Review: Prometheus

(Dir: Ridley Scott, 2012)

Expectations for a film based on its trailer are one thing, but expectations based on just the idea / concept of the film are quite another. When it was announced that Ridley Scott would be making a prequel to / another film in the Alien universe, the internet practically self combusted with geek excitement. Alien is after all one of the seminal sci-fi/horror’s of the last few decades, beautifully nuanced in its slow build of terror and isolation. Scott arguably made the right decision not to come back for a sequel as it allowed us James Cameron’s superbly amped up Aliens and David Fincher’s Alien³, which deviated the story in an interesting direction. But fortunately Scott saw the light and realised he had unfinished business in this universe, or with sci-fi at least, and so we have Prometheus.

The story follows the crew of the spaceship Prometheus in the year 2093, on an exploratory mission to find what they believe to be mankind’s makers, following clues left by many ancient civilisations, deciphered by scientists Elizabeth (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie (Logan Marshall-Green). Funded by the famed Weyland Corporation, this leads the crew, including captain Janek (Idris Elba), Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) and David (Michael Fassbender), to a moon many millions of light years away from Earth where they find... something.

Prometheus was intended to exist as a sci-fi film in its own right, but one that also kind of acts as a precursor to the Alien series if you look a little closer. It balances this superbly. The metaphysical nature of the story about man trying to meet his maker in order to rationalise existence is an interesting one, but as it progresses it’s suffused with the thought that maybe we might not want to know the answer as it might not be what we want. It might disappoint.

As to how the film is infused with the DNA of the Alien franchise, I was impressed with how this was approached. There are many visual cues that harken back – darkened corridors; the Geiger-like creepy synthesis of the organic and mechanical; chambers filled with multitudes of the unknown; harsh howling winds; a determined female lead – it does the right amount for us to feel it’s symbiotically connected, but this doesn’t overpower. I thought it presented and answered enough whilst still leaving plenty to be considered. After all, what fun would it be if everything was laid out explicitly?

The acting and casting is solid. Rapace is good as the lead and has the right amount of conviction, whilst Theron plays her role as the steely shepherd of the expedition well. The highlight however is Fassbender’s David. He is a synthetic human, much like Ian Holm’s Ash and Lance Henriksen’s Bishop in previous films, with a coldness about him that you can’t escape, even in his attempts at warmth. There is something unnerving about the character, not only seen in his calculated actions but also his ever so slightly perfect appearance that never changes. Yet again Fassbender proves he’s one of the best actors in the business.

The direction is spot on and it’s a well structured story, and while it feels like it packs a lot in it still takes time to build, until eventually the cavalcade of events intensify into a fitting crescendo. The script by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof (the latter of Lost fame) balances the scientific, ideological and (some) character development well despite some frustrating character actions. On top of this the visual effects and sound design are both excellent. It’s all very big and dramatic as befits sci-fi, but also manages to employ some interesting retro looking effects as a way of viewing past events. Visual aesthetics have always been a strength of the Alien films.  

Prometheus is a classy sci-fi film that thoroughly worked for me. I tried to keep my expectations to the minimum as there was so much obfuscation around what we would actually get, but the decision to approach this as a standalone sci-fi film that happens to provide some explanations about the origins of the xenomorphs whilst also examining mankind's origins, was definitely the right one. You could watch this having never seen any of the Alien films and not feel like you’re missing anything, whilst existing fans will love all the little details that link it. Scott’s decision to return to the genre proves to have been an extremely successful one and it’ll be very interesting to see where this may lead in the future.

Review: Snow White and the Huntsman

(Dir: Rupert Sanders, 2012)

Expectations built up by a trailer are a funny thing. The trailer for Snow and the Huntsman did a great job of selling me a movie that I expected to have very little interest in. Frankly I thought it made it look great. But alongside that I’ve had a couple of preconceptions about this film due to Mirror Mirror unexpectedly delivering an interesting and visually sumptuous version of the Snow White story earlier this year. My expectations for that film based on its trailer were that it would be rubbish. It wasn’t. So Snow White and the Huntsman had something to live up to. The reality is, I should know better than to set high expectations for a film based on a trailer as frequently the full package doesn’t deliver.

This version of the Snow White story establishes things in the standard way then approaches the rest from a slightly different angle. The evil queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) quickly takes control of the throne and locks Snow White (Kristen Stewart) away in the castle. Some years later she escapes and the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) is brought in to find and bring her back so the queen can gain eternal youth. But upon tracking her down he decides to protect her, leading to them they traipsing across the land to a friendly duke who will help overthrow the queen. On the way a few of the standard Snow White story elements are worked in – poison apples, dwarves and the like. 

Two of the big selling points in the trailer were the suggestion it might be Lord Of the Rings lite and also some fascinating dark imagery around the queen. The film certainly aims for something closer to this territory than a standard fairytale, although perhaps it’s fair to say Snow White and the Huntsman is more akin to the Narnia films, minus talking animals. I thought this an interesting way to approach the story. But the best parts of the film involve the queen. Theron goes into overacting territory a bit but it doesn’t matter so much as it works for the character and she does seem genuinely evil. The continual decimation of everything beautiful around her to quench her savage narcissism and desire for immortality is born of desperation, as she barely manages to maintain face and keep from appearing to her kingdom as the old crone she really is. The surrounding dark imagery heightens her perniciousness and really lifts these scenes.

It’s a shame then that Stewart doesn’t work at all in the role of Snow White. Just to be clear from the outset as I know she has a lot of haters, I’m not one. I loved her in Adventureland and she was good in The Runaways, but both of those characters had a similar vibe that suits her look and how she comes across, which also seems to work within the hollowness of the Twilight films. It just doesn’t work as Snow White. She lacks the overwhelming beauty that this character should possess and comes across with zero personality. There’s a vacant emotionlessness with no hidden layers which makes her something of a cipher, so it’s impossible to care about her character and she makes no impact in the film. If you compare her to the pulchritudinous of Lily Collins in Mirror Mirror you would not believe they are portraying the same character. I know why Stewart was cast but for a film this big it would be futile to argue the point of art over marketability.

Chris Hemsworth fares better and since Thor I’ve become a fan of his. He exudes a likeable physical presence on the screen, however his accent in the film is both inexplicable and irritating, which really distracted me. As did the dwarves. There seemed to be something quite curious about casting people like Ian MacShane, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins, Toby Jones and Nick Frost as dwarves, but it didn’t work. Despite adding a few mild moments of comedy it was jarring seeing these actors like this, and although I can see they tried to address that by disguising them with make-up and funny hair styles, it seems ludicrous that these roles didn’t actually go to actors of the right stature.

Another poor decision was the choice of director. This was the debut of Rupert Sanders, making him a surprising choice for the producers to gamble on considering this is a big budget summer movie. Sanders does get some really good visuals, but the film itself is boring and ponderous. The first half hour or so is fairly interesting, but once they leave the dark forest interest quickly wanes, only to be enlivened in the moments when Theron is back on screen. Just don’t get me started on the scenes in fairy Sanctuary which felt totally awkward and dissonant with the rest of the film. 

Snow White and the Huntsman was disappointing. Curiously it managed to nail the darker side of the story but failed on all the other aspects, resulting in a mostly boring film that didn’t manage to offer anything more than a few interesting visuals. With a more suitable and engaging lead actress perhaps it would’ve been improved but I think a lot of fault lies in the direction too. There was plenty of potential with the route the story took, but it was squandered. Tarsem’s Mirror Mirror had many flaws, but it worked and felt like a more considered and interesting attempt at this classic tale. Watch Snow White and the Huntsman if you want something dull and lifeless with a dark edge; watch Mirror Mirror (review here) if you want something fun, vibrant and beautiful that actually feels like a fairytale brought to life.

Review: American Reunion

(Dir: Jon Hurwitz & Hayden Schlossberg, 2012)

I read something recently that astounded me – American Pie has spawned seven sequels. Yes, seven! That’s a pretty impressive feat, clearly mimicking the churn and burn production line of horror sequels à la Saw and Friday 13th, and I’m sure none of those involved with the original film expected to be able to milk the franchise that much. Of course they’ve reached a direct-to-DVD point of quality where the only consist elements are Eugene Levy and a lead character with the name Stifler. Until American Reunion that is, the seventh and latest sequel where the entire cast of the first two films have returned, after evidently realising that their careers haven’t amounted to as much as the success of the first two films seemingly promised them.

So it’s thirteen years since the first American Pie, everyone has adult lives and are only casually in touch with each other, until they all reunite over a weekend for their high school reunion. This inevitably leads to long forgotten emotions surfacing, carnage and lots of nudity. As a concept this is a decent and believable way to get an original cast back together after all this time, so it’s just a shame it doesn’t actually add up to much here.

American Reunion suffers from making it's characters regress, rather than giving the audience as much full on nostalgia as it could've. Initially it’s good to see these old faces together again and watch them reconnect, but then it quickly descends into a bunch of 30 year olds acting like they’re back in high school which really isn’t much fun to watch. Perhaps it was too much to expect it to have moved on from this a bit? But maybe this was done because the characters appear far less interesting at this stage of their lives. Jim (Jason Biggs) and Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) are married with a kid. They seem boring. Oz (Chris Klein) is a tv personality with a crazy model girlfriend. He seems bored. Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is under the thumb of his nice wife. Dull. Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) remains enigmatic and here at least there is something more genuinely interesting going on.

Then there’s the other big issue which can be summed up in one word – Stifler. Seann William-Scott’s character has always been the hardest to take in this franchise because of his charmless frat-boy-like idiocy. Here it’s amplified and feels more jarring because his character hasn’t grown up and is exactly the same, with his borderline obsessive sexual fascination. This was disappointing to see after William-Scott’s great performance in Goon, which seemed to break him free from the stereotyping this annoying character has brought his career.

And now I’m going to complain about the films preoccupation with sex. I know that was a key element of American Pie, but now it’s monotonous. Thirteen years on and it still seems like it’s the be all and end all of their lives. Maybe it’s an accurate reflection of society, but unfortunately it leaves us with cringeworthy plotlines like Jim having to keep fending off his hot eighteen year old neighbour who wants to lose her virginity with him, just as an excuse to create poor dramatic tension as he keeps it secret, and to show us some breasts. It all feels dumb and regressive.

American Reunion was disappointing. I appreciated the nostalgia, there were a few laughs and kudos for getting so many of the original supporting cast back, but it didn’t get close to living up to either of the first two films. I wonder if it is the age thing? American Pie is one of those films synonymous with university for me – it was funny, fresh and somewhat relatable, as well as having a fantastic soundtrack that represented my music taste of the time. I guess now I’ve just grown up a lot more than the characters have and watching them acting like horny schoolboys all over again has lost it’s lustre. If it had’ve been a lot funnier and they cut back on Stifler maybe I’d have been more forgiving, but as it is I’m hoping we’re not subjected to anymore reunions.   

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.