Genuine Cuteness Vs Contrived Cuteness

I've been thinking a little about why Disney's 'Frozen' didn't work for me and I've realised that - equally grating as the bad Broadway-style pop songs - is the way little children are presented at the start of the film. Specifically the toddler version of Princess Anna, whose big round face, massive eyes and constant shrill giggling feel like the product of somebody typing the word CUTE into some sort of character generator machine. Make no mistake, children are (or at least can be) cute. Real children, that is. Children are one of the hardest things to get right in media - films and video games in particular - because there is a really fine line between genuinely cute movie children and cynically cute children, born of contrivance and engineered to manipulate an audience.

The difference between the two should be clear, but I'm going to provide video examples anyway to illustrate my point.

First, here is a clip of Mei from Miyazaki's 'My Neighbour Totoro':



Mei is cute because she behaves like a child. The animation is subtle and perfectly observed. She is dumpy and clumsy in a very realistic way that causes you to recall actual children you know, and her one, loud, exaggerated shriek of delight in the above clip also rings very true. The clip I really wanted, but could not find, was perhaps the best example of this genuine, organic cuteness born of creating a compelling, young character (as opposed to going about it in reverse): the bit where she puts on an oversized straw hat, picks up a trowel, slings a big bag over her shoulders and tells her dad she's "just off to run some errands". Perfect. Just the sort of strange thing a child might actual say.

Here is what happens when it all goes horribly wrong. Here is an egregious example of contrived cuteness...



I didn't know this character was called "Agnes", but immediately found loads of clips and pictures by typing "Despicable Me cute girl" into Google. This is appropriate, because Agnes is not a character. She's a high-pitched voice and big eyes, saying the word unicorn every second line. She isn't designed to resemble an actual child. She's designed to appeal to people who go "awwwww" when they see a picture of a particularly photogenic animal.

Disney usually don't fall into "The Agnes Trap", but young Princess Anna is exactly this way. Yes, I'm fixating on something really small at the start of the film, but I expect better of Disney animators. Rant over. Return to your cat pictures, internet.

'The Way, Way Back', 'Elysium' and 'Planes' (sort of): review round-up

'The Way, Way Back' - Dir. Nat Faxon & Jim Rash (12A)

The words "Twentieth Century Fox Searchlight presents" or (better still) "from the makers of 'Little Miss Sunshine'" rarely herald something good. There's a certain quirksome, brightly coloured, ensemble cast-powered American Indie - usually with a sun-faded blue and yellow poster - that comes out every year bearing these stark promotional slogans (or warnings, as I call them). They usually have boring-straight-man-Steve-Carell in them somewhere ("I'm an actor!", these appearances seem to scream) and Alison Janney is never far away - though she's completely superfluous in the latest of these jangly guitar music laden monstrosities, 'The Way, Way Back', which adds to the feeling that a perfunctory box ticking exercise has informed some of the decision making from writers-turned-directors Nat Faxon and Jim Rash.

This one can be summed up as being about a kid (Liam "one expression" James) who is entirely miserable and unsympathetic in the face of constant, unearned kindness and compassion from almost everyone he meets. Sam Rockwell runs a water park and wants to be this kid's best friend, for... reasons, I guess. It's never clear why. He just starts following him around and smiling at him in a way that should register as creepy. Likewise, everyone at the water park - customers and employees - loves him. Amanda Peet wants to dance with him. Alison Janney is desperate for her son to be friends with him, while her daughter (the three first-name sporting AnnaSophia Robb) is equally desperate to be his summer girlfriend, hanging around looking longingly at him in spite of his clear lack of social graces and charisma.

The cherry on the cake here is that he hates his mother's (Toni Collette) new boyfriend (Carell), as children his age are liable to do. But whereas most kids in his position form an irrational hate they can't reasonably express about a person who's probably decent enough, this kid actually has sees first hand evidence that this guy is a douchebag and gets to shout about it at a garden party - re-framing the story from "angsty teen who needs to grow" to "crusader teen who knows better than the grown-ups about everything".

He should be a sympathetic character. We've all been awkward, moody teenagers. But this kid is his own worst enemy in a world that's throwing nothing but well-intentioned metaphors and sunshine in his direction for the most part... and he doesn't even really learn anything or change at all by the time the credits roll. He enters the film a moody, entitled little shit and exits the film in the same fashion. At the start Carell tells the kid he's a 3/10 and that he needs to put himself out there more and smile occasionally. Well, this is the story of a kid or goes from three to, charitably, a four and a half over an hour and forty minutes that will have you thinking "shit, even Sam Rockwell is bad in this" and "did these guys really write 'The Descendants'"?

'Elysium' - Dir. Neill Blomkamp (15)

It isn't 'District 9' but Neill Blomkamp's follow-up is as ambitious and imaginative as it is clunky. There's a lot of ham-fisted, panto-quality, over-acting involved - notably from Brazilian actor Wagner Moura as "Spider" and Jodie Foster, who seems to be playing a Disney villain in a film happening in her own imagination - while the childhood flashback sequences are a bit cheesy and obvious and, I'll concede, its movement between irreverent, splatter-gore comedy and cloying, string-music backed scenes of children on crutches in peril speak of a tonal mishmash. But it's also got some decent dystopian world building and spectacular design work, as well as some interesting politics for a mainstream blockbuster - with our hero, Matt Damon, framed as an insurgent against the robot drones, unhinged mercenaries and satellite surveillance footage of the film's privileged bad guys - white, wealthy elites living far above a shanty town and predominantly Hispanic Los Angeles in the shiny, clean space station paradise of the title.

The man who once nearly directed a Halo movie, based on the Microsoft video game, continues to borrow heavily from recent sci-fi hits of that medium - notably with elements of Mass Effect and Halo itself. There're some very video gamey future-weapons too, and the plot sees Damon effectively level-up into an augmented mech warrior for some hi-octane fight scenes against Sharlto Copley's crazed henchman that make me question whether I'd rather be playing 'Elysium' than watching it. But it's a solid and entertaining action movie with ideas and a high-concept, so overall I'm enthusiastic about it despite a great many shortcomings.

'Planes' - Dir. Klay Hall (U)

Now, I can only kind of review this - so take my opinion with a greater than usual pinch of salt - but I took my aviation-obsessed 2 1/2 year-old brother to see 'Planes' and he got bored after about 15 minutes, and we left the screening after 30. So I haven't seen the entire movie and usually wouldn't give too strong an opinion based on that. However, I wanted to note that this movie seemed to fail with its target audience: on a plane-mad toddler who will patiently watch actual YouTube footage of a helicopter take off with wide-eyed glee for a very uneventful ten minutes. Sadly, he just couldn't be bothered with the exploits of Dusty the Cropduster and I can't really blame him.

From my end I can only say it's very clear that the film was produced by Disney's straight-to-video people and not by Pixar. It's flat, not particularly detailed and the animation lacks finesse. And, on top of that, it's basically a re-make of the first 'Cars' with a less flawed, more bland central character. That's right: a re-make of 'Cars' made by less talented people. Shudder.

'Pacific Rim', 'Monsters University', 'The Bling Ring', 'We Steal Secrets' and 'The Deep': review round-up

'Pacific Rim' - Dir. Guillermo Del Toro (12A)

A clear labour of love for creature feature obsessive Guillermo Del Toro, 'Pacific Rim' marks the 'Pan's Labyrinth' director's first completed film since 2008's 'Hellboy II' and sees the Mexican channeling his fandom of Japanese mecha anime series and kaiju monster movies into something grand and frequently spectacular of the summer blockbuster variety. It takes place in the near-future, where a trans-dimensional portal beneath the Pacific ocean has been unleashing giant beasts upon the Earth for a number of years with city-destroying consequences. Humanity's solution? We created monsters of our own, in the form of Jaegers: towering metal soldiers controlled by teams of specially selected, mentally compatible human pilots, built in a spirit of international co-operation. However, years into this struggle, we are losing the battle: the kaiju are getting bigger, their attacks are more frequent and only a handful of Jaegers remain as governments worldwide abandon the program in favour of hiding behind ineffectual coastal walls. It's down to the last Jaeger pilots, and a pair of eccentric scientists, to cancel the apocalypse.

Packed with jaw-dropping set-pieces, characteristically striking visuals and boasting gorgeous production design, it's a visual treat and the sort of thrill-ride you only get from the very best Hollywood fare. Even the 3D - post-converted, but apparently given more time and attention than usual - is a treat, adding texture to the rain effects in particular, as the Jaegers battle the Kaiju at sea. From a character point of view it's broad, but certainly not dumb or empty: the drama feels humane and ties into the action rather than being a perfunctory afterthought. It's also pleasing how international the whole thing is. Yes: it's an American movie, so the American pilot and American mech win the day. But, on the flip-side, rarely is an action movie of this kind less militaristic or nationalistic than this. There's a Russian mechs, a Chinese mech and we're told the Australian mech is the best of the bunch - the most successful and effective around - allowing a sense that this is truly humanity fighting together in its darkest hour.

Also missing is the traditional antagonism between the military and scientists: the misunderstandings, the distrust, the contempt that's usually a huge part of the sci-fi genre. The human characters are, broadly speaking, all good guys and all on the same page - for the most part behaving rationally and not just shouting each other down. At several key moments the film neatly side-stepped whatever horrid cliche I thought was about to occur in favour of something less frustrating or contrived. There are still cliches, but they are the fun kind: like something out of the best bits of 'Independence Day' rather than 'Transformers'. What's more, the male characters are allowed to be emotional, while the lead actress (Rinko Kikuchi) is capable and not really a love interest in the traditional sense (the bond she shares with Charlie Hunnam's lead is not explicitly based around sexual attraction, and she's certainly never presented as a prize to be won by the hero).

Where the film really shines is in the amount of subtle world-building that takes place, with lots of background details and minor plot-points making the world feel rich and lived-in. This is a world effected in numerous ways - big and small - but the arrival of the Kaiju, and this provides some really excellent moments and imaginative ideas. Ideas that become enigmatic and encourage audience curiosity. If this film was a character, it's Boba Fett from 'The Empire Strikes Back': intriguing, rarely seen, the potential basis for endless hours of thought and fantasy by fans. What it's not is Jango Fett from 'Attack of the Clones': over-exposed, over-explained and under-whelming as a result.

One of the most purely enjoyable films we're likely to see this year and possibly the finest original sci-fi action film since 'District 9'.

'Monsters University' - Dir. Dan Scanlon (U)

Why don't presidents and prime ministers ever do all the stuff they promised they'd do once elected? The cynical view is that they're all cads and crooks: they never intended to do those things. They said what they had to in order to get elected and then they did what everybody does - they protected their own interests. But maybe (maybe) the reason the Obamas of this world don't live up to expectations is that, when you're actually in the chair, you're suddenly seeing different data, hearing different opinions from advisers and faced with a different set of responsibilities and expectations. I think this latter analysis might explain why Pixar - who once deliberately, self-consciously stood as a counter-point to the cynical, sequel churn - has been milking its "franchises" for all they're worth ever since founder John Lasseter got promoted at Disney.

For the record: I love Pixar. I think, not controversially, the people at Pixar are geniuses who have presided over arguably the most consistent run of quality animated films ever delivered by any studio. Unsurpassed in terms of technical accomplishment, story development and animation detail, their films are modern masterpieces. 'Cars' accepted, the nine of the ten films released between 1995 ('Toy Story') and 2009 ('Up') have to be considered among the finest animated films ever made. I say this not to fawn unduly, but to show that I both deeply love and greatly respect what the studio has stood for during the peak years of its existence. But ever since John Lasseter became the CFO at Disney in 2006, all those sequels the studio used to shun have happened or are on their way to happening at the expense of the sort of original ideas we've become accustomed to as devoted members of their audience.

We've had the (and I know I'm in the minority here) lackluster 'Toy Story 3', the embarrassing 'Cars 2' and now - with a sequel for 'Finding Nemo' apparently on the way - here comes 'Monsters University': a prequel no one asked for, from a studio that - less than a decade ago - would never have considered making it. I have all the respect in the world for John Lasseter and, since 2006, the quality of output coming from Disney Animation Studios has increased dramatically ('Princess and the Frog', 'Tangled', 'Wreck-It Ralph'), but I mourn for Pixar after this latest assault on its legacy.

As you may have gathered from the opening three paragraphs of increasingly shrill hysteria, 'Monsters University' - which sees the beloved Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) learning to be "scarers" and friends during their college years - is not a great piece of work. It's good. It's perfectly fine. It passes the time. There are moments of great wit and invention, and a few genuinely inspired laughs, whilst the animation and technical side of things is as polished and sophisticated as ever. Yet, overall, it's hollow and unfulfilling - the gags obvious "college movie" stuff punned with monsters the way The Flintstones does with the stone age. Worse still, it's not too indistinct from the sort of unambitious, by-numbers sequel you'd expect of Dreamworks or Fox. That's not say it isn't entertaining, but Pixar are victims of their own great success in this instance: what would represent a creative high-point for one of their imitators is simply not good enough. I enjoyed 'Much Ado About Nothing' last month, but would I have enjoyed it as much if someone told me it was the latest Paul Thomas Anderson movie? Some folks you hold to a higher standard.

'The Bling Ring' - Dir. Sofia Coppola (15)

Want to make a film? Only got about 15 minutes of actual story (something you read in a magazine article, perhaps?) and worried it might not stretch to feature length? Well, my friend, you've lucked out, because Sofia Coppola's latest provides you answers to this very conundrum! For instance, if the one scene you have sees five vapid teenagers breaking into a minor celebrity's house and stealing some of their clothing and jewelry: just show that same scene half a dozen times! It's easy - just take the teenagers to another house and do the same thing again! They can pick up slightly different bags and say how cool a slightly different house is. If you're feeling adventurous you can shoot this a few different ways to make people think they're watching something different each time. Sofia gives us a few options to play with: night vision, security camera footage, eye of god external shot etc. And make sure your characters say "Facebook" and "Twitter" a few hundred times so we know how hip and young and thoroughly now the whole thing is. You can string out the scenes in between with the kids driving and just, sort of, standing about looking at their phones. Really: if you put a cool enough soundtrack behind it you can even get it distributed and played in cinemas for actual paying customers. It's genius really.

Oooohh! Start with the ending and then... show the ending again later! That's another 10 minutes taken care of. And play some of the same dialogue multiple times - sometimes in a jarring, faux documentary style that's at odds with the rest of the film and then again out of that context. Have the actors say it word-for-word too, so you don't have to re-phrase it even slightly, because that might require more writing and you only have 15 pages to work with after all. If you have the money, you can hire a former child star freshly liberated from a wildly popular franchise. It doesn't matter if they're any better at acting than the other kids who nobody has heard of at all - or even if they have to do an accent. What matters is that you can get free publicity out of their appearance here, maybe halving the marketing budget of your picture. They may even work relatively cheaply because they're trying to break-out and be a "serious actor". Who knows? You can hope. All of this works much better if: 1) your famous family can produce it for you and 2) if you still have goodwill left over from a genuinely great film you made once.

There you go, lazy budding filmmakers of the world. Enjoy!

'We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks' - Dir. Alex Gibney (15)

An amazing piece of work: balanced, stylish, thrilling, sick-making - sometimes funny and never less than compelling. Alex Gibney takes on Wikileaks and Julian Assange in this revealing documentary that - like many of the contributors - is on one hand in awe of its subject and on the other immensely troubled by him. Bound up with the potentially world-changing and arguably heroic activities of Wikileaks itself - which, among other things, helped bring to light the ugly reality of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan - is the increasingly odd story of Assange, the organisation's founder: whose behavior has been increasingly antithetical to the ideals the whistle-blowing website stands for in the eyes of supporters. It's neither a hatchet job, nor a celebration, but an examination of flawed human beings. It's a sad portrait of a man who seems equal parts a brilliant idealist, a paranoid loner, and self-styled international celebrity.

As much as it follows the career and recent legal troubles of Assange, the film also looks in detail at Bradley Manning - the US private who disclosed thousands of classified files to Wikileaks and who has subsequently been imprisoned without trial and, it would appear, tortured. There's discussion of war crimes committed by the US military under Obama's leadership. Discussion of how the procedures behind the sharing and storage of intelligence data changed after 9/11. Discussion of the moral grey areas around the entire subject: who is hurt by this freedom of information? What do we lose and what do we stand to gain from it as a society? A lot to chew over and Gibney's film, which features a wealth of interviews with fascinating contributors, does a fantastic job of facilitating and furthering the debate.

'The Deep' - Dir. Baltasar Kormakur (12A)

Iceland's official Academy Award entry for the last Oscars (though it wasn't in the final pool of nominees), 'The Deep' is a dry and slightly boring "based on a true story" account of how one man survived in the Northern Atlantic for six hours when he should have died after 15 minutes. When a fishing boat goes down, isolated and at night, all but one of her crew succumb quickly to the extreme cold - but one overweight man, who isn't even an accomplished swimmer, makes it back home against all odds. He even has to climb a mountain of volcanic rock when he gets there, so understandably he's hailed as a evidence of a miracle and a national hero upon his successful return. It turns out this wasn't a very cinematic feat, even if it would make a mildly diverting story if you came upon it in a newspaper.

However, with a third of the film left to go (most of it's a man swimming very slowly in the dark, talking to a bird), it shifts into a tale of a mostly apathetic man, devoid of charisma, shuffling between dry medical examinations and unconvincing efforts to comfort the families and friends of his fellow sailors. It's basically what a shrug looks like if filmed in super slow-motion.

'Spring Breakers' and 'Trance': review round-up

Was in Moscow on holiday last week, hence the above shot of the "Mosfilm" studio logo - the only cinema-related part of that trip (though I did see some interesting cinemas around the city). Didn't go into the studio though, as I'm not organised enough to arrange a tour in advance, it turns out. Anyhow, below are reviews of the two films I've seen in the days since my return:

'Spring Breakers' - Dir. Harmony Korine (18)

Four vacuous college girls, three of whom are played, subversively, by former Disney/ABC tween idols, rob a fast-food shack in order to fund their dream spring break in Florida, with debauched and vaguely nightmarish results. This is the basic outline of the garish, pink-neon collision of Britney Spears and dubstep that has turned out to be indie filmmaker Harmony Korine's most mainstream and, simultaneously, most divisive film to-date. It subverts and critiques - sometimes perfectly - a certain shallow, money-obsessed sector of popular culture, whilst also, much of the time, seeming to revel in it - something it also does with the frequent slow-motion shots of topless college revelers and occasional gangland violence. Is it's heart, if it has one, always in the right place? Does the camera leer maybe a little too long at the titular girls, forever clad in bikinis, to undermine whatever satire is taking place? Possibly, but I don't think Korine really cares and it doesn't spoil his film.

This is a shamelessly trashy and exploitative movie that just works. It entertains, amuses and shocks in equal measure, and with regularity, throughout its tight running time, not least of all when James Franco is on screen as self-styled hustler and d-list rapper Alien - a role he completely vanishes into and for which he deserves award recognition. Some bits are really spot-on at pinpointing the seedy, mutually destructive nihilism and cultural bankruptcy of the American Dream - such as when Franco and the girls gather around the piano for an earnest performance of a Britney ballad that all present really do seem to believe represents a high cultural watermark. Another great scene consists solely of Alien showing off his increasingly pathetic "shit" in his mansion: an itinerary that includes different coloured shorts, several aftershaves and "Scarface on repeat". His extreme, gormless pride at this haul is the perfect rebuttal to MTV Cribs and everything it represents.

'Trance' - Dir. Danny Boyle (15)

James McAvoy's fine art auctioneer follows protocol and attempts to secure an artwork valued at £25 million during an armed robbery, lead by Vincent Cassel. During the chaos McAvoy hides the painting and is dealt a nasty blow to the head by Cassel - causing him memory loss, with predictably frustrating results for those looking to recover the valuable piece. Enter Rosario Dawson as a hypnotherapist who promises to be able to delve into McAvoy's subconscious and bring his memory back. She boasts that, with a susceptible subject like McAvoy, she can convince anybody to do just about anything. And so begins a tedious and predictable labyrinth of twists and turns, as the film asks us to ponder which one of these variously unsympathetic characters is really pulling the strings.

It's a Danny Boyle film, so it's all hyperactive camera movements and bizarre, possibly improvised, camera angles, none of which seem to mean anything or relate to what story is being told. There's a to-camera narration from McAvoy that feels like something out of a mid-90s British crime flick, but that comes and goes until it is completely forgotten. The musical choices are jarring and total rubbish. And it includes a nude scene that gives 'The Paperboy' a run for its money in the "Oh My God Did That Just Happen" category - a bizarre sequence I will never forget that sees McAvoy waiting (for ages) for Dawson to emerge from a bathroom, with the soundtrack a mix a of smooth, sexy-time music and the sound of a shaver. Don't worry if you haven't guessed what she's doing: Boyle will show you in close-up. The only thing funnier than this scene is the contrived justification that comes later.

'Oz: The Great and Powerful', 'Bullhead' and 'The Spirit of 45': review round-up

'Oz: The Great and Powerful' - Dir. Sam Raimi (PG)

Anything that's sold as being "from the people who brought you Alice in Wonderland" should be viewed with suspicion if not outright derision, and so it looked like Sam Raimi's prequel to 'The Wizard of Oz' - which sees James Franco as the egotistical, huckster wizard - would be one to avoid. And yet, all told, it's a pretty solid and likable little blockbuster, with enjoyable characters, some decent gags and an interesting cast of characters. Raimi's horror routes are plainly visible too, as he makes his villains - most notably the flying baboons - genuinely scary and manages to pack in a few jumpy moments, whilst his handling of the opening hot air balloon crash (which takes Oz from black and white Kansas to technicolor Oz via a tornado, in keeping with tradition) is like something straight out of 'The Evil Dead'. In fact his style is consistently visible from his fluid camera movements to distinctive use of montage.

In keeping with the 'Spider-Man' director's unabashed love of schlock (he was the producer of 'Xena: Warrior Princess' and creator of the 'Darkman' series, after all) the 3D here is gimmicky and in-your-face, but that's actually sort of fun and refreshing after the recent trend of emphasizing depth. It's tacky and, like  everything else in the film, doesn't take itself too seriously - even as it is rightly respectful of its heritage. The actors acquit themselves well across the board too, with Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis and Michelle Williams all relishing their roles as OTT witches and even the comedy sidekick characters, such as Zach Braff's motion-captured flying monkey Finley, coming over as charming when they could have been irritating.

Whilst a lot of the effects, notably the character of China Girl, are decent, some of the CGI backgrounds are a bit ropey, particularly as Franco first encounters the flora and fauna of Oz. It's also fair to say the film's message (if you can go as far as calling it that) is mildly troubling - suggesting that people at large are a dumb herd who need to be lied to by their leaders in order to be happy. Yet overall this is at its worst a bit bland and at its best an entertaining diversion. I wasn't bored - which itself is a rarity for a two-hour film of this kind - and it's certainly far better than Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland', even if it's obvious both films have a production designer in common. So take that for what it's worth!

'Bullhead' - Dir. Michael R. Roskam (15)

Matthias Schoenaerts, of 'Rust and Bone' acclaim, stars in this troubling and deeply moving Belgian thriller about meat and hormones. Ostensibly the meat in question is beef and the hormones are the various illegal testosterone supplements used to bulk it up - a dodgy practice Schoenaerts' Jacky specialises in, working with dangerous criminal gangs. But it goes further with Jacky himself a testosterone-filled piece of meat, driven (by horrific childhood trauma) to take the same illegal substances, turning him into a sweaty, aggressive and sex-obsessed bull. Then it goes further still, with lingering shots of Jacky perusing a local red light district - starring coldly at women cavorting in garish window displays - suggesting another layer to the "people as meat" metaphor. There's a similar moment in a care home, as Jacky squares up to a mentally disturbed patient - one of many sequences dominated by Jacky's immense physique and a brooding sense of threat.

In this way 'Bullhead' really seems to be an examination of what makes us functioning human beings - as opposed to animalistic bags of hormones, rutting and smashing in each other's skulls. One nasty and violent change to Jacky's anatomy turns him from one into the other, questioning how much control we have over our bodies and our behaviour. At what point does chemistry and biology take over? Yet, on top of this, it functions equally well as an exciting and intense crime film, slickly put together and impressively acted. In a rare feat, it's as entertaining as it is challenging: psychologically interesting and quietly, unassumingly, philosophical. It's equal parts tense and tragic, with a brutal ending that came like a punch to the guts.

'The Spirit of 45' - Dir. Ken Loach (U)

It can be difficult reviewing politically-minded documentaries without falling into the trap of reviewing (or even merely describing) the subject rather than the filmmaking. Ken Loach's 'The Spirit of 45' is one where that difficulty comes to the fore because, as a film, it's all stock footage and talking heads: edited together very well in service of a point which it presents compellingly, but really its success or failure rests on how you feel about its subject. To my mind, it's a solid documentary that should be shown in schools, as much because of its power and poignancy as a social document, as because of its right-on political message (it rightly venerates and idealises the NHS, and acts as a rallying cry to save it from future privitisation).

Its grasp of history is, perhaps knowingly, simplistic: the so-called "Winter of Discontent" is brushed over and Loach paints the picture of a Utopian socialist republic, suddenly dismantled by Thatcher in the 80s. And whilst I have complete sympathy for, and a certain amount of agreement with, that view it isn't telling the entire story. Though that's not necessarily a bad thing and it doesn't really get in the way of Loach's point. This is a nakedly nostalgic piece about the hopes of a generation and the preservation of an ideal - not a rigorous investigation of British economical policy from 1945-present. And on those terms it is a triumph.

New Trailer: 'Iron Man 3'

Got a movie quiz to write for this Thursday, and lots of other work on at the moment, so I'll have to wait before reviewing the awesome 'Stoker', the boring 'Lore' and the fascinating 'No'. In the meantime, feed off my undying Marvel comics obsession and love of all things Avengers by watching the latest trailer for Shane Black's 'Iron Man 3'. On the strength of the trailers alone I'm already confident it's better than the second one.

This one went up today:

'Wreck-It Ralph' review:

Jeez! This blog - and its humble author - just can't catch a break, gentle reader. Since making my hubristic turn-of-the-year pledge to update more regularly (10 times a month, said I!) I have been beset by horrid seasonal flu-like illness and (as of tomorrow) a major house move - complete with lack of internet for the immediate future. So I can't see my output improving any in the near future. So it goes. Anyway, this confluence of events also meant that I haven't yet seen award season hotties 'Zero Dark 30' and 'Lincoln'. Anyway, I did at least see Disney's latest home-grown animation, 'Wreck-It Ralph', whilst at a customarily dry 2013 slate presentation in London last month. So here's a review of that film, seeing as it's just now on general release on this side of the pond.

'Wreck-It Ralph' is to the video game arcade what 'Toy Story' was to a kid's bedroom, in that it takes place in the imagined downtime of the various game characters, after the patrons have left the arcade. Our hero is one game's villain, Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly)  - whose daily routine involves smashing up a brightly coloured apartment building so that Fix-It Felix ('30 Rock's loveable Jack McBrayer) can save the day: earning glory and the love of the game's citizens. But Ralph is frustrated by his lot. Why shouldn't he be the hero? Especially as, by some cruel quirk of sociology, his in-game villain status leaves a very real impression on his neighbours in the game. Understandably, Ralph doesn't want to be the bad guy any more. He wants adulation and sometimes a bit of birthday cake. And so he quits his game to see if he can make it as a hero somewhere else.



It's this quest that takes Ralph through various colourful and amusing game worlds, some based on actual games and others excellent facsimiles, with the most of the film taking place in one of the latter: Sugar Rush, an adorable candy-theme go-karting game featuring the genuinely cute Vanellope von Schweetz, as voiced by the great Sarah Silverman. It's after meeting Vanellope, a peppy little girl with a sad story and can-do attitude, that the up-to-now selfish Ralph starts to re-evaluate his priorities and discovers what actually being a hero means. It's a familiar arc, but it plays out here with real warmth and doesn't feel forced or hackneyed.

It's sweet and tells its story smartly, but where 'Wreck-It Ralph' really sings is with the sight gags, inspired puns and myriad of game references. It's an out-and-out comedy in an age where a lot of the classier animated movies - vintage Pixar, 'ParaNorman' - are increasingly dramas-with-jokes (not a criticism) and it converts an unreasonably high number of jokes to actual laughs. (More than most live-action comedies released in the past decade - though I realise that isn't necessarily too much of a yardstick.) It's a joy from start to finish. A little slice of happy, but without being overly saccharin... well, the least it can be considering it's a Disney movie set predominantly in a candy land featuring an adorable little girl teaching a surrogate father figure how to be a better man. But it pulls it off, without being too earnest and without smirking. It's a very genuine little movie made with obvious love of video games.

'Iron Man 3' trailer hits!

Couldn't not post this: the first trailer for next year's 'Iron Man 3' - the first post-Avengers Marvel movie. With Shane Black now taking over as director from Jon Favreau, it seems the third entry has a very different tone to the first two. Darker and more brooding in keeping with the idea that this is the character's darkest hour. Interesting (to me at least) is Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr's) monologue here, which references how the events of 'The Avengers' are haunting him and preventing him from sleeping. I like that they seem to be including that movie as part of the character's arc, whilst (at least from this first look) not going overboard.

We also see Ben Kingsley as Iron Man's arch nemesis Mandarin, and somebody sporting a Star-Spangled Iron Man suit which, in the comics, belonged to Spider-Man foe Norman Osborn (AKA the Green Goblin) as he called himself the Iron Patriot. Of course, with Sony holding the movie rights to that character, it is curious which villain is behind the armour this time.

'Iron Man 3' is set to come out in April as the first part of "Phase Two" - the next set of movies that will lead to the next big Avengers adventure. Following hot on its tail will be 'Thor: The Dark World' next summer, then 'Guardians of the Galaxy' and 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' in 2014. 2015 will bring us that Avengers sequel and Edgar Wright's 'Ant-Man'. I couldn't be more of a fanboy at this point. You don't even want to know how much money I've blown on comic books since 'The Avengers' came out...

Marvel's Next Avengers?

Last Update: Sunday 27th May: I've been adding the latest character profiles as they've got online, so check the expanding list below. Also, here is another Marvel-based piece on five weird things from the comics the movies still wouldn't dare do.

OK, so you're all sick to your eye teeth (is that a phrase?) of 'The Avengers' by now, with its worldwide box office glory and almost unanimous critical praise meaning that we're probably right on the cusp of the backlash. However, I'm still pretty obsessed by the whole thing at the moment and - with all the films I've seen of late embargoed for a few weeks - I've been working on an ongoing feature for What Culture called "Marvel's Next Avenger".

It's pretty simple: Marvel has now confirmed that an Avengers sequel is on the cards and - with hundreds more characters in their comic books, many of whom have been members of the superhero team - it seems likely that they might try to add more characters to the roster. There are two Marvel movies currently slated for release next summer: 'Thor 2' and 'Iron Man 3', whilst only 'Captain America 2' has been confirmed for 2014. This has led many to suspect that another previously unannounced project could be sharing that summer with the returning Mr. America. But who's movie will it be?

My candidates so far? The articles are linked below:

Ms. Marvel
Doctor Strange
Luke Cage and Iron Fist
Ant-Man and Wasp
Black Panther
Namor
Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver

Several of the site's other contributors will be writing their entries and I intend to do at least two more myself, so check back soon for more of that. Also, come back soon for film reviews. I promise I've not given up this blog despite recent appearances! I also have yet to write my FilmQuest 2012 entry for 'Blue Velvet', so expect that in the next few days.

'The Avengers'/'Marvel Avengers Assemble' review:

Regular readers of this blog will know that I've long been a shameless, rambling cheerleader for this summer's first major comic book movie, Marvel's ambitious 'The Avengers': a film which brings geek-friendly comic book-style continuity to the big screen in a way never previously considered possible. It's a bold move from the company, recently acquired by Disney, which - had it failed - might easily have sent the entire house of cards tumbling down, risking tentpole solo properties 'Iron Man', 'The Incredible Hulk', 'Captain America' and 'Thor' in the process. In fact combining these heroes in one movie should have been an almighty mess and perhaps one for fanboys rather than the diverse cinema audience required to enjoy global mega-success.

Yet 'Buffy the Vampire' creator Joss Whedon has, as director and co-writer, delivered not only the best Marvel movie to date (not a bad accolade in itself), but also the very best (or at least the most enjoyable) superhero movie ever. It's a relentlessly thrilling and frequently laugh-out-loud funny affair which manages to provide each of its characters just enough to do to avoid feeling like a clumsy bag of cameos. It's a rare beast that exceeds the two hour mark and yet leaves you craving more and, as has been noted by almost all who have seen it thus far, it manages to pull off the feat of making the Hulk interesting. Mark Ruffalo is cast as the irradiated Dr. Bruce Banner/lumbering green rage beast and does an exceptional job both in the flesh, as an anxious and introverted genius, and in CGI mo-cap as the show-stealing titan.

The other Avengers combine well, in terms of their disparate skill sets and distinct personalities. Pleasingly each even finds time to grow and complete their own small arch. Captain America (Chris Evans) is still the guileless embodiment of goodness that struck such a pleasant note in last year's solo vehicle, though now he's learning to assert himself as the natural born leader familiar to readers of the comics. Thor (Chris Hemsworth) remains that slightly haughty man from another world with a penchant for grand, almost Shakespearean turns of phrase, now faced with the embarrassment of having his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) at the head of an alien invasion of Earth. And Robert Downey Jr is still a terrific force of nature as cocky billionaire, playboy philanthropist Tony Stark (AKA Iron Man), here learning a thing or two about subjugating himself for the greater good whilst chiding his more obviously noble teammates.

Even Black Widow and Hawkeye (Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner), who have yet to benefit from their own solo features, are given ample time to demonstrate their prowess and (though not as developed as the others) both feel like interesting and valuable parts of the ensemble. This time we even get to see a little more of Samuel L. Jackson as eye-patch sporting S.H.E.I.L.D director Nick Fury, getting involved in the action and playing a genuine part in events as opposed to being a bombastic guest star in another person's adventure. Alongside Fury are the returning fan favourite Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and new supporting character Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders) - who doesn't get a lot to do but whose inclusion presents an interesting option for writers of the probable sequels, for those that know her from the books.

'The Avengers' succeeds on every level it's trying to and gets everything right when it comes to making the ideal comic book movie. The various superpowers are used (and combined) imaginatively, the balance between action and dialogue is perfect, and Hiddleston's villain is deliciously charismatic, every bit as entertaining as the heroes. The gags work and even moments of pathos find the target when they arrive. It's a very different beast to Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight' - commonly acknowledged as the holder of the "best comic book movie" crown - being unabashed, escapist fun rather than a rumination on The Patriot Act or an exploration of how a costumed vigilante might really be viewed by the world as we know it. But in being so proud of its pulpy routes, giving us daring deeds painted broadly and in bright colours - as Norse gods battle men in Star-Spangled spandex - it's arguably a far braver and much tougher movie to get right. And Whedon gets it completely right, painting this epic battle on a suitably large canvas.

It helps that Whedon, a past writer of Marvel comics (notably an acclaimed run on Astonishing X-Men) knows and loves this world. From a fan point of view, he ensures that Captain America takes the lead rather than the more commercially popular Iron Man and that S.H.E.I.L.D's motives are uncertain, with the organisation not truly trusted by the gang. He knows that fans want to see Thor smash his hammer upon Cap's shield and see Iron Man hold his own against the Asgardian prince and promptly delivers this spectacle without it seeming like the most cynical act of fan service, probably because he wants to see all this just as much.

'Marvel Avengers Assemble', known internationally as 'The Avengers', is out now in the UK, rated '12A' by the BBFC.

Splendor Cinema Podcast #89: 'The Avengers' Retrospective

As mentioned last week, I am pant-wettingly excited about the upcoming 'Avengers' movie. Now called 'Avengers Assemble' in the UK, it's out here on the 27th of April and is the climax of an ambitious (and, yes, potentially highly lucrative) project which will see comic book style continuity coming to the big screen adaptations; uniting the heroes of 'Iron Man', 'Thor', 'Captain America' and 'The Incredible Hulk' under the banner of a super-powered dream team headed by Samuel L. Jackson AKA Nick Fury: Agent of Shield.

In fact, for those looking to get equally psyched about the whole thing, I've recorded a podcast about these movies, which you can download in iTunes here or stream here. I've talked/written about all them at length previously, so I'll just briefly sum up my feelings on each of them here and then say a little bit about what I'm hoping for from 'The Avengers' next month.

'Iron Man' (2008): Exciting, with an incredibly charismatic lead performance (from Robert Downey Jr), Jon Favreau's movie established the tone for the Marvel Cinematic Universe to date and its success made the whole 'Avengers' thing (first teased in a post-credits sequence on the original movie) possible. It's inherently right-wing, with its privitised vigilante using his lucrative weapons contractor business to sock Afghan terrorists in the jaw, but it was a thrilling movie - albeit with a weak finale. What a waste of Jeff Bridges, though wasting talented actors as thinly developed villains is a trend that would continue over the next two Marvel movies.

'The Incredible Hulk' (2008): Far less successful (commercially and artistically) was Louis Leterrier's Ed Norton starring attempt to re-boot the Hulk following Ang Lee's much derided earlier version. It's brash, ugly and a little incoherent, with Norton adding little of the acting heft to Bruce Banner that we might have hoped for - particularly as he helped write the script. Tim Roth is likewise wasted as the baddie, whose evil equivalent of the Hulk (Abomination) contributes to the boring (yet oft-repeated) spectacle of two CGI monsters punching each other a lot. On a side note, the film does at least feature a Downey Jr cameo, as Tony Stark comes to discuss the "Avenger Initiative" with William Hurt's General Ross. Which is nice.

'Iron Man 2' (2010): Favreau's sequel is, to put it kindly, a mixed bag. On one hand, Mickey Rourke is underused as the villain (Whiplash), and there is too much fluff in there building up the Avengers movie which does nothing to advance the main plot (the coffee shop scene with Jackson's Fury and the introduction of Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow). Yet on the other, it's nice to see Lt. Col. Rhodes (Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard) getting the chance to don his own suit and become War Machine. Sam Rockwell is also good comedic value as Stark's business rival Justin Hammer. A government committee into Stark's private use of his advanced weaponry is also interesting, even if the film's thesis is that the technology is better off in the hands of a private individual than Big Government (as represented by Garry Shandling). There's also the first real look at Tony Stark's legendary descent into alcoholism (which, in the comics, represented the first time a mainstream super hero suffered such a real world problem) A bit of a mess of a movie but there's plenty to enjoy.

'Thor' (2011): Kenneth Branagh did a lovely job with Thor, successfully turning one of the most outlandish characters - a Viking deity from outer space, with a magic hammer and a suit of armour - into someone who could reasonably fit in with Iron Man and company. As a stand alone movie it's probably the strongest of Marvel's efforts to date, boasting powerhouse performances from Anthony Hopkins, Tom Hiddleston and Natalie Portman, as well as a star-making turn from Chris Hemsworth as the titular hero. It looks gorgeous, it's pretty funny, the human drama actually has gravitas, and the project overall seems imbued with immense love and respect for the source material. The only slight gripe is a clunky scene in which Jeremy Renner's Haweye is established in a few otherwise needless shots. But that's a very small gripe.

'Captain America: The First Avenger' (2011): I fell in love with Joe Johnston's WWII-set film the first time I saw it and have seen it several times since. Not in the least bit annoyingly patriotic or militaristic, the film set up Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, who previously played Marvel's Flaming Torch in the ill-received Fantastic Four movies) as a really nice, sweet-natured guy who doesn't want to kill Nazis: he just doesn't like bullies. Despite a few commonly acknowledged flaws (an ending, and montage-reliant second act, geared more towards setting up 'The Avengers' than serving this one movie) the film actually makes me a little emotional, with its kindness and cynicism-free attitude. As a result it was one of my very favourite films of last year.

On 'Avengers Assemble': My hopes are set very high for this summer's tentpole movie, but here are a few things it has to do to avoid being a disappointment:

• Black Widow and Hawkeye, who haven't had the benefit of their own movies, need to be developed - potentially as a duo (seeing as how the are frequently paired up in the comics).
• This should add the human drama/character growth element that ought to be missing regarding the remaining heroes: we've already had entire movies introducing these guys so - beyond the issues that might be thrown up from their interactions together - I don't want to be told again who any of them are. With the possible exception of Bruce Banner, who has a new actor (Mark Ruffalo) and so perhaps needs to be re-established.
• However each character does have their own ready-made sub-plot waiting to bear fruit: Iron Man needs to learn to sacrifice his ego for the good of the team; Captain America will doubtless be dealing with the whole "everyone I ever knew and cared about is dead" thing; Bruce Banner needs to get control of his powers; whilst Thor has to deal with the fact that the film's super villain is his brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) - which might lead to some resentment from his teammates, as well as calling his loyalty into question.
• I hope writer/director Joss Whedon doesn't make the characters speak like teenagers. He needs to retain the characters' already established voices, whilst resisting the no doubt strong temptation to make Cap more cynical. sarcastic and snarky this time around. If he has him quipping one-liners, that'll pretty much ruin the whole movie for me. A lot rests on the continuation of Steve Rogers as an unshakable pillar of integrity and niceness.
• There needs to be more to the movie than the trailers have so far suggested. Is Loki the only baddie? He's pretty awesome, but I hope not. The Avengers are called together when the odds are stacked too far against any one individual, but we've already seen Thor defeat Loki - so what else is there to this story? Who is behind the gigantic robots and spaceships seen in the trailers? They don't seen very "Asgardian".
• I'd also like to see some mention or screentime for supporting characters from each individual hero's film. Will Thor be dealing with his unresolved love for Natalie Portman's Earth-based scientist, or are they saving that for his sequel? Will the Warriors Three aid him on this quest in any form and, if not, why not? Or his father, Odin? What of Iron Man's newly equipped buddy War Machine? Surely he should be helping these guys out? I'm sure many of these characters won't feature, but there needs to be some statement of why.
• Likewise, and at the risk of being a little too cute and contrived, it'd be nice to see some acknowledgment of the fact that the peril New York is facing in this film is not attracting any aid from any of Marvel's other premiere super heroes. The X-Men, Fantastic Four, Spider-Man and Daredevil (to name a few) all live and operate in New York City. So, aside from the fact that Marvel don't own any of their rights as far as movies go, why aren't they lending a hand? It only takes a line.

Anyway, that's the last I'll go on about anything 'Avengers' related until release late next month.

Oh, and here's the German-language trailer which, for massive geeks, contains a few shots previously unseen in English-language versions (I know how sad that sounds... I'm sorry):

'The Muppets' review:

They haven't been in a major film or television series since the mid-90s, but arguably Jim Henson's best-loved creations haven't been culturally relevant for much longer. Yet in 'The Muppets', the characters' glorious comeback movie, this passing of time that might have been a concern (at least for marketing folks at Disney) has proven to be an asset. The Muppets have always broken the fourth wall to poke fun at themselves and comment on the artifice of whatever they're doing, but here Kermit, Miss Piggy and co show an awareness of that faded glory that's the driving force behind the story and much pathos.

In this James Bobin directed musical comedy, co-writer Jason Segel stars as Gary, whose younger brother Walter is a Muppet in all but name. When Gary decides to take his girlfriend Mary (the graceful and effervescent Amy Adams) out of Smalltown and on a romantic holiday to Los Angeles, he brings Walter, a lifelong Muppet fan, in order to give him the chance to visit the famous Muppet theatre. Upon visiting the derelict theatre, Walter is horrified to learn that the evil Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is planning to buy up the property in order to drill for oil. Walter and Gary then decide to round up the Muppets in order to perform the comeback show that could save their legacy.

Rather than straining to sell the relevance of our heroes to today's kids, this new film rolls with the idea that the Muppets (who include a 70s-style rock act, an Evel Knievel wannabe and a Catskills comic) are indelibly wedded to a bygone era. When Rashida Jones' sharp-suited television executive tells Kermit he needs a celebrity host in order to get the gang a new TV special, the frog delves into his contact book and calls the White House, only to be informed that Jimmy Carter has changed address. In his mansion Kermit is served New Coke by his butler: 80s Robot - very much yesterday's vision of tomorrow. He also struggles to recognise any current celebrities, instead making moribund references to former Muppet Show guests stars like Dom DeLuise. During a cleaning montage the Muppets play a cassette of Starship's "We Built This City" for inspiration.

There is something poignant about all this, especially as Kermit spends much of the film full of regret that he has (like the rest of us) spent the last few years losing touch with his fellow Muppets. This foregrounding of the Muppets as fallen icons is more than just a neat post-modern joke, it also serves to imbue the characters with a kind of purity. As Kermit sings his 1979 classic "Rainbow Connection" we're given a powerful reminder of a less jaded time, yet they are never twee no matter how earnest the sentiment. This straight-faced niceness is exactly why the Muppets seem ideally placed to provide infectious optimism lacking in today's entertainment. Their sworn enemy is cynicism - as embodied in the film by a crass, "edgy" tribute act, "The Moopets" (who Richman champions as "a hard, cynical act for a hard, cynical world").

The film isn't content to trade solely on nostalgia and old-time good feeling though, even if it could probably just about get away with that. There are loads of inspired sight gags, clever one-liners and, best of all, a few infectious song and dance numbers written by Bret McKenzie of 'Flight of the Conchords'. Of these my favourites are the upbeat loneliness empowerment anthem "Me Party", sung with gusto by Adams and Miss Piggy, and the Oscar-nominated ballad "Man or Muppet" - a duet between Gary and Walter.

There are long stretches where it's difficult to imagine how the film might appeal to young children - along with the anachronistic pop culture references are celebrity cameos from the likes of Sarah Silverman and Alan Arkin. Kids aren't the primary audience and - with the script brimming with nods to minor characters and scenes from the first movies, it's probably a more rewarding experience for fans. But even if you don't quite fit that category I still reckon it'd be nearly impossible to watch 'The Muppets' without a smile on your face the majority of the time. Life is indeed a happy song.

'The Muppets' is released in the UK on February 10th and has been rated 'U' by the BBFC.

'Real Steel' review:

It doesn't matter who is promoting 'Real Steel', whether it's charismatic leading man Hugh Jackman, over-enthusiastic director Shawn Levy or an anonymous automaton of the PR machine, the message about the family robot boxing movie is consistent: "it's not about the robots" they say, "it's a father and son story." This is the standard line for almost any special effects led movie, so I didn't take it all that seriously going in. After all, 'Real Steel' is set in an improbable future in which the world's most popular spot is effectively 'Robot Wars', as machines battle it out in the boxing ring in place of flesh and blood humans. But it turns out, for better or worse, they were all telling the truth. Even if the film begins with a giant robot punching an animal in the face for entertainment in front of a family crowd (an act never scrutinised), it is a father and son bonding movie first and an underdog boxing movie (with fighting robots) second.

Jackman plays a former boxer who never got to fulfil his potential because of all the worldwide robo-love. As a result he's now a jaded robot boxing trainer: down on his luck, owing a lot of money to a lot of people and sort of into Evangeline Lilly's gym owner (though this is never explored). Additionally, he's brash, cocky and arrogant. We meet him on the run from his latest humiliating defeat, as he's told that an ex-girlfriend from more than a decade ago has just died, leaving him in custody of his son (Dakota Goyo) - who he has never met and has less than no interest in. So, being an upstanding citizen, he sells the boy to his wealthy aunt for $50, 000 in order to buy a new fighting robot (this actually happens). But there is a snag as said aunt wants to go on holiday abroad (she seemingly isn't too upset about the death of her sister and - to be honest - neither is the boy, who gets stuck into building robots within minutes), leaving Jackman looking after the kid on a temporary basis.



It's nice to see an entry into the Spielbergian "absent father" sub-genre in which the dad is actually allowed to be a total prick, as opposed to committing the sin of having to go to work rather than play pirates all day (as in 'Hook'). Jackman sells this dickishness with commitment, bravely jettisoning a sizable amount of his inherent likeability for the first half of the movie. As the boy, Goyo is also pretty good (though his haircut and propensity to fix robots makes him distractingly similar to a young Anakin Skywalker), whilst Lilly (of 'Lost' fame) makes a good fit as the best friend/love interest/potential surrogate mother figure. It helps that the robots themselves are well designed too: the upshot being that you can always tell them apart during the fights and they seem to suggest an amount of personality - both attributes lacking in the 'Transformers' movies.

It's also colourful and - with the exception of an unnecessary "payback" moment late on - mostly good-natured, which I guess is the least that could be expected from a director whose filmography is comprised of bland comedies (remakes of 'The Pink Pather' and 'Cheaper by the Dozen', as well as 'Big Fat Liar' and the 'Night at the Museum' movies). But as restless young legs knocked the back of my seat it was clear something wasn't working. You see, there isn't much robo-boxing and some of the kids in the showing I attended clearly didn't care about any of the bits in between. One child loudly summed up the general mood at regular intervals, and in doing so became the afternoon's highlight, shouting "dad, this is rubbish", followed later by "I want to go home!" and "yay! it's finished". The atmosphere generated by these discontented youngsters was curiously counter-productive to the movie's family message, as the dads kept their thankless offspring prisoner in the cinema. Ignoring for a moment the fact that the action scenes (two robots hitting each other) are inherently boring anyway, the slowness of the dominant father and son story is truly crushing.



Some of it's laughable too, but not just with the trademark Levy humour (funny accents, lots of falling over) but with some calculated sub-Bieber dance routines, as the kid engages in bouts of "street" body popping with his best buddy robot, and one cheese-loaded sequence in which the boy goes for a run with the machine and makes it give him a big hug (awww!). The tone is uneven, shifting uneasily between gentle, understated moments of the father and son on the road (in the beautiful rural south of the US) and a sort of '8 Mile' attitude at the "underground" robot fights (why on earth would robot boxing have an underground? What is the difference?). It also doesn't help that the film's message is confused: Jackman personally controls his robot by shadow boxing whereas their major league rival is controlled by a less romantic array of men at computers, with the implication being that battle robots/computers/action scenes are souless and no substitute for human characters - a point undermined, not only by the premise of the film, but by a vague suggestion that the scrappy good guy robot (our plucky, low-tech underdog) has something like a soul.

'Real Steel' isn't a good movie and, to be brutally honest, I've been kinder here than was my first impulse on leaving the screen. But in genuinely trying to give the human story some heft, rather than viewing it as an inconvenience between robot fights, the film deserves some small credit. It might not do angsty drama particularly well, but it's a move in the right direction: in 2011 a family movie with punching robots that isn't full of masturbation jokes, women in hot pants bending over motorcycles and regressive ethnic stereotypes doesn't deserve to be torn to shreds and actually seems strangely quaint.

'Real Steel' has been on general release in the UK and is rated '12A' by the BBFC.

'Captain America: The First Avenger' review:

'Captain America: The First Avenger' is out now in the UK, so I thought I'd remind y'all about my review from last week over on What Culture.

I saw the film again yesterday, partly because it's the best blockbuster I've seen in years, but also so I could catch a glimpse of the teaser for next year's Joss Wheadon directed 'The Avengers' after the credits (not attached to the press version I first saw).

Joe Johnston's film was great a second time and I'm really glad the film held up to an additional viewing. A few things I didn't mention in my review which I'll take up space with here: Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) reminded me, not only of Werner Herzog, but of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?' villain Judge Doom. The whole thing actually made me think of episodes of Spielberg's TV series 'Amazing Stories'.

Anyway, go see the movie if you have even a passing interest in superhero fare.

'Captain America: The First Avenger' review:

My review of 'Captain America: The First Avenger' just went up on What Culture. So check that out.

Also, I have written a DVD review for The Daily Telegraph arts section tomorrow. I reviewed 'The Lincoln Lawyer' which is apparently DVD of the Week. I've got a few more gigs with them coming up too, which is certainly a pleasure.

Last of the 'Cars 2' interviews: John Lasseter

What Culture has the last of my video interviews with Pixar up today and it's the big one: John Lasseter. Head over there now to find out why he made a sequel to 'Cars' and where the idea for making it a spy movie came from.

Also, don't forget to check out all the other interviews from this past week: Emily Mortimer, producer Denise Ream and the UK pair, first assistant editor Kevin Rose-Williams and character animator Jude Brownbill.

There is also my review of the film and also, rounding out my trip to Berkeley, my coverage of Andrew Stanton's ambitious 'John Carter'.

For those of you tired of a week of nothing but 'Cars 2', this is the end!

Today's 'Cars 2' interview: Emily Mortimer

Today sees my penultimate 'Cars 2' interview up on What Culture, which sees me talking to actress Emily Mortimer, the voice of Holly Shiftwell (above).

Previously this week has seen interviews with some of Pixar's UK talent, character animator Jude Brownbill and first assistant editor Kevin Rose-Williams, as well as a chat with producer Denise Ream. Tomorrow the final interview, with director and studio head John Lasseter, will complete the series conducted at Pixar's Berkeley headquarters in California last month.

I posted a review of the film itself on this blog yesterday.

'Cars 2' review:

Pixar is a studio known for taking risks and taking audiences to places they don't expect to go - making movies about rats cooking food, retired old men in flying houses and silent robots with a passion for 'Hello, Dolly!'. So whilst the studio's new found love of sequels may seem disappointingly in-step with the competition, you'd have to concede that the decision to make a sequel to 2006 film 'Cars' is consistent with the Pixar tradition. After all, who honestly expected a sequel for the studio's least celebrated film? Certainly there is a sizable population of young kids (boys in particular) who have helped to make 'Cars' the most lucrative source of merchandising revenue for the studio, but there is a conspicuous lack of enthusiasm surrounding the release 'Cars 2' when compared to 'Up', 'Wall-E' or last year's 'Toy Story 3'.

The original film saw brash race car Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) stranded in the backwater town of Radiator Springs where he befriended a rusty, well-meaning tow-truck, Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), and learned valuable lessons in humility, ultimately becoming a better racer and winning the coveted Piston Cup. It was a personal film for director John Lasseter, who was indulging his own sincere, lifelong love of motor racing as well as taking a good-natured and nostalgic look at a dying way of life out on Route 66. The sequel is, by contrast, a more sprawling, action-packed and seemingly less personal movie. A globe-trotting spy thriller in which Lightning McQueen is a supporting player. All of which sounds better in theory than it ends up being in practice.



'Cars 2' sees Mater accompany McQueen around the world (through Italy, France, Japan and England) whilst the flashy speedster participates in the "World Grand Prix". And it's the comedy best friend character who now takes centre stage after being mistaken for an undercover American spy by sleek British intelligence agents Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) and Holly Shiftwell (Emily Mortimer). Now equipped with gadgets and gizmos, he soon finds himself embroiled in a series of high-octane, life or death encounters, whilst his small town ignorance sees him clash with every culture he comes into contact with. What follows is a 60s spy film pastiche, full of races, chases and fish out of water comedy, set in a world solely comprised of cute motoring puns.

For a studio as famously disciplined in terms of storytelling as Pixar, the film feels quite loose and ramshackle - a series of hopefully exciting or funny moments rather than a compelling narrative. Some things work (John Turturro is fun as boastful Italian F1 car Francesco Bernoulli) but mostly it's the same earnest inter-car relationship drama as the first film (Mater and McQueen fall out, whilst it's the tow-truck's turn to find love) with a lot more broad, misfiring comedy - this time revolving around car-ified versions of national stereotypes. It's pretty tiresome (or should that be tyresome) stuff made depressing because of who is making it. 'Cars' was in fairness an OK film that suffered from the fact that it was below the exceptionally high standards set by Pixar. 'Cars 2' is genuinely just bad.



It begins promisingly enough, with some imaginative new character designs and innovative character animation (particularly of the boats and submarines). The new spy plot element creates an atmosphere of intrigue and excitement and the world of 'Cars' becomes fresh and more fun than it has previously been, especially as Finn McMissile fights off an army of villainous henchman during his escape from an exploding oil rig. Yet as soon as Mater becomes the focus of the story all the tension, excitement and humour evaporates. Finn McMissile is a funny character because he is played completely straight, whereas Mater is supposed to be funny but he's just obvious and annoying. The message of 'Cars 2' is that Mater should be allowed to "be himself", which I'm happy with so long as it does it somewhere else.

It struck me whilst watching 'Cars 2' that it's perhaps much more skewed towards young children than we're used to from the guys who broadened the appeal of the art form with 'Toy Story' all those years ago. This isn't a bad thing in of itself and it's possible that the spectacle of Mater wetting himself (leaking oil) might be as hilarious as intended if I was eight again. I'd most certainly have wanted to own every single toy, especially now that the cars have that other love of young boys - weapons. But as an adult it's got nothing to offer aside from the always-breathtaking animation of the artists at Pixar, who again do an amazing job: the film's reflections, lighting and character animation are impressive and the character designs are much more appealing than the actual characters.



It gives me no pleasure to write a review like this for a Pixar movie. It feels a lot like I'm punching a faithful friend in the face. A friend who, on every other occasion, has stood for not just the best of animated filmmaking but, in many ways, for the best of filmmaking period. Pixar puts in so much effort and invests so much loving care into every one of its creations, and the richly detailed, densely populated world of 'Cars 2' is far from being an exception. I saw a lot of amazing concept art for the film when visiting Pixar last month and it feels somehow churlish to run the movie down in the face of so much talent, especially as director John Lasseter has done more for animation than anyone else on the planet in the last twenty years (including spearheading excellent recent animated output at a resurgent Disney Animation Studios). But with all that said, 'Cars 2' is Pixar's first bad movie and I'd be lying to myself if I wrote otherwise.

'Cars 2' is released in the UK on Friday and has been rated 'U' by the BBFC.

Denise Ream: day two of my 'Cars 2' interviews...

Today my chat with 'Cars 2' producer Denise Ream has gone up on What Culture. I had no idea what to ask when I went in for this interview at Pixar's Berkeley base last month, but suddenly I found myself channelling everything I'd read about producers in William Goldman's seminal book on Hollywood Adventures in the Screen Trade. At the end Denise said I'd asked some good questions and I left the whole thing in high spirits!

Check out my review of the film and further interviews with John Lasseter and Emily Mortimer across the spread of this week over on What Culture (formerly Obsessed with Film).

If you missed them, check out yesterday's interviews with first assistant editor Kevin Rose-Williams and character animator Jude Brownbill.

First of my 'Cars 2' interviews online...

Following on from last week's report on 'John Carter', the first of the 'Cars 2' interviews I conducted at Pixar in June are now online at What Culture.

First up are two video interviews with UK talent at the studio, first assistant editor Kevin Rose-Williams and character animator Jude Brownbill - both very nice people indeed.

Later in the week, leading up to the release of 'Cars 2' on Friday, there will be more interviews up on the site (which I'll link to here) - with director/studio founder John Lasseter, actor Emily Mortimer and producer Denise Ream. I'll also be writing a full review of the film itself for this blog.