a spectator who drops by to tell the naughty people off every now and then. Returns is style over substance x 100000000.

The Good

1.      Cinematography & Atmosphere

If there’s one thing that Burton did well across both of his films is his Gotham, a very old fashioned but modern feel, which sounds as confusing as it looks but it just works. Returns is set at Christmas so Gotham is covered in snow and ice, everything is Black and White and it just looks great and it seems we will have a similar style in The Dark Knight Rises in the Summer.

Another thing I love in Returns and 89 is the use of the Bat Signal, when it shines up in the sky and Keaton’s Wayne immediately reacts, its awesome, it’s Batman and its done to perfection. It’s somewhat cartoony but if I had a gripe with Nolan’s recent films it’s the under-use of the Bat Signal, and even when it’s used it’s just a smudge in the sky.

I can (and do) moan about how its too dark and too tragic but it DOES work in a Batman film, if there is a comic book hero where this theme works its Batman, yes its overdone and yes its too dark and sad at times but Batman films need to have some darkness and mood, that’s where Forever and B&R fell down and its one of Returns defining features, when it doesn’t make you want to cry that is.

2.      Michael Keaton

I’ve always thought that Michael Keaton was and is still the best Bruce Wayne. His version of the character is fantastic, the scenes when he is sitting in the chair of his den or the cave and he is thinking things over are done brilliantly and you feel this is a man tormented by his tragic life without his parents.

As Batman Keaton is ok, not great and not exactly bad, he wasn’t given the script to be a real Batman, his performance in Batman 89 was far more action packed and he did a great job, in Returns he is somewhat diluted, there are some decent action sequences and fist fights but as I mentioned before Batman in the backseat for this movie, Keaton did a good job with the tools he was given.

3.      Catwoman & Batman (Bruce & Selina)

I’ve always loved how in the comics there is always a massive emotional tension between the Bat and Cat, whether it’s flirting, kissing and nearly forming a real relationship (Hush) or full on crotch grabbing (The Long Halloween) it’s always good interaction.

Their rooftop meetings are good in Returns, Catwomans “meow” followed by the explosion in front of Penguin and Batman is a classic scene, it’s a great scene and probably up there as the best in the film.

What is done well in Returns is Catwomans “is she good or is she bad” character development, when she is Selina and in the presence of Bruce she wants to be good and have a relationship with him but due to her new life as Catwoman she doesn’t feel that’s possible. Of course this is the same with Bruce, same as Batman 89 where he grapples with the thought of a relationship with Vicky Vale and his duty as Batman, both actors give realistic and emotionally confused performances and it helps the film.

The scene in Penguins lair at the end when Bruce rips off his cowl and reveals himself as Batman, after he realises that Selina is Catwoman is a powerful scene, offering her the chance for them both to leave their double lives and start fresh for it to mean nothing, it makes the apparent demise of Catwoman even more tragic (which it didn’t bloody need!)

4.      The Ending

I love the ending of Batman Returns, after all the guff in Penguins lair, after all that’s done with and Batman escapes the crumbling ruins and the Penguins have taken their leader off into the sewers to give him... a traditional penguin burial? F*ck knows but when Bruce is being driven by Alfred and he thinks he sees Catwoman in the alleyway, only to find a cat which he takes back to the car with him, Bruce and Alfred exchange Christmas greetings and it’s just... nice!

The music, the cinematography, the acting by Keaton makes his final scene good, even better is the Bat signal going up in the skies of Gotham, Danny Elfmans EPIC tune going full blast and then Catwoman looks up at it in the sky, revealing she survived her electric snog with Shreck and of course leading to the development hell of the Catwoman spin off movie that ended with the abomination that was released with Halle Berry at the helm.

I think that’s enough, this is long enough already but I could probably go on and on, I don’t want to be a moaning fan boy, but that’s exactly what I am and that’s what we do.

It’s only because I am a huge fan of Batman that I get annoyed by the film, it’s common knowledge amongst friends that bringing this film up when out will lead to me lecturing someone on Batman, they don’t want to hear it and I’m getting tired of speaking about it! So lets call this therapy.

Do I own this on DVD? Yes, If I'm channel surfing and its on will I watch? Likely yes. I was too young to see this film at the cinema when it was released, but if it was released in this modern age I probably would have seen it a few times. I suppose that speaks volumes about my fan boyism of all things Batman, hell I saw Batman & Robin 3 times at the cinema, but I blame inexperience and my parents for that...

Batman Returns is a poor film, I don’t rate it much higher than Batman & Robin, I never felt that B&R took itself seriously and I always watched it as a homage to the 60’s television series more than a serious Batman film, I still think that’s pretty obvious.

I suppose it’s a film I love to hate, I don’t want to come across as though I know everything (although I bloody do...) this piece is merely my opinion on why it’s shit. I did try focus on its plus points so at least I'm a fair fanboy.. sort of.

R

Drive - Review

Drive (18)





Drive is my surprise of the year. This review may sound like I’m gushing but I absolutely loved this film, so much so that I will overlook its flaws (only a few in my opinion) because of how awesome it was.

This is probably going to be the easiest yet most stylish character that Ryan Gosling has played, but he plays his character, who has no name and simply goes by the moniker of “Driver” or “The Driver” ruthlessly and full of aggression and with obvious deep psychological issues.

This film is all about style, the direction is superb and it is accompanied by one of the best movie soundtracks I have ever heard, I immediately purchased the OST when I got home from the cinema, it adds to the moody, often dark atmosphere the film has, but also enhances the more light, somewhat 80’s feel the film also has.

The film follows Goslings Driver, a quiet man who does stunt driving and mechanic work for a living but moonlights as a getaway driver for hire at night. The character has an extremely quiet nature and that’s why the aggression and violence come as such a surprise. Cary Mulligan plays our Drivers (sorta’) love interest Irene, living down the hall with her young son, Driver takes a big interest and the more time spent with his neighbours the bigger their relationship becomes. It’s when Irene’s husband Standard (played by Oscar Isaac) returns from prison when the films main storyline kicks into gear and well, the shit hits the fan.



I mentioned the violence earlier, the film does get very violent and the films very laid back and quiet atmosphere enhances the violence. The film doesn’t go too over the top with it either, I would say there are around 4-5 scenes that are pretty bloody, some of which is absolutely BRUTAL and you will know the scene I am talking about if you have seen the movie or have friends who have blabbed on about it.

The acting is superb, the supporting cast (that features a favourite of mine Bryan Cranston) all pitch in to make this a memorable movie. The bad guys are all typical bad guy caricatures, the kind of villain that you WANT to see maimed in some way. Our two main bad guys played by Albert Brooks (Voice of Hank Scorpio from the Simpsons… haha) and Ron Pearlman are both excellent in their roles.

I mentioned some flaws and I really mean it when I say I couldn’t really care less about them because the films style just sucked me in. If I had to say I would say there isn’t enough driving in the movie, when it happens it’s pretty cool and full of suspense but for a film called “Drive” it was lacking. I would also say that when the big turning point in the film happens the story isn’t explained as well as it could have been, it’s easy enough to follow but there are a few things that could have done with a bit more focus.

This film has both style and substance, I have actually high fived people who have also seen it and also share by enthusiasm for this film, they also downloaded the soundtrack straight away too, co-incidence I think not. You need to see this film if you haven’t already, just don’t let kids see it, unless you are similar parents to mine who let me watch Robocop when I was 8, ah memories.

9/10 – My Film of the Year (so far…)

R

Warrior - Review

Warrior (12a)

Mixed Martial Arts is the fastest growing sport in the world, well according to them it is, I’ve been a fan for nearly 5 years now and I think they’re right. Now that a big Hollywood (ish...) movie featuring the sport has been released it’s hard not to agree.

Warrior gives MMA what the Rocky movies did for Boxing, not that Boxing needed the Rocky movies but they certainly helped put the sport into more homes, that’s what Warrior will do for MMA, and like the Rocky movies (well…1, 2 & 4) it is a cracking film.

The film takes place mainly in Pittsburgh, Tommy (Tom Hardy) goes home to visit his ex alcoholic Father (Nick Nolte) after a stint with the Marines in the Middle East, his brother Brendan (Joel Edgerton) is a high school physics teacher and lives across town with his wife and children battling against bankruptcy. To say they have family issues would be a huge understatement, the films main drive is the huge fracture between the 3 men. A very depressing childhood gives our main characters their emotions and conflict that make this not an MMA film, but a drama that uses MMA as its stage. It isn’t just their family issues that drive the film, they each have their own demons and problems too, this film is so emotionally supercharged.

I won’t go into Spoilers like my friend on this blog likes to do but both Brothers end up in the biggest MMA Grand Prix tournament ever in Atlantic City and of course they are headed towards each other in a blockbuster finale, if you’ve seen the trailers this isn’t news to you.



Few things stand out in this movie for me, as I said I am a huge fan of MMA, the sport is very well represented, unlike Boxing in the Rocky movies (The Fighter on the other hand does a great job, but I digress…). We are shown a variety of techniques that you would find in any MMA fight. Tommy likes to Box and Wrestle whereas Brendan is a BJJ submission specialist, the moves are very well done and you can see that they had some top MMA guys helping out. The film has also borrowed the UFC model of production and the cage is very much inspired by the UFC’s Octagon. There are some very good cameos from the world of MMA; Anthony ‘Rumble’ Johnson makes an appearance as does Nate Marquardt. However, the best cameo comes from Kurt Angle who plays the elite mute Russian fighter Koba (an obvious nod to MMA legend Fedor).

Warrior has corn a’ plenty, it also has great acting, great action and pacing. I went into the film expecting to like it and I walked out feeling that way, I was not disappointed and the last scene really does finish the film off perfectly. Tom Hardy is fast becoming a Hollywood star and one of the main reasons I was interested in this film. Seeing how he acts and looks as a bulked up aggressive force due to him being cast as Bane for next years Batman 3. I expect more Batfans did the same and all I can say is he’s performance added to my hype for that movie as he is an absolute BEAST, basically Batman is screwed.

7.5/10

R

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part Two Review

Lets get this out of the way; reviewing Harry Potter is as useless as a chocolate teapot because lets face it, you’re either in Camp A: The large, vocal and rabid fanbase whose admiration for Harry and chums can range from playful fanboyism to the terrifying depths and depravity of slash fiction authors.

Or you’re in Camp B: People who sneer and roll their eyes at the thought of the most successful series of books for the past twenty years being the mind-numbingly simple yet overwrought tale of good versus evil which has somehow been accepted into the world of adult adulation and said books have now also become the highest grossing film series of all time.

But avoiding the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part Two is avoiding the proverbial elephant in the room. It is, as mentioned earlier, the highest grossing film series ever and yes, I not only have seen each film (in a marathon session with the missus prior to this review), I fount them to be relatively decent (despite only reading half of Prisoner of Azkaban as a youngster and being bored to tears).

And it slightly pains me to say this but; Deathly Hallows Part Two is the best summer blockbuster of 2011.

Beginning immediately after the events of Part One, Part Two continues Harry, Ron and Hermione’s quest to destroy Voldemort’s splintered soul and save the wizard and real world from his evil clutches. That’s the film’s plot in its simplest terms but obviously for the sake of time, I’m not going to explain how Daniel Radcliffe’s seven year education at Boarding School and Ralph Fiennes and co wanting to take over the world tie together (tl:dr; Wikipedia it!).

So naturally this being the final entry of a long running series; Deathly Hallows Part Two has the “joy” of not only wrapping up the story in a nice neat bow but also explaining any long running plot threads with a cohesive and satisfying conclusion. Normally, this is where said finale falls out of flavour with fanbase/audience as it can never live up to expectation.

But Deathly Hallows Part Two somehow does, partly due to the original source material being split into two films therefore giving Warner Brothers more revenue…I mean, allow the story to breath and not feel constricted to time restraints. Although the more hardcore Harry Potter fans still might be annoyed that “said character didn’t do such and such”, Deathly Hallows Part Two for the casual fan covers all the major bases and gives a satisfying conclusion to all the major character arcs.

It also addresses one of the biggest criticisms with Part One which was rightly summed up as “the one in the woods”. Part One was a necessary story in the long run but didn’t make action packed viewing. It was a build-up which crammed in some last minute character development and showed the effects and strains of the story on individuals rather than the world at whole.

Part Two however goes all LotR on us with huge, encompassing and visually stunning battles. Although no longer innovative as nearly every historical film has utilised some form of crowd capturing, but what helps is the audience’s attachment to the established setting and the characters involved. Ok, it helps that the film has a few moments of innovation (although as strange as it sounds, we’ve all seen large trolls knocking people off bridges), it’s the story that makes the action all the more exciting.

However, by far the best moments in the film are the intimate character moments. To avoid spoilers, the resolutions of two characters in particular (who you’ll know about when actually seeing the film) may potentially choke you up by playing on the emotions of unrequited love and the idea of death being something to acknowledge rather than fear.

It’s these moments where you can see why the series has become such a juggernaut but at the same time, when it all boils down to it, the story is relatively simple. You can argue that accusing a children’s story for lacking depth in terms of characterisation is about as easy as it gets but the fact the story boils down to good versus evil in such simple contrasts of black and white and where the only character with a shade of grey sticks out like another annotation lacking creativity in this review, one wonders why something like Harry Potter succeeds where others fail.

But if Michael Bay has taught as anything; story means nothing in the big picture. Visually, Deathly Hallows Part Two continues the grey and miserable setting established in Part One to evoke the enveloping evil that has spread across the land and credit to Warner Bros for allowing David Yates to continue his previously established motifs made with his previous three entries to the series. Composer Alexander Desplat returns from Deathly Hallows Part One and continues where Williams and Hooper left off with reimaginings of previous themes and creating sombre and dark themes that suit the picture.

Special effects are non-surprising but at least consistent with the tone of the film. The 3D is surprisingly effective and unlike other films, is not particularly distracting. I feel strange for saying this, but if you’re a fan of the previous films, definitely see this one in 3D as it does heighten the experience.

The principle players after have come along way since the almost farcical debuts in Philosopher's Stone and one can only hope they don’t find themselves typecast as wizards for the rest of eternity. The adult cast’s all star line-up are undeniably great and seem to have a lot of fun revelling in their roles. Ralph Fiennes in particular steals the show as the terrifying Voldemort which is made all the more frustrating as, like the previous films; only his presence is consistent, the character himself appears sporadically but when he does, it’s always memorable.

On the whole, after nearly nine hundred words, this review is pointless as you’ve no doubt already seen Deathly Hallows Part Two several times judging by it’s profit intake or mocked said individuals for giving this over-hyped drivel your precious monies.

Jumping on at this point is relatively pointless as the film is a pretty if very confusing tale which lacks any emotional punch and will show the film’s plot for all it’s simplicity despite going on for eight films.

For fans of the series, the accolade of “the best one” sums up Deathly Hallows Part Two nicely. It wraps up the story in a satisfying way, has a lot of great action and special effects and whilst no doubt lacking a few bits and pieces from the book, it’s as good as a Harry Potter adaptation on the big screen will ever get.

…Until the inevitable reboot takes place. Don’t say I didn’t warn you kids.

8/10 (for fans of the series)

6/10 – (for everyone else)

H

Captain America: The First Avenger Review

As we reach the final hurdle of preludes before Marvel unleash their tag team of Superhero movies to combat the incoming threat of a dark knight who might rise, one has to wonder; why has it taken nearly seventy years for a big budget version of Captain America to finally hit screens?

Excluding the Reb Brown TV specials which saw Cap battle Christopher Lee (which is not as fun as it sounds) and the 1990 debacle so bad it went unreleased for two years; Cap’s exploits of punching Hitler, battling the Red Skull and terrorists with possibly the strangest greeting since, well, the heil Hitler, Cap hasn’t been exactly a glowing example of Superheroics on the big screen.

This leads us back to The Avengers next year and our final member of the ensemble. We’ve already had Iron Man, we’ve had The Incredible Hulk re-imagined and even Thor, but where does Captain America: The First Avenger fit into this and, more importantly; does it attempt anything different from Marvel’s previous introduction films to its Avengers?

Beginning in modern day Alaska, excavators have discovered something trapped in the Ice which leads us on a flash back to 1942 where a weedy Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans in his fourth comic book based movie) desperately wants to join the army to battle the Nazi as they’re bullies and bullies suck. He meets a German scientist who takes an interest in using him for a super soldier serum which if you read the title of the film, would know how that turns out.

Meanwhile, Johann Schmidt (played by go-to bad guy Hugo Weaving) uncovers a powerful-almost cosmic cube (hint, hint) which he hopes to use for HYDRA’s war efforts (HYDRA being a terrorist force even Hitler finds a bit too much). During the film, Schmidt reveals himself as a subject of an earlier form of the serum and uses the alias the Red Skull to, I guess advance HYDRA to the role of World War II's true villains.

Cap’s rag tag team of freedom fighters battle The Red Skull’s HYDRA (complete with weapons stolen from District 9) over the course of the war with numerous explosions and long jumps before concluding to explain how Cap could be in a team of heroes if he was at his prime in the forties.

So yes, nearly all the movie (minus the bookends) takes place during World War II which makes a welcome change to the modern day setting of every superhero movie ever made and credit to director Joe Johnson for delivering a picture where despite the insane premise of a man dressed as the american flag being the front runner of a war and disintegrating weapons amongst other things, it actually looks like World War II. In fact, there's a scene where Cap and crew battle HYDRA in a snowy wilderness where I was expecting Easy Company to be supporting them (it didn't help that Neal McDonough was on Cap's side but hey ho). It's a welcome change and helps differentiate Cap's origins from his Avenger colleagues.

However, for those following the Marvel tie-in's to The Avengers next year, it's pretty much by the numbers now. The film introduces a member, shows him saving the world from an iconic villain from his back catalogue (less so on Iron Man for both movies) before Samuel L Jackson shows up to hype an incoming team-up and we get another tie-in to the next film in sequence (although in Cap's case, it's an actual teaser rather than something discovered that's tied to someone else).

It's not necessarily bad as, minus Iron Man 2, this formula has worked. The problem with Captain America is that it's a relatively safe picture that could have been truly great, but instead is simply good. It starts off well introducing Rogers as the "never say die" hero that embodies the American spirit despite his frail form but when Rogers becomes a key weapon in the battle against HYDRA, we get a few montages, a lot of explosions and are left to imagine all of the incredible battles that took place before the inevitable final showdown against the Red Skull.

This is half good as unlike Thor, there's a feasible amount of time for the character's to develop (case in point, Captain America takes place over the course of months if not years whilst Thor's journey of discovery took place over three days), but on the flipside, the middle feels like one long montage which throws out a lot of action, but doesn't really explain why it happens and it seems to go on forever. It's basically the opposite of Iron Man 2 but this is a much more feasible error; at least there's something happening rather than being told things will happen and then fleetingly passing it over for more of the boring plot.

By the time the third act comes back and brings the audience back to reality from the explosions, the film returns to the highs of the first act and just does enough to recover interest. The ending doesn't really explain why Cap survives in ice for seventy years whilst other people simply die from the cold but it's a nice lead-in for The Avengers.

There's not really a lot to fault minus the middle act being a bit too fillerfied and the 3D being useless (like Thor, watch it in 2D and fully immerse yourself rather than 3D and playing "spot the special effect"). Minus that, Captain America: The First Avenger is more of the same of Iron Man and Thor. It has a great cast (not mentioned in the review, but watch out for Tommy Lee Jones who more or less plays himself which is always fun), some good action sequences and does enough to make it a good (if relatively safe) popcorn flick to introduce a principle player in The Avengers next year.

7/10

H

The Social Network Review

Imagine a world without Facebook. It’s a premise that has set the standard for just about every review for The Social Network but it does create an interesting proposition.

The site, now in it’s eighth year of life has spawned a new medium of social interaction, a new ground to debate upon and has no doubt, brought you closer to people who you would have probably said farewell to at the end of High School.

But how did it all begin I hear you ask? This is where David Fincher's tale of betrayal, arrogance and hacking drinking games comes in with The Social Network. Based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, the film shows us how Facebook came to be and how you may never want to hear the term poking again.

The film’s framing device plays between two court cases. The accused is Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg; a borderline stereotype of Aspergers Syndrome who speaks a million words a minute and only finds consultation when using source coding.

In one case is Mark’s apparent best friend Eduardo played by future Spider-Man Andrew Garfield. Eduardo is by far the most likeable character in the entire film (which might come down to him being the only person to give information regarding the outcome of the suits) but doesn’t have any real negative traits.

The other case has our other two main characters, twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss played by Armie Hammer (yep, the same actor). The two are behemoths who enjoy rowing and are far too used to having things go their way. Unlike stereotypical twins who are basically the same person, the twins have different opinions but a common goal of acknowledgement, one that Zuckerberg can provide them with but ultimately, doesn’t.

To set-up the story, in a nutshell; Zuckerberg is dumped by his girlfriend and crashes the Harvard servers by creating a website that asks which campus students are better looking than their peers. The twins, impressed by Zuckerberg’s skills, enlist him of their venture to create a Harvard only site for connecting students called Harvard Connect.

From here, the film takes many twists and turns as theFacebook (as it’s then known) takes off and quickly becomes an online phenomenon that turns co-workers into advisories and friends into enemies (as demonstrated by the quick cuts to the court scenes which shows how damaged the relationship between the characters is).

So yeah, a rip roaring tale about the joys of hacking, website building and dialogue so fast, you’ll wonder if the editors accidentally had the entire film on fast forward. It’s not exactly your stereotypical summer blockbuster and the only special effects seem to be making the computers look like actual computers running regular software.

But beneath the premise which only a small handful of people would be interested in a
character drama more in the mould of Wall Street than computer hacker films like…well, Hackers.

It’s a film built purely on exchanges. You can guess the outcome because Facebook is
still going strong and Zuckerberg occasionally shows his real life persona. What we do get however is a growing trend escalation. As the film continues from the first, brilliant ten minutes, the website grows quickly, finding our characters desperately trying to adapt to the changes that are spiralling out of control.

All goes well to begin with but when Napster founder Sean Parker, played ironicallyby Justin Timberlake enters the fray, everything falls apart and yet, gets better. By the end, we’re left with a film where two wronged but undeserving brutes are awarded compensation, the only likable character is rewarded for fighting back (literally) and Zuckerberg is left as the world’s youngest billionaire with no friends and only his laptop to keep him company.

It’s a strange but memorable film built on the foundations of interaction. While cinematography is minimal (dorms look like dorms and company offices look sleek and sexy), the soundtrack by NIN frontman Trent Reznor is another classic in a year where soundtracks reign supreme. Fans of NIN collection Ghosts I-IV will enjoy the slightly newer versions of older songs whilst the rest of us can enjoy a nice soundtrack of sampled rock and electronic beats.

When all is said and done, The Social Network is a strange but engrossing tale of greed and betrayal with fantastic acting and an engrossing plot. For anyone’s who’s been poked or wanted a reason not to, this one’s for you.

8/10