Hellboy (2019) - Insert Obligatory "Purgatory" Subtitle Here

Going into a film with an open mind is sometimes difficult. With the media hype machine being what it is and the slew of viewer scores and opinions one can find online, being purely objective is nigh on impossible. What you can do though, is make a conscious effort to filter it all out and give whatever it is you’re watching a super large benefit of the doubt. Which is exactly what I did with the rebooted Hellboy when I rented it the other night. I willed myself into a state of ready acceptance, blocking out the critic reviews I’d already seen and the trailer that had underwhelmed, to achieve a near zen like peace.

Then, I sat back and discovered that it is possible to feel ripped off at only £1.99. It must be said that I am a fan of Ron Perlman’s Hellboy and that the meditation I underwent before hitting play was, in no small part, to give David Harbour a fair shake. This, however, proved unnecessary. Not because he was miscast, his voice and general temperament actually supporting his inclusion, but because with direction and writing this woeful they could have brought in the actual Devil and it would have been all for nought.

Neil Marshal is best known for his low budget horror film Dog Soldiers, bouldering with monsters, The Descent and, if you’re me, post-apocalyptic cheese fest, Doomsday. He’s never really broken out into mainstream Hollywood and has made his name more recently directing various episodes of shows such as Westworld and Game of Thrones. On the face of it, with a relatively small budget of 50 million dollars and what is a monster property to boot, he seems like a good choice to blend the comic book world with that of cult success. What we get instead is a smattering of passable action sequences, some genuinely interesting creatures and cinematography and a storyline so botched and rushed it will give you whiplash.

Many of these narrative problems stem from Summit Entertainment’s deranged notion of creating their own cinematic universe, with a further five films originally planned to spin off from the many poorly fleshed out sub plots Hellboy introduces over its two-hour run-time. Corporate greed once again trumping the business of making a good, standalone movie. *Cough*, Joker. The fact that Marvel has been the only success in this area has never deterred the financial adventurism of other and arguably lesser mortals. The film, therefore, has the unfortunate feeling of being simultaneously overlong while also underdeveloped.

The cast, meanwhile, is a decidedly mixed bag. As already mentioned, David Harbour was a fine choice to take on the role of hell’s greatest hero, but some others were distinctly lacking. Most notably Daniel Dae Kim as Major Ben Daimio and Sasha Lane as Alice Monaghan. I can’t tell you whether their characters are true to the source material, rather what I can tell you is that both American actors put on the worst English accents I have ever heard. It really does border on parody more than once and puts the final nail in any hope of a successful group dynamic. Thankfully, Mila Jovovich is in her element as Nimue, the wicked Blood Queen but due to deficiencies in the writing is criminally underused and can only provide light relief. Similarly, Ian McShane delivers a spirited, if oddly characterised performance as Hellboy’s adopted father. Where John Hurt of the original was nurturing and patient, McShane is biting and sarcastic, creating an adversarial relationship which fails to engage or be borne out by the finale.

Albeit, a very pretty lady.

The plot itself is confused by its corporate origins and attempt to tell a personal story. In both prior movies, Hellboy was depicted as a tortured hero, desperate for acceptance in a world which reviled him. In The Golden Army this gave Prince Nuada’s arguments weight as the film played upon Hellboy’s isolation and bitterness, forcing him to make a difficult choice. Hellboy (2019) however, simply ramps up the character’s angry outbursts and tempts him with a pretty lady. It’s not an improvement and as always with reboots, if it doesn’t go beyond the original work it’s not worth making. The only new addition of note being the buckets of blood and violence that litter the film's run time for no actual reward, other than a quick glance at the clock. As for the script, I knew all was lost when Hellboy uttered the phrase, “Shit of God,” while battling a giant. It was genuinely cringe inducing. Other pearls sprinkled throughout the film include, but are not limited to:


“Could you Google translate that for me?” in response to some magic gobbledegook.

“We make sure she doesn’t come back for the sequel,” when discussing what to do about the bad guy.

“Why does this book have so many words in it?” Need I say more?

All in all, not the best and surprisingly, not the product of a bloated team of staff writers. One mind was this bad all by itself.

Between the breakneck pace of the story, the shoddy writing and lazy direction, there is very little to recommend the new Hellboy. It doesn’t surpass it predecessors, other than perhaps in the CGI department and falls flat more often than not. It’s sense of humour is juvenile, its plot predictable and teaser ending, laughably optimistic. If there was any love in the film’s production, it was clearly buried under poor financial decisions and worst of all, has likely destroyed any hopes of seeing the former cast ever reprise their roles. A sin for which there can be no forgiveness.

Star Trek Beyond Expectations

Being a Star Trek fan has always been a double edged bat’leth.  On the one hand it has enjoyed some of the finest science fiction writing to date with both The Wrath of Kahn and First Contact topping the majority of the competition.  On the other however, is The Motion Picture.  Enough said.  But then came the event.  The trauma.  The reboot.  Which is in no way a commentary on the movie’s quality, but the fear engendered by the very notion of a new Kirk, a new Spock and a new Enterprise.  For while undoubtedly mainstream, Star Trek has always been off centre in terms of its popularity; the very term “Trekkie” becoming part of everyday lexicon to denote a rather nerdy individual.  A king among all geeky men.  

Brought to you by Apple IN SPACE!

The new Trek was specifically designed to do away with all that.  It was meant to be sleek, cool and oozing sex appeal.  Even Spock became the focus of some serious man crushes.  It also did away with the techno-babble that so flummoxed and confused the regular going public.  Something Star Trek had always been famous for; the inversions of field polarities and harmonic resonances being part of every true Trekkie's vocabulary.  Instead, we got “lightning storms in space”, thanks J.J.  As you may be able to tell, I was not over enamoured with this dumbing down but I enjoyed the first two movies well enough.  They were fun if uninspired and wiled away a few hours in a thinned out universe I still loved.  Originality however, was sorely lacking.

             

 Much as with the new Star Wars a fear of doing too much outside the established norm bred complacency and not a little laziness.  The first was centred entirely on resetting the continuity and making it clear Trek was now cool.  The second clung so tightly to The Wrath of Kahn’s popularity that it left little in the way of effort and committed multiple plot convenience sins.  Super blood, interplanetary beaming technology and why, oh why the Klingons let the slaughter of dozens of soldiers go without even a shrug, to name a few?  But, as I said, they’re fun movies nit picking aside.  With Beyond therefore, I was expecting more of the same.  So colour me speechless when all did not go according to presumption.

                        

Lines around the eyes.

From the very beginning there is a feeling that this is a Star Trek film.  Perhaps due to the Enterprise being three years into their five-year mission, or simply that the cast has grown into their roles.  Iconic and daunting as they surely are.  Some are still more fleshed out than others, Chekhov and Uhura still lagging behind in the developmental races, but from Chris Pine we get a better rounded character.  A character who identifies as James Tiberius Kirk.  The rigours of command have finally started to take a toll, making both he and Spock question their places with Starfleet.  It’s a definite nod to the original films, with Kirk’s possible admiralship being dangled as a diverging path.  The road taken in another life and perhaps, even after all that has happened, again here.  It adds definition to a captain who’s seen two movies go by serving the Federation all on a dare, with nary a thought for whether he really belongs.

                                     

Krall, there'll be no cancelling the apocalypse.

The storyline itself feels like it could have been lifted straight from an episode.  Without revealing the whole shebang: The Enterprise answers a distress call, an enemy presents themselves and cue the action.  My main worry was that by not relying on previous material we might have seen a regression to the two dimensional bad guy, the Nero of first movie fame.  For while Into Darkness may have lacked originality, Benedict Cumberbatch nailed the part of Kahn with aplomb and carried the plot through some of its faultier aspects by performance alone.  Eric Banner did not.  As it would seem however, all that was needed was another Brit and some alien prosthetics to transform Idris Elba into Krall, our baddy in residence.  He growls, he snarls and most of all he has a severe and unrelenting hatred of the Federation.  The reasons for which make for an interesting reveal, although they could have gone into more detail.  It’s a forgivable lapse but a missed opportunity to create a villain with a little more depth. 

                                                

Relatable and awesome.

We also see the introduction of Jaylah, ably played by Sofia Boutella of Kingsman fame.  Remember those blades?  The disabled had never been so deadly.  A refreshingly able but flawed character, both Justin Lin and the screenwriters involved deserve a pat on the back.  Vulnerable but competent, brave but unsure, she makes for a fine addition to the crew and it’ll be fun to see whether she returns in future installments.  Hopefully, alongside an absent Carol Marcus who for some reason they were unable to work into Beyond.  One suspects the controversy the internet created over *that* scene in Into Darkness may have played a part, but one never knows.  In any case she contributed mightily to my enjoyment of the film and aided it in pipping Star Wars: The Force Awakens to the post for my favourite science fiction film of the recent past.  Originality is a boon, not a sin and it’s a lesson Star Trek seems to have learned from its previous outings. 

                                                         

Live long and... well you know the rest.

Not to say that we don’t have plenty of nostalgia and tie ins to the wider Star Trek universe.  The passing of Leonard Nimoy is given appropriate attention, a saddened Spock sorting through his aged self’s possessions to find a photograph of the original crew.  There’s also plenty of nods to Enterprise, the black sheep of the Star Trek continuity that demonstrates a respect not only for the source material but just as importantly, the fans as well.  Regardless of one’s position on Captain Archer he and his ship are part of the canon and one of the few parts of the history not retconned by time travel hijinks.  Finally, I mentioned its absence earlier, but we see the return of techno gobbledegook.  Not a lot and certainly not enough to confuse or alienate anyone, but enough to make the crew appear slightly better educated than a bunch of frat boys joyriding in Starfleet’s most advanced warship.  So, on a whole how best to sum up Star Trek Beyond?  It’s solid, dependable and entertaining.  You’ll leave the cinema after two hours feeling content, not necessarily blown away but knowing what you just watched was definitely good.  I am one of those people who is notoriously difficult to please and like many analyse a film even as I’m watching it for the first time.  Inconsistencies, plot holes and laziness are genuinely irritating and yet my radar barely pinged in this instance. Now there’s only one thing left to say.  Justin Lin, we forgive you for Tokyo Drift, we forgive you.

Independence Day: Resurgence - Quietly Into the Night

I am not a wise man.  I like a lot of bad things.  More specifically I’ve enjoyed many a bad movie.  I’ve sat and thought to myself, “Dear god this is garbage,” and yet watched through to the credits being sufficiently amused by a film’s deficiencies to compensate for the overall failure of the attempt.  I did it with Wing Commander, I did it with Battleship and I did it with Batman and Robin.  But this doesn’t preclude the simple fact that they are bad movies.  Their directors creating freaks that we point and laugh at as opposed to visions of narrative and thespian beauty.  

We forgive you for After Earth, come back!

So, the question becomes when faced with such an abomination, was I entertained even if for the wrong reasons?  Was I amused or was I robbed?  Independence Day: Resurgence faced just such a quandary.  Following on from Roland Emmerich’s now two-decade old tour-de-force it was a questionable enterprise right out of the gate.  Minus Will Smith and having to capture the attention of a whole new generation of movie goers it had an uphill battle against the likes of modern blockbusters that dominate the box office.  A world of tie ins, sequels and what has become in no small part an exercise in brand recognition.  As such, I went into Resurgence with my fingers crossed that we were going to see alien invasions kicking it old school with some modern tropes, but still holding a core forged from the original.  But that’s not what happened. That’s not what happened at all.

         

Here on the Internet we’re prone to the extreme opinions and reviews of the masses.  Sometimes the vitriol is justified and often it’s not, but usually the truth falls somewhere in the middle.  So when I say that Independence Day: Resurgence is bad, I want you to understand something.  It's bad in a way that is not funny.  If anything it's borderline tragic with hints of pity and despair.  It's the Gulf of Tonkin incident without the amusing deception and decade long war.  In summary dear reader, it's a bad kind of bad.  So, what went wrong?

                 

Pod people.

First of all, the flesh puppets...  I mean actors.  Alien invasion movies are straight forward affairs with plenty of A to B writing.  That’s no bad thing, for a tight story with the right script can be great, much like the original Independence Day.  It allows for maximum  explosions and just the right amount of character development.  As we don’t want characters we don’t give a damn about but equally we don’t want to be flipping through their family albums while all the cool stuff happens off camera.  Resurgence however, falls into the former category; so much so that neither I nor my friend could remember any of the new characters’ names come the credits.  Not a one.  Nada.  Liam Hemsworth remained Liam Hemsworth; not Will Smith (no matter how desperately they wished otherwise) remained not Will Smith and Bill Pullman, somehow, was not President Whitmore.  In point of fact the only new character that achieved their purpose was the Chinese pilot played by Angelababy (stage name), who doubtless helped draw cinemagoers in the ever more lucrative Asian markets.  There’s even a line to the effect of, “China has been the most important partner in developing our super anti-alien defences,” thrown in near the beginning.  It’s so transparent that unless English is your second language, you’ll flinch when you see it. 

                                  

Bigger ship, bigger fun.

As for the narrative itself it’s uninspired but not fatal alone.  The aliens come back, other aliens show up and declare themselves the enemy of the original aliens and war ensues.  Then things fall down.  For we are shown/told all of this in forced exposition that feels so disconnected from the first movie it’s hard to see how one leads to two.  The invaders are now lead by “Harvester Queens” and only by killing this Alien knockoff can they be thwarted, although it has never been done before!  Apart from last time when they nuked the sons of bitches.  But that’s semantics.  After this we’re subjected to a very familiar set of events.  The humans are overwhelmed, the alien ship lands, the humans launch a daring but ultimately doomed assault on the now 3000 kilometres sized mothership before defeating them at Area 51 just in the nick of time.  It was almost like paying one’s entry fee to see a favourite film performed by second-rate actors.  That was nice; I was too young to see the original at the cinema. 

                                        

The family underachiever.

The stinking, putrid glue that holds it all together is the script.  For without one it’s just a bunch of people gesturing dramatically and dying without context.  In hindsight, this may have been an improvement, but you live and learn.  Remember those modern tropes that we mentioned earlier?  Well they’re present, albeit in their worst possible forms.  I’m talking about the quips.  The unending, unfunny and unrelenting quips that are so desperately ill-judged at times it makes you wonder at Emmerich’s sanity.  The great thing about the original was that while it was funny (“Welcome to Earth!”) it was also plausible.  That the characters were saying one-liners and mouthing off as a coping mechanism for the fact the entire world was ending around them.  It’s what people do.  Admittedly sometimes a one-liner is just a one-liner, but they never felt misplaced.  In Resurgence however, I didn’t laugh once.  No one in the audience did either.  It was offensive, it was juvenile and best summed up by Liam Hemsworth whipping his dick out to take a piss as to distract a bunch of aliens.  He was talking at the time which made it even worse.

                                                 

I could go on for another five pages documenting this movies sins but by the time I’d finish it would be an inquiry ten years in the making.  An entire dissertation could be squandered on the terrible effects alone before running a financial breakdown on what exactly they spent that 165 million dollars on.  Other than the nine writers who “contributed” to the films creation of course, which goes some way towards explaining the horrendously fractured narrative.  But I digress.  For there is only one message you should take away from this review and that is stay away.  Hide.  Take shelter.  Independence Day: Resurgence is an atrocity not only for its violation of a classic, but because it took everything wrong with the current mega-movie industry and distilled it into something more unwatchable than Transformers: Age of Extinction.  Sadly, there’s no such thing as a cinematic crime against humanity, so if you need me that’s where I’ll be.  At The Hague, protesting for one.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The real concern when considering the unstoppable Marvel movie juggernaut is, when will it end and how? There are literally billions of dollars tied up in Thor, Iron Man, Captain America and the rest of the coterie.  So one has to wonder when, if ever, the studio will pull the plug in order to preserve the overall quality?  A serious question when you realise that some characters are signed up for a nine movie contract.
   
With that being said I approached Captain America: The Winter Soldier with a fair amount of excitement. From initial reviews and the trailer it looked like we were in store for a more rounded and engaging outing in comparison to the first film, a film I am still not particularly fond of.  There might have even been a certain wilful naivete on my part, having been mortified by the disaster that Man Of Steel would turn out to be after an apparently solid trailer and reaction.  Therefore I wanted The Winter Soldier to be a success if only to stave off becoming any more jaded to the comic book universe as a whole.  Whether that be DC, Marvel, Dark Horse or the funny pages.
             

Some heroes are prettier than others, eh?

Following the Avengers there was always the likelihood that one superhero wasn't going to be enough to sate an audience, at least not without a stellar story line, that it would feel like taking a step back.  A little like Thor: The Dark World turned out.  An entertaining, but uninspired walk around the Marvel block.  The Winter Soldier on the other hand delivers on both counts, treating us not only to the stars and stripes Captain himself, but Natasha Romanoff, assassin, spy and all round composite badass.  This is then capped with a tight narrative that is not only better than it's predecessor, but actively builds upon it.  It almost makes you think the execs and producers have some kind of plan for the series.  Crazy.
                             

It's quite clear from the off that the writers wanted to develop the Cap beyond his origin story, beyond being a clean cut goody who wouldn't put a toe wrong.  We did get a little of this in Whedon's tour de force, but it was fleeting and only hinted at a rebellious streak rather than featuring it.  In the Winter Soldier we get a more in depth look at Rogers as he tries to adapt to modern life, at one point pulling out a list of films, music and events he needs to catch up on after his sixty years on ice.  It's a nice touch that highlights the man out of time element.  We are further drawn to his sense of displacement and loss when he visits the museum exhibition depicting himself and his team during the Second World War, and by a conversation with the now dying Peggy Carter.  It all instils a sympathy for Rogers that was sorely lacking in the Avengers, in which his age was more of a joke than genuine character trait.

Air superiority is a serious SHIELD consideration.

                                   
This all blends seamlessly with the main plot and the Captain's increasing disillusionment with the way in which SHIELD operates.  As he says to Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury, "This isn't freedom, it's fear."  While he's talking about the helicarrier weapon systems, it sums up the juxtaposition between the murky world in which characters such as Black Widow live, breathe and take lunch, and the star spangled honesty that Rogers perceives himself as hailing from.  It's a clash of ideologies between the old and the new, acting as a fairly accurate allegory for the modern world.  It poses the question, how far would you go to maintain order?  How many principles and how many decent men would you sacrifice for the greater good?  I actually think it's the most grown up and well executed Marvel film to date.

In a surprise turn the relationship between Captain America and Black Widow was one of the film's highlights.  There was a genuine chemistry on screen as they played off one another, their differences making for an ensemble team that proves highly effective.  Given Romanoff's Russian background I had been hoping for a closer tie in with the Winter Soldier himself, for what there is proves to be little more than a token story. Although with the amount of self doubt and treachery that plays throughout the film, perhaps it was best to avoid anymore tangled subplots.  To ask for more could be construed as plain greedy and we do get to see the two face off in a classically well executed set piece.  So don't worry, there's action aplenty to compliment the story.
     
The Winter Soldier is a film that plays well upon it's connections, whether that be to the Marvel lore, between Captain America and SHIELD or the modern world and how we respond to threats in reality.  It doesn't molly coddle the viewer with special effects and quippy one liners (although there are plenty to be had) instead of asking questions that you might not expect from a comic book movie.  Steve Rogers in many ways serves as a mirror to an idealism that could be said to no longer exist, maybe it never did.  When you faced your enemies head on, when morality was less clouded by the intricacies of politics and extremism.  He is a straight shooter in a time when double speak and harsh action are the norm and in that sense it's hard not to love him.  He's honourable, he fights for what he thinks is right and most of all, he's human.  Sure he's beefed up with super human strength but his doubts, his worries and the traits that define him are undeniably mortal.  Unlike Thor or even Iron Man, he's grounded and serves as an empathetic vehicle for the stories trials and challenges.  Not to oversell it or anything.  Overall then this latest Marvel outing is a must see, if only so you can say you were there when comic movies took a leap forward, or there when they piqued.  Either way, this isn't one to miss.

20 Menthol Cools - Riddick

Returning to our cinemas after a nine year hiatus, Vin Diesel's anti hero sci-fi saga continues in the self titled, Riddick. To say that the film's existence is a miracle is not an exaggeration. With the support of no major studio behind it and a rather luke warm response at the box office in it's previous outing, another tour on the big screen didn't really seem likely to be in the offing. But they did it, and by they I mean the unstoppable merc killer himself, Vin Diesel and director of both previous installments David Twohy. It's hard not to respect the commitment behind Riddick, with the Fast and the Furious star leveraging his own house to help fund the project. Without a doubt this was a labour of love that is rare in the current incarnation of Hollywood.

The font of all Riddickness.

Now I must let it be known up front that I am a massive Pitch Black fan and despite it's flaws, thoroughly enjoyed the Chronicles of Riddick. As such I was going into this film prepared for blood, action and an all round entertaining sci-fi adventure. By the same token however, I was braced for cataclysmic systems failure and a disappointment not seen since Sucker Punch (May the gods curse you Zack Snyder). It's the price of being a fan, especially an objective one that you may suffer from time to time while grasping for the next hit. As such I was keeping an open if slightly guarded mind.

First of all it has to be said that Riddick gets off to a slow start, with at least a 25 minute period before things really kick into high gear. I've read here and there about people getting up and leaving, something which still baffles me, as if I've paid, I ain't going anywhere. But it's a necessary build up you'll come to realise; it sets the scene and brings Riddick back into line with the original film. A lone predator against the galaxy. We get closure on the whole Necromonger paradigm, Karl Urban returning for a short scene that confirms his sci-fi loyalty credentials and see Riddick in his own environment. Perhaps as close to happy as sociopathic, monster killing, nocturnal hunters can realistically get. So right there is a reason to stick around, because you know hell is going to be riding in damn soon to ruin the relative calm. And boy does it, in the form of nasty pincer tailed aliens wanting to chow down on our resident anti hero, with the only escape being a group of mercs out for his head.

Nice to have you back Karl, however briefly.

It could be argued that Riddick is a copy of the first film, marooned on a planet with some deadly locals, but that's selling it short. It's all part of bringing Riddick back to basics and then some; the some in this case being the human element ala bounty hunters. Every good action film needs a bad guy and into place steps Jordi Molla as Santana, a man who will settle for nothing short of Riddick's head in a box, literally. He kind of reminded me of Lena Headey's Ma-Ma from Dredd, totally bat shit crazy and merciless to boot. He's exactly the kind of character you love to hate and relish taking a beating. Also when your main protagonist is wanted by half the galaxy for a string of murders and other miscellaneous criminal activity, it's always a good idea to up the psycopathy levels on your main villain.

Let's get those drums beating.

This review couldn't and wouldn't be complete without mentioning Katee Sackhoff of Battlestar Galactica fame. She's a member of another group of mercs lead by Boss Johns (Matt Nable) who is hotly pursuing Riddick to his own ends. It's actually a nice tie in to the first film, so I'll try not to spoil it. A lot of fans will simply be happy to see Miss Sackhoff in a big screen release, but that would be undercutting her performance entirely. Much like her Galactica alter ego, Starbuck, she's tough as nails and knows how to handle herself. But where as Starbuck was unstable and often unsure of herself, Dahla has no such qualms. Delivering two of the beatings to Santana that you will so enjoy. As Sackhoff says, "She's the toughest character I've ever played..." Quite the nod from such a sci-fi veteran.

A complaint that could be leveled against Riddick is that is appears a bit bear bones in the scenery department. What there is, while very well shot and enjoying a high quality of CGI veers slightly towards the minimalist. Personally it didn't seem like much of a problem as the nostalgia trip when compared with the first film is considerable. But I suppose some people might have liked a different setting, maybe a city or some such, much like the change between Predators one and two. Going back to Dredd though, I'd say that it works much as it did for Karl Urban's action flick, being a setting for the characters rather than a distraction from them. On the CGI front as well it has to be said that the creature effects are superbly executed, with Riddick picking up a pet dingo/dog animal early in the film that for all intense and purposes never betrays it's computer coded origins.

Riddick, it's really a big budget RSPCA film.

But what of Vin himself you ask? Does he deliver, or has the pressure of funding, helping to write and produce the movie effected his performance? Not in the slightest, this is pure Riddick and really feels like a film that was put together with a lot of reverence for the character. Diesel has stated that he "fell in love" with our hero from almost the get go way back in 2000, and it's not hard to see why.  It's difficult not to like Riddick for his intelligence, his martial prowess and even, weirdly, his moral code. He's not a monster and when compared with Santana comes across as positively balanced, a man who does evil things out of necessity and maybe (sometimes) a little enjoyment. Not that he isn't undeniably awesome at killing, maiming and inspiring terror. For as he says while eyeing Jorgi Molla's character, in chains of all things, "You go in the first five seconds" and not for a moment do those in the audience doubt it. Riddick is a force of nature and you're damned if you get in his way.

So in this third and hopefully not final outing, if the box office is anything to go by, we're really treated to some proper sci-fi action. None of the pretensions and over reliance on CGI that has come to charaterise the sci-fi movie industry, I'm looking at you Avatar, but a solid character driven story with lots of action. It's also nice to see Riddick developing as a character, a process which has steadily evolved over the previous two installments until he's not the same man who was willing to maroon three innocent survivors back in Pitch Black. So go and see Riddick, be patient and most of all, Rule the Dark.

2500 Years in the Making: Coriolanus

I used to hate Shakespeare.  Not because it was bad or I couldn't understand it, but because like every other English school child I was forced to read it.  Not just once, but again and again as we painstakingly analysed every single sodding line.  It would, I think, make an excellent form of punishment.  Imagine the horror of being told to make notations for every nuance, every metaphor or else to do it all again with a whole new play.  Kids would learn very quickly to shut the hell up and behave, lest they want to bleed from the ears, I can tell you that much.  Yet, now I'm older and no longer have the educational gun to my head, I've found that I rather enjoy SOME of Shakespeare's work, most notably being Kenneth Branagh's Henry V and Leonardo Dicaprio's modern retelling of Romeo and Juliet.  So, when I saw the trailer for Coriolanus my interest was naturally piqued.  Modern warfare and classic literature?  Just try and stop me.
 

The armour of contempt: Caius Marcius.

Having been written between 1605 and 1608, the first thing I have to say is how well the story has aged.  Obviously revamped and brought into the 21st century by director Ralph Fiennes, Coriolanus and it's tale of pride and treachery is still as relatable and tragic as it was 400 years ago.  General Caius Marcius, played here by none other than Lord Voldemort and director Ralph Fiennes himself, is a hero of Rome, bane of their hated enemies the Volscians and noble to the core.  His disdain for the plebeians, the common folk is well known, demonstrated early in the film as he faces down a rioting mob.  Awarded the title Coriolanus he is set to be Consul, before the machinations of politicos and his own pride banish him from the very city he has given everything to protect and into the arms of his greatest enemies.  As a character it is hard to like Coriolanus, his arrogance and brutality too overbearing for the modern pallet, but you can respect him for staying true to his convictions.  Fiennes's portrayal is intense and moving, bringing to life a legendary general who is now believed to have never existed.  While his fall from grace is as deserved as engineered by those who would seek power themselves.
         

"This is Shakespeare!"

The supporting cast is an impressive array, with Brian Cox, Vanessa Redgrave, an under used Jessica Chastain and Gerard Butler as Volscian leader Tulfus Aufidius .  Each performance, while not necessarily stunning, is in line with Shakespeare's characters.  Each wrangling for their own agendas, their own advancement while Coriolanus is immovable in his convictions.  Relegated to being a pawn as he singularly refuses to play the games of those around him.  I have to say that Butler took me by surprise, his roughness, his inner Leonidas giving him the perfect counterpoise to Fiennes's calculated yet refined Roman general.  The parallels between the modern West and the Middle East are clear to see, but aren't forced in our faces, the tale of a 2500 year old struggle between the civilised Romans and the more barbaric Volscians successfully being preserved and not sacrificed to contemporary politics.  This is still first and foremost the tragedy of one man.
                   

Modern Warfare, 2500 years in the making.

Overall the modern setting is successful if a little jarring at times.  It's odd to see a military figure lauded as a hero or a man in a suit spouting Shakespearean cant, but once you get past the initial disorientation the story takes care of the rest, as do the action scenes.  While these aren't extensive, they are well choreographed as is the fight between Caius Marcius and Tulfus Aufidius.  My only complaint was that there wasn't more of it, that a few more explosions and a bigger battle would hardly of compromised the Shakespearean tone.  But hey, that could just be my Die Hard side talking.
                               
The problem Coriolanus has is that it's a little too far outside the norm for literary buffs and not Hollywood enough for the majority of film goers. It would definitely explain the films overall poor performance, but it would be unfair to judge it by this alone.  Shakespeare naturally puts many of us off, memories of hours pouring over one work or another forever seared into our brains.  So, what I would say is give Coriolanus a chance to change your minds.  Now that you're a little older, a little wiser, the language is far from insurmountable and leaves you feeling pretty clever come the closing credits.  How many movies can claim that?

You Disobeyed the Law: Dredd

These days violence is everywhere, be it in movies, video games or right outside your living room window if you happen to live in Hull. So it's fair to say that it's hard to really effect an audience, draw them in with a little mindless gun play and pints of fake blood. It has to be crafted, it has to seem necessary and most of all it has to toe the line between being gratuitous and justifiable. It is in this sweet spot that Dredd operates. Is it brutal? Yes. Does it make you cringe at times? Yes. Does it fit the tone, the character, the entire movies focus? Hell yes. You see being an 18 Dredd has the license to push boundaries and be downright bloody, but director Pete Travis seems to have twigged that gore alone doesn't make a film. It can in fact ruin one. So he set out to make a flick that is adult, in keeping with the Judge Dredd universe and doesn't lose itself in the process to childish Saw V antics. Something which could have easily been done with a character like Dredd, a one man wrecking machine with the ability to dole out justice straight into the brain pan of any would be criminal. A Dredd directed by Paul W.S Anderson really.

Smiling's for pussies and criminals.

So it was going to take a pretty stoic and outright badass actor to take on the role of Mega City Ones most unstoppable Judge. Someone like Bruce Willis, Jason Statham or the guy who played the green Power Ranger for instance. They got Karl Urban, and by the end of the movie I could barely comprehend why I would have ever wanted anyone else. Never removing his helmet the entire film it was going to be quite the challenge to portray Dredd as anything but an automaton, maybe packing a few quips but lacking in any real personality. For while not a complicated character to portray in any other action movie, being unable to express yourself with a full set of facial features is one huge handicap. Yet somehow, Urban pulls it off. With a voice that sounds like he chugs gravel like normal men down coffee, a mouth which has never even seen a picture, of a ghost of a smile, and an intimidating screen presence he brings Dredd to life and revels in it. He is the law and I'll be damned if I'm going to disagree.

Judges Dredd and Anderson enforcing the law.

Lena Headey as Ma-Ma: She's a wholesome lady.

Now that we have our enforcer, our title character it was up to writer Alex Garland to put Dredd in just the right situation for his select number of personality traits to shine. There couldn't be a repeat of Stallone's rambling mess or the franchise would never rise again. So enter a rookie Judge (Olivia Thirlby), a drug lord with serious anger management issues (Lena Headey) and 200 levels of degenerate criminal scum and you've got yourself a Judge's worst nightmare. Any Judge that isn't Dredd of course. Even with Olivia Thirlby's trainee Judge Anderson in tow he's a one man army and completely devout in his pursuit of justice, which amounts to some exceptionally cool set piece shoot outs and you leaving the cinema feeling pumped up to the eyeballs with manly testosterone. Anderson, it must be said, acts as a fine counter pose to Urban's slab of concrete emotional dysfunction, bringing a much needed human element to the film. As between Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) and Dredd there are some very extreme and psychotic personas flying about vying for attention, sometimes in the form of mini guns and brutal executions. So it's nice to have Anderson's grounding influence to remind us we haven't strayed into an asylum for gun wielding sociopaths.

Fear not citizens, I'm only out for a jog.

Being a post apocalyptic setting Dredd has to come with a certain desperation, a battle for survival that is defining of the time. In this area Dredd pulls off a more than passable depiction of a world in ruins, of corruption and crime running rampant. Every now and again the sets do seem a bit bear but it fits the aesthetic of the movie and doesn't feel like a cop out on the part of the budget. A few times I was reminded of the original Total Recall by the general murkiness of the world, minus the venerable Shwarzenegger that is. Without a doubt the entire movies success stems from it's serious tone, pulling away from the ridiculous campiness of the original in favour of a grittiness more in keeping with the series.

Coming to a conclusion Dredd is easily my favourite movie of the year, beating out The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises for the top spot. And this is for one simple reason. It achieves everything it sets out to do. There are no moments where I felt the plot, the script or the action had dropped the ball and to me that's just plain impressive. It's boxes of action, violence and comic book loyalty are all neatly ticked. It was tightly executed from beginning to finish and I really hope to see another in the offing, as where else can anyone be both a bit nerdy and bloodthirsty in cinema these days?

　

Avengers Assemble! Quickly Now, No Dallying!

"Oh Great One, I have sinned against you!"

The Avengers. They're all Marvel legends in their own right, titans of the comic book age. So when I heard that they were all coming to the big screen in one action packed outing, I naturally recoiled, burned, afraid. Here was the potential for disaster, the moment that the entire comic book film industry came crashing to the ground. A cluster fuck, if you will. Such fears were allayed slightly by the announcement of the venerable Joss Whedon helming the project, being a worshipper of his Buffy and Firefly universes, but still it seemed a tad like madness. Surely it would fail. So many title characters simply couldn't play nicely together, not without taking a serious personality clipping in the process, defeating the entire purpose of the movie. It could have become Iron Man 3 And Friends, or Captain America And Some Other Guys, but in a shock turn, it didn't. Suffice as to say I have had to say many a hail Mary to Whedon's alter for the past few hours. My devotion has been reaffirmed. But how has this been achieved I hear you wonder? Has our trusty reviewer taken a blow to the head, is he now living in a Lucas denial as following Star Wars Episode One? I must disabuse you of that notion. I am in fact of sound nerd mind and body. Whedon just did it. With a slick script and character balancing he has delivered a fine addition to the annals of the comic book movie. Let me tell you how.

Prepare for snarkiness.

Firstly, he made the Avengers a team. It sounds simple, perhaps nigh on "duh" territory, but it could easily just have been a group of superheroes sharing screen time. No links, no witty banter, just a bunch of overcharged egos beating the crap out of this or that. Whedon was a solid choice for this singular reason, all of his stories involve multiple characters who are all people in their own right. There are no hangers on. Just look at Firefly, I dare you to find a character you can't relate to. So while each of the Avengers has been around long before his ministrations, whether it be in movie or comic book form, they weren't necessarily going to work well together. That isn't to say there were no stand out performances, characters who seemed a little more prominent than the rest. For me, it was Iron Man, Mr. Tony Stark himself. I'm inclined to think this was more through the force of his personality than a conscious choice by Whedon himself, although I could be wrong. There is something irresistible about that billionaire, playboy philanthropist that I can't quite pin down. Watching him jest with Thor and Captain America near gave me a head rush, while his relationship with Bruce Banner is the stuff that fine cinema is made of. They're both similar in their own ways, loose cannons with varying degrees of control. This is all aided by the tightness of the script, with very few lines being wasted on asinine dialogue, much as was the case with that other film-freight-chain-franchise, Transformers. Time isn't wasted trying to make the characters funny, they just behave as they should and the humour feels natural. Even a slapstick moment involving Thor, The Hulk and his meaty green fist didn't feel forced, the entire theatre erupting into laughter.

There is one area in which the film seems to lag, although maybe necessarily, and that's in the story department. It draws heavily from the previous Thor outing and as such is a little confusing at the beginning, as we are bombarded with objects and places such as the Tesseract, Asgard, S.H.I.E.L.D and Loki. In fairness this all comes together pretty quickly, but it is a little off putting if you don't know the previous back story. It's all basic stuff when we get a little further in, Loki is leading an army of extremely angry aliens to conquer the earth and it's up to the Avengers to stop him. It ain't a head scratcher, but as I mentioned, perhaps there was no choice. With so many characters vying for development and screen time it was probably for the best that the story was kept to it's bear bones. The film would have ended up feeling slightly overloaded, instead dragging rather than entertaining us through it's two hours thirty of a runtime. Maybe we'll see something a little more intricate in the next installment, assuming that the many millions it has made already warrant a sequel.

Mark Ruffalo has left the building.

Of the assembled cast, Robert Downey Junior and Mark Ruffalo really steal the show. Banner enjoys a jittery quality that echoes Jekyll and Hyde as he tries to control the beast within. For as he says himself "I'm always angry." He surpasses Edward Norton's portrayal in the Incredible Hulk, although I admit that could just be down to personal preference, delivering a far more unstable character.  Meanwhile, Junior is his usual swaggering self, collectively aggravating every member of the team while displaying his textbook Tony Stark brilliance. Watching the sparks fly between him and Captain America was one of the highlights of the movie for me, one man standing for all that is good and pure, the other an arrogant, irresponsible playboy. In all the entire cast delivered, while not Oscar worthy performances, a knock above the rest, making sure that any potential silliness stays on the sidelines. Badly acted superheroes look all the more ridiculous when they come into contact with reality after all. No man in real life would wear a costume as bright and tight as Captain America's oh-so homo erotic get up.

Didn't give me goosebumps, good enough though.

Moving on, I am going to give a nod to the special effects, even if it is a little redundant. They're nothing we haven't seen before, but they're impressive. Manhattan burns in style, the explosions are top notch and the alien spacecraft pew pew to perfection. I may sound exceptionally jaded, but until they perfect holographic technology I'm not going to give them a thumbs up, especially given their obsession with the "3D experience." So to conclude, Avengers Assemble is a near perfect example of big budget blockbusters getting things right. Well developed characters, quick dialogue and explosions to boot are hallmarks of Whedon's directing and writing styles, as they should be throughout Hollywood. Without him, I honestly believe the premise would never have gotten off the ground. Comic books movies are scrupulously analysed by fans and have suffered their wrath on a number of occasions, remember The Fantastic Four and it's dire sequel? Handing the film to a sci-fi, geek veteran was really the only choice the studio had. So go and see Avengers Assemble, feed Marvels money machine and the corporate oligarchy, because at the end of the day, it's more than worth it.

Ghost In the Shell 2: Innocence - Worthy Successor or Philosophical Diatribe?

Nine years after the original Ghost in the Shell, director Mamoru Oshii returned to the philosophical world of Masamune Shirow's manga creation, with Ghost in the Shell: Innocence. Suffice as to say, it proved divisive and even now eight years on it is a point of contention between fans of the original. A great deal of animosity has been laid at it's feat for being too complicated, not in terms of it's story but rather it's labyrinthine dialogue. Each character seemingly possessing an education schooled purely in literary references and Confucian philosophy. But does this really make the film bad? Does it render it an unwatchable slideshow of pretty visuals? Because the one thing every fan seems to agree on is that it's stunningly depicted.

The answer seems to be both a yes and a no. That is to say, I am precariously balancing on the fence for this one. Not out of fear of either side, but because I am genuinely baffled. While watching Innocence I often found myself at a slight loss as to what was being said, rebuttals and entire conversations hinging on a philosophical point I could barely keep up with. At times it all felt over done and unnecessary, cutting into the flow of the film by continually challenging the viewer to figure out what was going on. Oddly however, that doesn't mean it was a complete failure and to understand this we've got to take a closer look at the story itself.

Section 9 is investigating a series of murders by personal sex robots. Batou, still tortured by the loss of his partner the Major throws himself into the pursuit of the perpetrators and at times seems to be on the cusp of losing his grip. The Chief of Section 9 noting how he reminds him of the Major before she went missing. It's interesting to see Batou develop as his own character, being more of a sounding board for the Major's questioning of humanity in the original. Also, there's nothing like watching him shoot up a Yakuza den with reckless abandon.  It was just plain cool. The philosophical  tone adds weight to this narrative, for while overdone it alludes to some deeper questions regarding perfection and the soul. The real complaint about this approach is found in the script itself, which at times seems more interested in tripping the viewer up through it's own cleverness than exploring the issues it brings to the fore. So the answer as to whether it is a good or a bad thing is entirely dependent on the viewer themselves and their ability to see past it's inherent flaws.

Now, having discussed the philosophical aspect of the film, lets talk about the visuals. Being produced back in 1995 the original Ghost in the Shell didn't have the options technologically that we do today. Something which the 2.0 release tried and failed to resolve. Innocence, however, enjoys a style unhindered by such limitations, blending traditional animation with stunning computer generated vistas. The opening scene, depicting the city at large from the point of view of a very impressive looking helicopter, really sets up the rest of the movie and gets the viewers imaginations salivating. It should be said that at times the direction is a little self congratulatory, seemingly more interested in showing off than actually contributing to the film, but in all honesty I think we can allow for a little vanity when it looks so good. Without a doubt it was the highlight of the film for me.

Stunning, if a little pointless.

So to conclude, Ghost in the Shell: Innocence is an acceptable sequel to the original, if not managing to surpass it. Philosophy in the first film was much more central to the story, the Major's obsession with finding the Puppet Master linking directly with her own conflict of self. In the second it seemed to be more of a peripheral entity, perhaps trying to compensate for a lighter story-line. In hindsight, it may have been better had the film makers changed the angle of the film to suit that of Batou's character, as opposed to the self analysis and philosophical angst of the Major. Visually the movie is a triumph and there is very little that can be said against it, except that it might have been squandered  by a director trying to pull one's attention from the heavy dialogue and under-lit story. Innocence therefore falls short of the first by trying too much to emulate it's success, however it is still entertaining in the attempt, if rather stilted.