Review: To Live and Die In L.A.

(Dir: William Friedkin, 1985)

William Friedkin has always interested me as a director, yet I’ve seen nowhere near as much of his work as I’d like. I’m a firm believer that The Exorcist is one of the greatest films ever made and obviously The French Connection is rightly justified as a defining cop thriller, but I have a hell of a lot of love for the oft overlooked To Live and Die In L.A.. It sits perfectly in the middle of the eighties with it’s Los Angeles setting representing the genre through this era in a similar way to how the dirty sleazy streets of New York seem synonymous with the seventies police thriller. Beverly Hills Cop had come a year earlier and Lethal Weapon and Die Hard were to follow over the next two / three, but To Live and Die In L.A. is a more stylish and less bombastic thriller.

The plot follows two secret service agents, Chance (William Peterson) and Vukovich (John Pankow) who are desperately trying to bust skilled counterfeiter Masters (Willem Dafoe). He has been evading them for quite some time but things have recently turned personal for Chance as his old partner and mentor (Michael Greene) died at the hands of Masters. At first glance the plot may sound a little clichéd now, but that’s just looking back with 27 years perspective.

Peterson is perfectly cast here. He has a youthful cockiness coming across through what seems like impetuousness, but there’s an extremely calculated drive to catch his man. It’s interesting to see Peterson like this – this was only his second acting role and as good as he also was in Manhunter, his career has become entirely synonymous with the character of Gil Grissom in CSI. There he plays the deeply intelligent and somewhat introverted head of the crime lab - the complete opposite to the bungee jumping, wild arrogance of Chance. Similarly Dafoe is really well cast and as this is one of his early roles too there’s also a youthfulness I’m not used to seeing. Of course he’s cocky and arrogant too, but unlike most antagonists in films of this ilk there’s a lot more too him. He’s a tortured artist with a strange reptilian charm who found a way to literally make money, and is the inherent vision of eighties chic in his sharp clothes, slick modern house, black Ferrari and bisexual modern interpretive dancer girlfriend. Yet he’s capable of violence. He’s an interesting character and aside from the violence this career choice forces him into, you have to question if he’s really that bad?

The rest of the film is bathed in the glow of the eighties too, including a great synth-led soundtrack. Looking back on it now, in many ways this seems to be one of the films that most inspired the look and feel of Drive. One of the reasons for which To Live and Die In L.A. is most well known is it’s car chase, taking place through the industrial area of the city, into the famous LA storm drains and ultimately ending up the wrong way down a busy four lane freeway. It’s thrilling, superbly shot and most importantly feels real. Friedkin’s experience of shooting the famous chase sequence in The French Connection paid off here. But the rest of the film is as expertly shot and put together and the LA we see here is frequently glowing in sunset, well before Simpson and Bruckheimer got into the habit of abusing this palette. But the story moves along at the right pace, managing to be breathtakingly surprising on at least one occasion and offering an interesting depth to the characterisation.

Aside from Masters this characterisation is best seen in the duality between Chance and Vukovich. One is driven to stop at nothing to do what needs to be done and the other is more righteous and has a deep conscious permeating throughout. Over the course of the film we see a slow metamorphosis, perhaps brought upon by what is in essence the brotherhood of working with a partner, but also the persuasiveness of someone continuously adamant that their methods are necessary. Ultimately this leads to the conflict of a visually metaphorical personal hell, where perhaps the only way to escape is to make the transformation? This isn’t so much about questioning what’s right or wrong, it’s about what it takes to push someone to move where this line lies, or even eliminate it altogether.

It’s this character depth that raises To Live and Die In L.A. far beyond that of a standard police procedural, but it also helps that everything else is delivered which such quality, testament of course to Friedkin’s directing and writing. And lest we forget the acting is spot on from Peterson, Dafoe and Pankow, as well as from smaller roles such as John Turturro and Dean Stockwell’s characters. There were a lot of great films in the eighties but To Live and Die In L.A. has always stood out to me as one of the best. Highly recommended.

Review: Dark Shadows

(Dir: Tim Burton, 2012)

Watching Dark Shadows has made me realise that Tim Burton hasn’t been doing himself any favours this century. He seems preoccupied with remaking / reinterpreting classic works (Planet Of the Apes, Charlie & the Chocolate Factory, Alice In Wonderland and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street), or putting his efforts back into stop motion animation (Corpse Bride and Frankenweenie). It’s commendable to see this form of animation still used in this day and age, but I really would like to see him put some effort into coming up with something similarly original on the live action front, along the lines of Beetlejuice or Edward Scissorhands. Dark Shadows falls into this black hole of being just another bland remake / reinterpretation.

Based on a classic 1960’s tv show, Dark Shadows is about the Collins family and their crumbling small-town dynasty in Maine, who welcome back long lost relative Barnabus (Johnny Depp), who has long since been considered dead. For two centuries. Cursed by Angelique (Eva Green), a witch eternally in love with him, Barnabus was turned into a vampire, witnessed the death of his love and was imprisioned underground. By good fortune he is discovered in 1972, and returns to his old manner Collinswood to connect with his modern relatives and stop the witch who is still as beautiful and conniving as ever.

Dark Shadows starts well. The prologue in the eighteenth century is interesting and fits right in with Burton’s usual gothic style. This leads into the establishing of the seventies setting and Barnabus’ introduction to his family, along with plenty of fish-out-of-water comedy as he is confused by the modern world. But although this first half set-up bodes well, the second half falls into a monotony where the film feels flatly dull and the plot is just bland. It doesn’t care enough to do anything interesting with these characters, just play out a soapish story about rival businesses, the importance of family and witch hunts, with a gloss over everything that takes away any edge.

Depp is ok as Barnabus. He looks the part and plays it with conviction, but it seems we’re supposed to sympathise with him because he wants love and believes in family, yet he’s off happily killing strangers for their blood. Maybe this was how the character was in the tv show (I’ve never seen it so I don't know), but it's confused and doesn’t really work meaning I could only feel apathy towards his character as a result. I find myself getting quite bored of Depp lately as it’s some time since he pushed himself to do anything interesting, becoming constantly weighed down by Burton, Jack Sparrow or blandness such as The Tourist. Even The Rum Diary, his most recent attempt, was just a poor man’s Fear and Loathing... and not even half as good.

The rest of the film is cast well, with the female characters being the strongest. Green is sexy and engaging as the witch and it would be very easy to fall under her spell, whilst Michelle Pfeiffer and Chloe Gracë Moretz are both interesting as the Collins mother and daughter living in the house now and are given a bit more to do. Helena Bonham-Carter crops up as an alcoholic live-in shrink, she’s ok and fits the role well, but it’s an annoying character and a pointless role really, the same as Johnny Lee Miller’s character Roger. He serves no purpose to the story and is clearly only here because his character existed in the tv show. I did quite like Jackie Earle Haley’s caretaker however.

My issues with Dark Shadows ultimately come down to the direction and the story. No matter how well you cast a film, if this aspect isn’t up to scratch then it’s not going to matter. Which is a shame because the set-up and 70’s disco gothica mix is interesting, as are the production design and the music choices. It’s almost as if Burton has become lazy because he’s now so used to stories that have already been long mapped out, and it’s tiresome to see yet another one of his films starring both Depp and Bonham-Carter. I wish he would challenge himself to make something interesting without these safety nets to fall upon. If you’ve seen the trailer for Dark Shadows you’ve seen most of the laughs, but it's not that much of a comedy anyway. I enjoyed it to a point but then found myself getting bored. Really it could’ve been a hell of a lot better.

Review: Silent House

(Dir: Chris Kentis & Laura Lau, 2011)

There’s a pretty emphatic school of thought that believes foreign films should remain untouched and never be remade for the uncivilised Western audiences who can’t cope with reading whilst watching. On the one hand I sympathise with this view as more should be done to persuade people that subtitles don’t make watching a film harder or any less enjoyable, and also because remakes frequently get lost in translation. But then films like La Casa Muda (aka The Silent House) come along. This Uruguayan film from a couple of years back was an interesting horror experiment that remains pretty much unheard of due to the exceptionally limited cinema release it received (12 opening weekend screens in the UK and only £8,539 in box office from this), as well as it coming from a country not known for it’s filmic output. Yet its great concept deserves further exploration and a wider audience.

Theoretically that should come from the US remake, Silent House, that has arrived with us and is a fairly low budget independent release which allows it to stay pretty true to the roots of the original. The story is simple – Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) is helping to renovate her family’s holiday home along with her father (Adam Trese) and uncle (Eris Sheffer Stevens), but then things take a turn for the creepy when she starts hearing suspicious noises and realises they are not alone in the house. This set-up and story is generic but it’s made all the more interesting as the film is shot in real time with a single camera in what looks like one continuous take. 

It may sound like shooting in this style is a gimmick but for a horror film tied to a single location it adds a real sense of claustrophobia. The camera essentially has to follow the lead, and with some creative and fluid movement veers between observing, following and seeing what she sees. What really struck me when watching La Casa Muda in the cinema was the absolute feeling that there was no escape – there were no edits to take us somewhere safer or to see a different POV, we got exactly what she experienced, pure and uncut like real life, and further enhanced in the cinema by there being no pause or stop button to find a moment of respite. We could only stop to breathe when she could. And so basing the plot around exploring a dark house lit by only handheld lamps where someone is stalking you made this even more breathless.

La Casa Muda pulled off the concept convincingly and it was one of the scariest films I’ve seen in the cinema in the last couple of years. The remake does a good job following this approach and builds up tremendous amounts of atmosphere and tension, although I didn't find it quite as effective. Whether this all translates to home viewing where the environment is less immersive and you can pause, I don’t know. Although it wasn't all shot in one take it's constructed cleverly enough to look like it was, ensuring the impact this technique can bring. (As an aside, I very recently saw Warrior King with Tony Jaa, which has a jaw-dropping 4 minute single take fight sequence that shows how incredibly effective this technique can be when done right). Olsen does a great job as the focus of the film. She’s interesting to watch, is convincing and you’re rooting for her (us) to escape. I was less sure of her character's father and uncle as there was something about their relationships that didn’t ring true.

Although I didn’t fully expect Silent House to improve on the tension and scariness of the original, I had hoped it would improve on the conclusion and overall story. La Casa Muda suffers from some glaring illogicality as a result of trying to add explanations and a bit more story onto it’s simple structure, and although Silent House tweaks this in the right direction, it’s not enough to properly eliminate it. Some things are still not adding up right.

As remakes go I think Silent House was a worthwhile exercise. Although neither version ends up in a satisfactory place, the core is essentially a paradigm for how to build and envelop the audience in a suffocating atmosphere of which there is no extrication. The concept works, there's just no need to muddy the waters with unnecessarily convoluted story. The other benefit was getting to watch Olsen put in another very good performance, just as she did when she came to prominence in Martha, Marcy May, Marlene. But as much as I enjoyed Silent House, I think I prefer La Casa Muda. Maybe it's because I saw the original knowing nothing and thus had expectations of what the remake would/should offer? Having events take place somewhere even less familiar and almost culturally alien just adds an extra level of disorientation that amps up the fear, along with a touch more rawness to heighten reality slightly. I guess we chalk that up as another win for the original foreign language version of a film, but only just.

Review: The Avengers

(Dir: Joss Whedon, 2012)

There’s been a lot of weight resting on Joss Whedon’s shoulders. Apart from having become perennial catnip for geeks, the man tasked with bringing The Avengers to the screen has had to be responsible for not squandering what was built up by the five very good films that led us to this point. We’ve had characters and worlds established for us, along with intriguing cross-pollinating threads that have hinted at what the bigger picture might be. I guess for a director this must’ve been a bit like taking on a Bond film – the audience know the main characters, we just need a story and villain laid out for us.

The story here is pretty straightforward – Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is back, as hinted in the post-credit scene in Thor, and he wants the Tesseract, Hydra’s power source in Captain America: The First Avenger. This will allow him to summon an army from another world, the Chitauri, to invade Earth so he can take control of the planet. A team must be formed to stop him comprised of... guess who? Ultimately The Avengers isn’t about story and it’s certainly not even about character development, it’s purely about showing what happens when a bunch of super powered people (and a god) team up to take on something incredibly powerful and destructive.

Logically the film eschews character introductions (we should know them by now), but fortunately lets us see how they’re introduced to each other as they all assemble from their respective locations. It's most fun when anyone meets Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) as his ego inevitably turns everything into a pissing contest. As expected the film is most intriguing when the team is interacting because they’re all rich characters and there is a lot humour between them, but at the same time this just all feels very superficial and virtually no attempt is made to scratch any further beneath the surface. As all of the other films manage to do this so well it felt like something was missing by it not happening here. 

Downey Jr. does his usual enjoyable narcissistic “doesn’t play well with others” Stark schtick, but it feels very reigned in here. I wasn’t as convinced by Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, I’m not sure if it was the writing or just the legacy of Edward Norton who was so good in this role in The Incredible Hulk, but something didn’t feel quite right. Fortunately there was less of the Hulk than I was expecting. Cap (Chris Evans) suffered here too. There were a couple of gags about him being out of his time, but otherwise he just looks wistful and fights, coming across really quite blandly compared to in his stand-alone film. I was pleased we got a lot more time with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and she did get some character development, which was needed bearing in mind her introduction in Iron Man 2 wasn’t as substantial as the others, but it still felt too cursory. And Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) - we barely get anything on him which I found quite annoying. I really would like to see a Black Widow / Hawkeye film as it looks like there’s a lot of interesting stuff you could do with them, and especially if it’s along the lines of Black Widow’s first scene in the film, as it’s one of the best. Oh, and the audience could really do with some background on Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) at some point in future films, seriously. 

I deliberately didn’t mention Thor (Chris Hemsworth). His remains a fantastic character and every time he was on screen I was happy as he brings an interesting personality and a certain gravitas to proceedings. Due to Loki’s role as chief antagonist Thor has more invested in this and there are a couple of great scenes between the pair. Hiddleston is again excellent in this role, offering something multi-layered that always keeps you questioning his true egotistical malevolence. He was one of the best things about Thor and so the decision to utilise him here is extremely satisfying. It’s a shame the same can’t be said about the other-worldly Chitauri that he is working with. They’re potentially interesting but are not fleshed out, only to serve a solitary purpose. The action sequence their presence obviously culminates in is all very perfunctory. It’s not unentertaining per se, but I think I’ve reached the point of casual disinterest when it comes to generically overblown and excessively CGI'd action sequences. Clearly that’s something I’m going to have to deal with as they’re not going anywhere in this day and age.

My expectations for The Avengers were never that high, mainly because I had concerns about whether it could truly work with so many strong characters. It turns out that wasn’t the real issue, as aside from seeing how they all interact when they all converge, it didn’t want to do anything more with them than we’d already seen in their own films. Yes this convergence leads to some fun and interesting verbal sparring and a bit of infighting, but it means we don’t get enough time with each one. I wanted to see what’s happening in Asgard; to actually watch how Captain America is coping with the modern world; to know more about Stark’s new building and what he’s currently developing; to find out all about Black Widow’s background. Seeing these characters on screen again left me wanting more because I know that there’s a lot more to be had, which is a testament to the quality of the previous five films. Thank god it at least gave us more Loki!

So did I like The Avengers? Yes, but nowhere near as much as I could’ve potentially liked it. It’s entertaining, is definitely fun and I’m looking forward to watching it again, but it felt like a film with a lot of great characters that didn’t have much character itself. By too frequently resorting to big destructive action sequences and not letting it’s characters function outside of generic plot contrivances, it clipped its own wings. Despite assembling everyone together, The Avengers turned out to not be as good as any of the individual character films that have preceded it. Evidently less would've been more.

The Avengers Initiative

The time has come. After much prolonged build-up The Avengers is finally upon us, and fanboys and film geeks have been practically frothing at the mouth in feverish anticipation for this event. I’ve been looking forward to it a lot but also with a certain degree of caution, as I’ve realised it’s best to manage your own expectations and not get too carried away. Nonetheless I have prepared by recently rewatching the prior Marvel films that have gotten us to this point – Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Since rewatching each it's occurred to me that although I don't yet know what form my review of The Avengers will take (I haven't even seen the film yet), it will be difficult to write it without getting bogged down in backstory and detailed thoughts on each of the characters and their previous films. So, as both a prelude and an attempt at clarifying my thoughts on the background, here's where I stand on each of these films:

Iron Man

(Dir: Jon Favreau, 2008)

Iron Man presented the challenge of bringing a lesser known superhero to the screen, but even more so, a superhero that like Batman is only able to do what he does due to being a billionaire. Likeability is key in this scenario and the first thing that Marvel successfully nailed here was the leftfield casting of Robert Downey Jr. There were many doubters when it was announced, but Downey Jr totally becomes the character of Tony Stark, bringing the arrogance and narcissism that's required, but with a wild, fun streak that makes you both want to live his life and enjoy watching it. He’s basically a loveable asshole. It’s a great marriage between the writing and the acting, and this is one of those characters where there’s no way you could imagine anyone else ever playing the role.

The Iron Man suit itself is a pretty awesome plaything, looking sleek, high-tech and a lot of fun. It’s robust enough that you believe Stark can win in a fight, and there’s a lot of fun to be had whilst he is wearing it. What the film lacks, and this is it’s one problem, is a decent villain. Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane is an interesting foil for Stark, he’s powerful and slightly menacing, but that's in the "real world" only and when he becomes Iron Monger the film falls flat. The final fight sequence is just too mechanical and only seems to be there because that's what usually happens in films like this. It lacks all the elements that make the rest of the film so good. Maybe Favreau was still finding his feet as an action director, but the film might’ve been more interesting if it could’ve taken a slightly different route at the end.

Iron Man manages to add another interesting dimension by having something of an anti-war message and highlighting the futile profiteering of selling weapons to your enemies. This at least delivers a bit of food for thought. Shifting the early focus of the film into the caves of some foreign country where Stark is held hostage by terrorists offers a clever character arc, as well the excitement of a knocked together prototype Iron Man suit. And it’s a very “bright” film, with most scenes set around the day time with lots of sunshine, making the most of the Malibu and foreign desert locations. This positively affects it’s look and mood.

Upon many repeated watches Iron Man continues to impress me as a great piece of high quality big budget entertainment, with one of the best superhero alter ego's ever.

The Incredible Hulk

(Dir: Louis Leterrier, 2008)

Let me say this from the outset – I’ve never been a fan of the Hulk character. I find the concept all a bit too one dimensional and as his only emotion ever really seems to be rage, it’s difficult to care about him. I did quite like Ang Lee’s very comic book like attempt at the story back in 2003’s Hulk, and until I rewatched The Incredible Hulk again I was convinced the former was the better of the two. Now I'm not so sure, as Leterrier’s version has a bit more to offer than I initially thought.

Edward Norton makes for a very good Bruce Banner, convincing as an intelligent man who is always living on the edge, desperately seeking for a way to control his demon. The first half hour set in the Brazilian favelas is the best part of the film, as Banner fights to remain anonymous and control himself. Back on US soil the film stays pretty interesting until it reaches the last twenty minutes or so, where it just descends into bad predictable anarchy. Tim Roth's Blonsky, the ageing special forces agent hunting Banner, wants the powers Banner has (just like in Iron Man) so ends up becoming The Abomination, thus we end up with 2 CGI characters battling it out through the streets of New York. It may be inevitable, but it is so thoroughly uninteresting that it really lets the film down.

Banner is really the only interesting character in the film. Blonsky is just the determined pitbull freed of his tether, whilst Liv Tyler's Betty, the love interest, is just vaguely annoying. Her father, General Ross (William Hurt), is the catalyst for all this, but he's too myopically focused on a single goal to be a character of much interest. And this is where I’d forgotten how the balance of the film really lies – it’s mostly Banner that we’re watching and not the Hulk. So three quarters of the film balanced in this way helps a lot, as inevitably CGI humans don’t look good, even when they are green and exceptionally large.

The Incredible Hulk is actually a pretty good and interesting film when Norton/Banner are on screen. When a green CGI man is on screen, it’s not so good. It's a shame that both this and Iron Man have major final act issues, but at least it was pleasing to find that I enjoyed the film a lot more on a second watch.

Iron Man 2

(Dir: Jon Favreau, 2010)

Iron Man 2 is the first of these Marvel films to tackle the sequel issue, ie how well do they cope when it's not an origins story. Fortunately there's no re-establishing the core elements - we know who Stark is, how the suit works, and what his primary relationships with his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle here, Terence Howard in the first) are all about. The sequel's primary aim is to amp up the action quotient, which Favreau doesn’t shy away from here. The introduction of two interesting villains carries on Marvel’s knack for great casting – Sam Rockwell plays Justin Hammer, a rival arms manufacturer who is as slick as a snake oil salesman, despises Stark, and wants his own equivalent Iron Man suit; Mickey Rourke is the slightly demented but deeply intelligent Ivan Vanko (aka Whiplash), who has a very strong personal vendetta against Stark. Inevitably they all collide. 

This definitely feels a lot more like an action film. The introduction to Whiplash is pretty spectacular, taking place at the Monaco grand prix with all sorts of carnage ensuing, and the wide complaint that the final scene in the first film was so lacklustre appears to have been duly noted, with a fully overblown excursion into destruction. It almost feels a bit much but it is entertaining to watch. Fortunately the main attributes which made the first film so good haven't been ignored – there’s a lot of focus on character still, it’s funny and all round pretty thrilling.

We also get some more background into Stark’s character, with his enigmatic father making an appearance. Howard Stark (John Slattery) appears in old reels of film that Tony watches, which all seems to play into the bigger overarching Avengers story. This gets a lot more attention here. Clark Gregg’s Agent Coulson was in the first film but seemingly for comic relief, but here has more to do. We also get properly introduced to Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and another S.H.I.E.L.D operative, Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), who gets probably the best action scene in the film. In the cinema all this introducing the Avengers stuff seemed a convoluted distraction, but having seen the subsequent films it's now an interesting aspect as it makes a little more sense and there’s more to try to piece together, if you’re so inclined.

Ultimately Iron Man 2 lacks some of the wonder of the first film and probably goes a little too overboard with the action, but it’s still a very satisfactory sequel. As we’re already on Stark’s side there's a bit more focus on the other characters such as the intriguing antagonists, which just helps make it an interesting film. 

Thor

(Dir: Kenneth Branagh, 2011)

Thor was always going to be the Marvel film of this run with the greatest chance of failure. Taking one of the much lesser known Marvel characters, it had to contend with this character being a Norse god (a very long way away from the usual superhero mutations/billionaires), as well as making a story work that takes place both on and off Earth, and not forgetting a director whom you’d never think to mutter in the same breath as the words “big budget Hollywood film”. So how comes Thor turned out to be the best of all these films?

Firstly that director choice – Branagh is a self confessed fan of the Thor comic since he was a boy, so had an excellent understanding of the source material, but as importantly as that he is an actor too, so knows how to get good performances out of his cast and to direct the film in a way which focuses on character. And he has some fantastic characters to work with. There is the petulant, arrogant Thor (Chris Hemsworth) who is banished to Earth leading to some excellent fish-out-of-water comedy. His brother Loki (Tom Hiddlestone) gets the meat of the "acting", superbly playing a multi-layered Shakespeareanesque character, and it's good to see Anthony Hopkins as Odin. Back on Earth, Natalie Portman’s Jane and Stellan Skarsgård's Erik are scientists who despite not being especially fascinating, are likeable and offer some human balance to make an ethereal concept so relatable.

The shift between Asgard, Jötunheimr and Earth works well, and whilst there's subterfuge going on in Asgard, the humans on Earth are fighting their own battles with S.H.I.E.L.D who are are determined to stop their research. This means we get more Agent Coulson and a very brief introduction to Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), both of which are good things. So much of this film lies on Hemsworth’s ample shoulders and he delivers, wielding the mighty Mjölnir with gusto, and displaying a decent range of emotions. The film doesn't get too bogged down by unnecessary action scenes, except when needed to establish and conclude the story, so there is a lot more on offer.

Thor is thoroughly entertaining, much in the same way that Iron Man is, but it offers something very different, with a touch more weight that is greatly appreciated. Having now seen it four times I’m not even slightly bored of it and I can safely say it was one of my favourite films of 2011.

Captain America: The First Avenger

(Dir: Joe Johnson, 2011)

You know what we don’t get enough of these days? Old fashioned adventure films. Well that’s exactly what Captain America: The First Avenger is. Going back to the roots of the character and setting the film in the 1940’s during World War 2 is one of the essential ingredients that makes it work. There’s a certain charm with how this is portrayed and it would all feel slightly cynical if it was done so in modern day. There’s also something refreshing about someone who is essentially super human but is stuck in a time that's not as technologically advanced as today. Except in this world it is slightly so, as Nazi Johann Schmidt, aka the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), has come across a new energy source which gives his weapons and technology a modern sheen, allowing him to set up his Hydra organisation with which he plans to take over the world.

Chris Evans is highly enjoyable as the stoic and unwavering Steve Rogers (aka Captain America), in both his small weedy frame, and bulked up new and enhanced form. I liked the rest of the casting too, particularly Stanley Tucci as Dr. Erskine and Hayley Atwell as Peggy, Cap's potential love interest – there's something kind of believable between them. The film wants to make it clear that the little man shouldn’t get trampled on, an admirable message, and as such it isn’t too bullish but has fun with the whole concept. This means it borders on cheesy at times and also suffers from too many of the effects looking fake and green screened, but I could live with both those things as they’re part of the film’s charm.

The other aspect that worked was the introduction of Howard Stark (played here by Dominic Cooper), who’s an integral secondary character in the film. Being set in a different era, this is cleverly the only way to make a clear connection to the rest of the universe that the other films have alluded too. The bookending of the film in present day felt too jarring, but no matter, the biggest disappointment is that the ending made it clear that we shouldn’t expect a Captain America sequel to be set in a similar time period. A big shame.

Captain America: The First Avenger is a lot of fun and introduces the character in a great manner, and it's particularly refreshing to see something made in this day and age that reflected a more classic age of storytelling. Take note Hollywood - more of the same please!

Review: Gone

(Dir: Heitor Dahlia, 2012)

1, 2, 3, 5, 4. That’s how I was expecting Gone to go. In other words, I was expecting a pretty generic thriller that followed convention. I wasn’t too wrong to be honest, although Gone does offer up a couple of elements that I wouldn’t necessarily call deviations from this line, but they're elements that play with expectations just a little more interestingly than I anticipated. But wait a minute, this seems like I'm getting ahead of myself, as if I’m at point 4 where I needn’t be yet. Let's jump back a bit.

Gone is about a girl, Jill (Amanda Seyfried), who comes home from work early one morning to find her sister Molly (Emily Wickersham) not there as expected. This leaves Jill freaked out as she’s mentally fragile, recovering from the torment of having escaped a serial killer who was never caught. Her instant rationale in this situation is that the killer has come back looking for her and has taken Molly instead. The police however are just convinced that she’s a nut. So did any of this really happen? This is what we must figure out as Jill rushes around hunting for Molly.

The plot is achingly familiar but rather than turning into a police procedural it mostly plays out from Jill’s perspective, which means it doesn’t get as hampered down with the formalities that would otherwise be required. We do still see fragments of police work, but they’re more focused on trying to keep tabs on Jill rather than solve an abduction / track a possible serial killer. The narrative drives along at a decent pace with different clues constantly being picked up as we go. Fortunately the question of sanity / insanity adds an element of uncertainty not only to the plot, but also to how we perceive Jill. There's the possibility that the extreme determination she possesses could make her a tragic figure rather than the desperate heroine she's trying to be.

Seyfried is pretty good in the role, successfully channeling these emotions thus making her fairly believable, with the right amount of imbalance thrown in alongside her frantic logic. However, due to the fact that you never really know which side of the sanity fence she's on, I struggled to sympathise with her, and there were times she was sailing close to the annoying line. The rest of the cast are fine, although I was left wondering what attracted the next two most recognisable faces to their roles in Gone, as they didn't feel substantial enough to warrant them. It’s also worth mentioning one scene that did impress me that appears in the latter part of the film - taking place in a car it's simply a long phone conversation, but it did a quietly effective job of building tension and a sense of uncertainty. More scenes like this would've been good!

Gone is essentially a generic thriller which despite a couple of interesting ideas, doesn’t do much to elevate itself beyond the “once watched easily forgotten” pile that the vast majority of films of this ilk so easily end up on. Nonetheless it’s an entertaining enough watch and it certainly helps that it moves along at a decent pace and doesn’t outstay it’s welcome, whilst Seyfried makes it watchable. But despite my core film watching principle that everything is best seen at the cinema, this is perhaps one of those films that doesn’t need to be. So back to describing the plot in numbers, it's really 1, 2, 3... I won’t spoil it!

Review: Battleship

(Dir: Peter Berg, 2012)

A film like Battleship exists on one level only – pure entertainment. It’s not concerned with anything more than showing absolute destruction, whilst a small band of heroes arise in the middle of this to fight against the odds and try to avert what seems inevitable. Sounds familiar right? Of course, you could list any number of big budget movies from the last couple of decades that follow this well worn template. This isn’t a question of how original the idea is, it’s how well is this executed? And how much you like this film might also depend on your predilection towards explosions.

Tenuously based on the popular board game, Battleship’s version of the aforementioned template has aliens responding to a signal mankind has sent into space, who land in the Pacific near a large fleet of military ships on naval exercises, making them the ones who must stop this emigrant threat. Of course this will (mostly) happen on water. Our lead for this is bad boy officer Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) who is always getting into trouble, is in love with the Admiral’s daughter (Brooklyn Decker) but the Admiral (Liam Neeson) hates him, and his Captain brother (Alexander Skarsgård) is constantly trying to help him out usually to no avail.

There’s obviously a lot of action in Battleship. Some of it is quite well put together, some of it is uninteresting. I've got no clear dilineation for this to be honest as it’s all the usual cgi overload, but I will say the scenes on water with ships fighting each other look good and it all sounds quite impressive. There’s a lot of explosions, so if that’s what gets you off then this is the film for you. Unfortunately the aliens look pretty rubbish and too humanoid, and there’s something far too video gameish going on when they’re out of their ships. Even within the confines of a plot like this the story is pretty standard and clichéd. It goes from character establishment to the firing of big guns pretty quickly.

Actually, saying the film establishes character is overly generous as there is virtually no characterisation in Battleship. The opening scenes make a rudimentary effort to make Hopper seem like a bad boy as well as establish his love for the Admiral’s daughter, but it serves zero purpose throughout the film. Kitsch completely lacks any personality here and it could be anyone playing this role. I don’t think I would have noticed if he’d been swapped out halfway for someome like Channing Tatum. I liked Kitsch in John Carter and thought he bought something to that role, so it’s disappointing he’s so bland here because in these sorts of films you really need to have a lead you can root for. Hell, as much as Shia LaBeouf is hated by people, at least he had personality in the Transformers movies. The rest of the cast is as bland, faceless and irrelevant. Anyone else could be playing these roles and it would make no difference to the film whatsoever.

It's worth noting that Battleship is not quite as annoyingly jigonistic as many of these big-budget “end of the world is imminent” Hollywood films have a tendency to be. There’s at least something of an international naval element going on rather than it being pure “America! Fuck yeah!”. Is this a recognition that the international film market is so valuable now? It seems unusual but is very pleasing that the UK has had Battleship five weeks before the US gets to see it. And one more thing I couldn't not mention - impressively the filmmakers managed to find a way to work a scene into the film that is entirely based on the board game, and believe it or not it actually kinda works!

You know what you’re getting into with a film like Battleship. My expectations were incredibly low because as much as I enjoy films like this (and I honestly do, as sometimes you need to switch off your brain to mindless entertainment) the trailer made me expect another Transformers: Revenge Of the Fallen (the awful second one). Fortunately it ended up being more like Transformers: Dark Of the Moon (the not as bad fairly entertaining third one). Battleship is very average, overblown, dumb, Hollywood entertainment - it offers nothing original, the direction is perfunctory and the characterisation abysmal. In the pantheon of films of this ilk it’s not likely to be remembered. Yet I don’t regret my two hours in the cinema as I was kept quietly entertained. It successfully served it’s purpose so it would feel churlish for me to complain too much. Although if I could count the number of times I wanted some of the shots to be framed against the background of a burning orange sunset...