'Captain America: the Winter Soldier', 'Under the Skin', 'The Past', and 'Starred Up': review round-up

'Captain America: the Winter Soldier' - Dir. Anthony & Joe Russo (12A)

A sequel to both Joe Johnston's charmingly Spielbergian WWII-set origin story 'Captain America: the First Avenger' and Joss Whedon's superhero team-up crowd-pleaser 'The Avengers', 'Captain America: the Winter Soldier' is tonally very different to those films and indeed to the rest of the Marvel Studios oeuvre to-date. Directed by the Russo brothers, this one is more of a conspiracy thriller and - without going all Nolan Batman and jettisoning fun and colour - it's a comparatively gritty and grounded affair. Much like the Ed Brubaker run in the comics, which introduced this film's antagonist the Winter Soldier (alluded to by the writer's cameo as one of the scientists behind his creation), the film does a neat job of including lots of outlandish and far-fetched comic book elements - from the winged exploits of Anthony Mackie's Falcon to the newly computer-bound consciousness of Toby Jones' Arnim Zola - with something altogether more grounded and grave.

The casting of Robert Redford as the political face of world peacekeeping force SHIELD, Alexander Pierce, is one of many nods to the classic thrillers of the 70s, as this film delves into more morally grey territory than its predecessor. Where once there was a struggle between the 'greatest generation' and the Nazis, Cap (Chris Evans) now finds himself in a world he doesn't recognise and which has seemingly abandoned the principles of freedom he fought so hard for in the 40s. Now SHIELD is starting to look like something more tyrannical and oppressive than it seemed when Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) first burst onto the scene at the end of the first 'Iron Man' film - creating huge, automated airborne battleships capable of detecting and erasing threats before they happen: in an obvious nod to both modern drone warfare and the NSA surveillance scandals of the last few years.

Against this background is a well-crafted superhero romp, which is also something of a mini-Avengers team-up as Cap unites with the aforementioned Falcon and Scarlett Johansson's espionage specialist Black Widow to stay one step ahead of SHIELD and discover the truth behind the agency's corruption - thwarted at every turn my a mysterious new enemy with a link to Cap's own past: the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan). The action is hard-hitting, well choreographed and visceral, whilst the main players exhibit the sort of good chemistry needed to make all the bits in between fun. Especially Chris Evans in the starring role - an actor who imbues the title character with as much subtle depth as he does obvious decency.

'Under the Skin' - Dir. Jonathan Glazer (15)

A masterclass in editing and sound design, Jonathan Glazer's 'Under the Skin' stars Scarlett Johansson as an alien who takes on the form of a human female and uses this guise to seduce lonely, socially isolated men, who she then traps and harvests for... some reason probably much clearer to those who've read the Michel Faber novel. Though I'd argue the question of why she captures these men and what exactly becomes of them is a secondary concern in a film that works primarily on the level of visceral, sensory experience. In lieu of much specificity or explanation, this is simply the story of an outsider assimilating and attempting to fit in (albeit with nefarious intent), learning a certain degree of compassion for humanity and gradually becoming more unsettled by and attached to her newly acquired body.

Johansson is perfectly cast in the role, especially as the film is set in Scotland and she adopts a clean, regionally non-specific English accent when talking to her co-stars - mostly comprised of non-actors, supposedly oblivious (at least at first) to the fact they were part of a film. The audience is aware that she's a Hollywood movie star pretending to be English and, even if they don't consciously realise it, those she approaches must also have sensed this unease with and disconnect from the star in their midst: familiar yet just different enough to sow seeds of doubt. She's an impostor playing an impostor and it works brilliantly, especially as she glides around British high streets and shopping centres in her black wig and incongruous fur coat.

Moments of intense body horror and a heart-pounding finale combine with this playful casting and Glazer's technical mastery to create something truly memorable - potentially even destined for cult status.

'The Past' - Dir. Asghar Farhadi (12A)

In a style familiar to fans of his earlier films, such as 'A Separation' and 'About Elly', director Asghar Farhadi's maiden effort outside of Iranian cinema is still a tightly wound and faultlessly humane drama, peppered with extraordinary revelations and populated by nuanced and fully-formed characters who are lead by circumstance to ponder profound ethical questions. Ali Mosaffa stars as Ahmad, an Iranian man who travels to France to finalise a divorce from his wife Marie (Berenice Bejo, star of 'The Artist') from whom he has been separated for four years. Whilst there he is immediately thrown, quite against his will, into an unfolding family drama that he otherwise has nothing to do with, as Marie begs him to have a heart-to-heart with her eldest daughter from a previous marriage, Lucie (Pauline Burlet), in order to find out why she's taken against her mother's new partner Samir, played by 'A Prophet' star Tahar Rahim.

After a half-dozen twists and turns we come to understand the various conflicting points of view all involved in the unfolding crisis, which this time revolves around the theme of forgiveness and moving on from what has happened before - of leaving an old life behind as you head into another. Something which none of the characters can quite face doing, at least without difficulty and heartache. Nobody in contemporary cinema (at least that I know of) is quite as brilliant as Farhadi when it comes to creating ensemble casts in which every character is so complex and well drawn. As with his other films, the four central characters here - along with another three or four supporting cast members - are each worthy of audience investment and sympathy, portrayed and written with great compassion.

'Starred Up' - Dir. David Mackenzie (18)

Muggin' everybody off, and generally causing no small amount of bovva on his cell block, in this gritty British prison movie is rising star Jack O'Connell as damaged, young offender Eric Love - a teenager prematurely moved up to big boy jail because of how violently he behaves. In service of drama, Eric is improbably moved to the same prison, and indeed the same wing, as his equally unhinged father Neville (the always intense and brilliant Australian Ben Mendelsohn) where he comes face-to-face with his past and some the issues which have played a part in his becoming a violent offender in the first place. Without explicitly stating it, there's undoubtedly a history of physical and mental abuse between them that's telegraphed mainly in how O'Connell's body language and demeanor change when confronted by his old man. Apparently known to audiences for his role in teen drama Skins, O'Connell makes an impressive transition to the big screen here: as charismatic as he is frightening and unpredictable.

The central drama concerns how Eric becomes a pawn in a broader game played between a powerful fellow inmate (Peter Ferdinando, who was excellent in the low budget crime film 'Tony'), a crooked and cruel prison warden (Sam Spruell), and a well-meaning volunteer psychologist (Rupert Friend). Friend's psychologist lobbies the skeptical prison establishment to get Eric placed in his self-help group (which they want to see fail for reasons of pantomime vindictiveness), where he can talk through his problems and learn to deal with his emotions without resorting to violence, whilst the prison authorities mostly just want to smash his face in - to the extent where all the police seem like irrational villains. It's the interactions between the various prison staff that ultimately bring the film down, though scenes between inmates (and especially those in Friend's group) are often gripping and compelling.

'Gravity', 'Thor: The Dark World' and 'Hannah Arendt': review round-up

'Gravity' - Dir. Alfonso Cuaron (12A)

It's been a long wait since Alfonso Cuaron's last film, with modern masterpiece 'Children of Men' coming out all the way back in 2006, but at least it's been worthwhile: 'Gravity' is comfortably one of the year's stand-out pieces of cinema. It's an unrelentingly tense amusement park ride of a film that has the courage to wear its heart of its sleeve and which could even revive mainstream 3D from its complacency coma, with perhaps the most compelling use of the technology seen to date. As well as being a showcase for jaw-dropping visual effects, 'Gravity' also shows us a more kinetic and violent depiction of outer space than we're used to, with astronauts smashing into things and endlessly spinning in the void with no way of slowing down. It's perhaps destined to be to the space movie what 'Saving Private Ryan' has long been to pop culture depictions of the D-day landings, acting as a lasting cinematic reference point and a representation of the truth in the public imagination, whatever its actual (and completely irrelevant) scientific inaccuracies.

Essentially 'Gravity' is the story of one human's clawing, panting, sweaty fight for survival against desperately long odds, as Sandra Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone - a small-town medical engineer with minimal NASA training - tries to avoid being struck by a calamitous cloud of satellite debris and somehow make it back to Earth without a spaceship after her mission goes horribly wrong. Though Stone has some very real, physical challenges to overcome - such as a depleting oxygen supply and the aforementioned debris field - the chief obstacle she faces is her own weary indifference to life itself. The film is about what it takes for this person to make the difficult decision to live when lying down and dying would be much easier - and, even, more comforting. Through various visual metaphors and lines of dialogue we come to see Stone as someone eager to shut all of the world out in some doomed bid to return to the womb: where George Clooney's charismatic, veteran astronaut sees wonder, Stone appears indifferent and complains of feeling physically ill. At its heart this is a small-scale story about an introverted, deeply personal problem - albeit projected onto an epic and exciting story.

I'll perhaps write more about the film and its themes when more people have had the chance to see it. In the meantime I'll just tell you that it had me awestruck, terrified, nervous and thrilled, pretty much for its entire duration.

'Thor: The Dark World' - Dir. Alan Taylor (12A)

Despite the strain of having to serve as the sequel to two different movies and enduring a fraught production history which saw original director Patty Jenkins replaced by TV veteran Alan Taylor, unhappy stars, last-minute re-writes and several rounds of re-shoots - 'Thor: The Dark World' is a pretty decent bit of summer fun. It's not necessarily the most cohesive or consistent entry in the Marvel Studios canon - not as exciting as 'The Avengers', as funny as 'Iron Man 3' or as perfectly formed as 'Captain America: The First Avenger' - but it's still a damn good time at the pictures, mostly thanks to the performances of, and chemistry between, Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddlestone as feuding Norse god brothers Thor and Loki.

The film recovers from a fairly pedestrian (and overly serious) first act as soon as the fan-favourite, trickster is unleashed upon the movie in a big way, with Loki and Thor forming an unlikely and completely terrific buddy comedy partnership which (all-too-briefly) elevates the movie to a higher stratosphere. The rest of the film is entertaining, to be sure - especially when supporting characters under-served by the first film come to the fore, such as Jaimie Alexander's Lady Sif and Ray Stevenson's Volstagg - and the action is also suitably exciting throughout, especially during a London-set climax that borrows much from the finale of the original 'Monsters Inc.' to fun effect. It's overall a solid bit of action-comedy fare. But there's no denying it's only when Loki is on-screen that it really feels like anything genuinely special is happening.

So great is Hiddleston's presence in the role that he overshadows everything else that's going on in the movie, relegating Christopher Eccleston's villain Malekith to the role of peripheral irritant rather than that of the desired world-ending threat. His increased presence here also sidelines Natalie Portman and the Jane Foster-Thor love story, which was a hugely enjoyable part of what made the first film tick. It's perhaps no surprise that one Shanghai theatre accidentally displayed a fan-made poster in its lobby, depicting Thor and Loki embracing: their's is the real love story here, albeit one that is tragically doomed. For what it's worth, 'Thor: The Dark World' does successfully feel like a sequel to both 2011's 'Thor' and last year's mega-hit 'The Avengers', addressing how events fit in to the immediate aftermath of both stories in ways that should satisfy fans of the overriding Marvel Cinematic Universe arc. It's an entertaining, sometimes brilliant, often muddled misstep, but one that leaves the "franchise" in an exciting place and will leave fans longing to see what happens next.

'Hannah Arendt' - Dir. Margarethe von Trotta (12A)

This brisk and tightly focussed biopic of the Jewish-German philosopher and political thinker Hannah Arendt, portrayed charismatically and without much in the way of showy affectation by Barbara Sukowa, looks specifically at the period of her life for which she is perhaps most famously remembered: her controversial coverage of the 1961 trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann in Israel for The New Yorker. Margarethe Von Trotta's compassionate film looks at the ensuing controversy over Arendt's dismissal of the Nazi, who would be executed for his role in the Holocaust, as a petty bureaucrat and as evidence of the "banality of evil": essentially that the greatest threat of society and morality is those individuals who refuse or are unable to think for themselves. Those who hide behind procedures and rules and orders in an unthinking way, paying little interest in the consequences. It's a compelling idea and one that the film explains and explores well.

It's frustrating watching a thinker being chastised by intellectuals and educators for trying to think, as opposed to merely behaving in a reactionary and crowd-pleasing way, yet in showing this 'Hannah Arendt' paints of a picture of its subject as a brave and fascinating genius whose various published works should be eagerly sought out. A German-language film, albeit set in New York with several American actors, sometimes the English language scenes feel clunky, and it does seem to present Israel as some sort of romantic idyll, but overall this is a really interesting drama about the perils and pitfalls of daring to think and of the calamities that await our species should we refuse to. It may be a period piece, but the subject matter is timeless.

'The World's End' and 'The Wolverine': review round-up + Interview with 'Frances Ha' director Noah Baumbach

My laptop went and broke the other day, so that's why (or, should I say, the latest reason why) I haven't been updating. Got a quiz to write for tonight (if you're Brighton-based, and fancy a challenge, get to Dukes at Komedia for 6.30ish), so I'll keep this short.

First up, I did an interview with director Noah Baumbach a little while ago for What Culture. That's available to read online here. Next up, reviews:

'The World's End' - Dir. Edgar Wright (15)

Full disclosure: I didn't grow up with Spaced and have only ever rated 'Shaun of the Dead' and 'Hot Fuzz' as "alright", so take my opinion of this conclusion to Edgar Wright's "Cornetto Trilogy" with a larger than usual pinch of salt. This one takes on aspects of the sci-fi genre as a small town's inhabitants are slowly replaced with, what I'm going to call (to make it easier to explain in shorthand), robots - though in a way that feels like the zombie horde from 'Sean' meets the strange, rural-folk conspiracy stuff of 'Fuzz'. In 'The World's End', Simon Pegg plays Gary King, a middle-aged man who hasn't moved on since the greatest night of his life: attempting "the golden mile" - a 12 pub crawl across his home town - with his closest mates. However, decades later, everything has changed except for Gary.

The pubs themselves are now identikit chain pubs and all his mates have moved on with their lives and moved away from the small town of their youth. Many of them, including Nick Frost's Andy, actively hate Gary - making things all the more uncomfortable as he pathetically attempts to get the gang back together for one last crack at the mile. It doesn't go well and only gets worse when the robots turn up. That was originally meant as descriptive, but actually forms a pretty good anchor point to start my critique because, for me at least, the film was far more entertaining and engaging before the science fiction elements kicked in. The "former friends coming back together in their sad little home town for a pathetic pub crawl" story was actually really well worked for the first half-hour, with nuanced characters and genuine pathos for Gary: a complete prick, but one you feel crushingly sorry for nevertheless. With his mates played by Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan, Martin Freeman and the ever-dependable Frost, the film trundled along very nicely for the first 30 minutes as a bitter-sweet comedy-drama.

And then the film gets lost in long (admittedly well choreographed) fight scenes, exposition about this alien/robot threat and all manner of other things that actually detract from what's really appealing and interesting about the film as was: the human drama and the character arc of Gary King - who, reservations about the overall film aside, I think is the year's best original character [more on that to follow at a later date, when I have time]. Gary's arc is maintained and still carries the film, of course, but it gets bogged down in everything else that's going on. It also doesn't help that the film - nominally a comedy - isn't really very funny. It has a few chuckles and it's never less than pleasant to watch, but it's uncharacteristically gag-light by the standards of the creative team. I will say this for it though: what this film has to say about friendship is far more mature and rewarding than pretty much ever other "bromance" movie. There are a lot of similarities between this and the summer's US comedy 'This is the End' - yet, whilst that film is far funnier, this one is the more interesting and emotionally affecting.

'The Wolverine' - Dir. James Mangold (12A)

It's the wrong side of the two-hour mark and goes by extremely slowly - with far more green tea-sipping than claw-knucked action - but 'The Wolverine' is watchable and oddly compelling if mainly because of Hugh Jackman's charisma as the title character. Loosely based on Chris Claremont and Frank Miller's celebrated and far-better-than-this-movie 1982 mini-series, which sees Logan on a solo adventure in Japan, the film takes the character out East where he becomes embroiled in the familial intrigue of a large corporation, a few fights with the Yakuza, and a punch-up with an unconvincing CGI robot samurai. There's a neat action sequence on a train and some nice moments for fans of the character (he even throws in a "bub" at one point), but James Mangold's film - strangely reliant on the maligned 'X-Men: The Last Stand' through extensive Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) dream sequences that might have been better left on the cutting room floor - requires prior investment in the character to be of any interest.

There are some odd cinematic allusions to great Japanese works, for instance one ninja fight sequence borrows imagery from Kurosawa's Macbeth adaptation 'Throne of Blood', and these might help explain the logic behind the film's mannered style and extremely slow pacing. This is probably the quietest blockbuster made this century - and that's admirable and makes for something weirdly fascinating, even if it doesn't really work as intended. It feels boring rather than intense or dramatic, but it's clear (and, again, admirable) that they were really trying to make a character-driven movie about regret and coming to terms with loss. I'm left wondering if they might have succeeded had Darren Aronofsky accepted the long-rumoured offer to direct, but - like his aborted 'Batman Begins' - it was sadly not to be. I will say this for 'The Wolverine' though: if modern superhero movies exist in large part as extended trailers for their inevitable sequels then the film did its job. Even before the post-credits scene, the film left me more excited about next summer's 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' than I was going in.

'Iron Man 3', 'Oblivion', 'The Look of Love' and 'Mud': review round-up and 'Thor: The Dark World' trailer

Here's a trailer for this November's terribly exciting looking 'Thor: The Dark World', just because. Now on to the business of reviews:

'Iron Man 3' - Dir. Shane Black (12A)

As much as I love 'The Avengers' and am (as evidenced above) obsessed with the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, 'Iron Man 3' was not a film I rushed into with much expectation or the excitement I already feel for the upcoming Thor and Captain America sequels. Whilst Robert Downey Jnr's Tony Stark has been the most profitable one of the bunch so far for Marvel, with the patchy 'Iron Man 2' the most successful pre-Avengers "Phase One" movie, Iron Man has always left me cold. I've enjoyed the films enough, but I never loved them like I love the others. Perhaps because Iron Man seems to love himself enough for the both of us. That all changed, however, with Shane Black's new sequel to the series, which basically just turns the franchise into an awesome 90s buddy comedy, combining jaw-dropping action sequences - and some of the biggest and most imaginatively conceived superhero set-pieces yet seen - with dozens of genuinely funny and quotable lines. It's exciting, clever, superbly acted (Ben Kingsley's performance, in particular), and as close as you can come to a guaranteed good time at the pictures.

The script somehow blends all the best elements of a buddy cop movie (notably in Downey Jnr and Don Cheadle's team-up), a sort of Capra-esque Christmas movie (it'll sound shit on paper, but Iron Man's pairing with a smalltown kid is entirely winsome), an espionage thriller, a deft political satire (maybe overselling that a touch, but what the film does with Kingsley's villain is inspired) and a classic modern superhero movie. It's a 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' style deconstruction of action movie tropes and a faithful sequel to both 'Iron Man 2' and 'The Avengers' - which it references whilst also managing to be its own thing completely. It bravely takes Tony Stark out of the suit for most of the movie - putting him in more peril than ever before, and allowing him to be more genuinely heroic - whilst also still recognisably being a Marvel comics adaptation. It does a lot of things and it does most of them excellently. And it's probably the only superhero movie to have a satisfying "end boss" fight to boot.

I can't express enough how smart and purely fun Shane Black's movie is: unsentimental and yet full of unabashed heart, in a way that finally made me love this character. His screenplay - co-written with Drew Pearce - is fantastic, not only in its dialogue and character choices (Gwyneth Paltrow is refreshingly allowed to be much more than a damsel in distress), but in the way he contrives such wonderful and unexpected action sequences. Such as when Tony is forced to improvise new weapons after losing his suit and so nips into a hardware store, or when he successfully retrieves part of his suit and has to make do with what boils down to a glove and a boot. Here, for the first time in one of these movies, filmmakers have crafted antagonists who can actually pose a threat, allowing Tony to reasonably deploy his extensive arsenal in its entirety, hopping between suits in a sequence that's fast-paced and unlike anything else in the series to date. Don Cheadle gets more punch-the-air-awesome moments than I thought possible for an actor who was the British one in 'Ocean's Eleven' and Guy Pearce makes a sensational villain. It's just fantastic summer fun.

'Oblivion' - Dir. Joseph Kosinski (12A)

Say what you will about Hollywood "product" being derivative and low on original ideas, but surely nothing - no sequel or spin-off or re-make - is as cynical and brazenly plagaristic as the Tom Cruise sci-fi vehicle 'Oblivion', directed by Joseph Kosinski of 'Tron: Legacy' fame. You'd struggle to name a sci-fi movie or video game made in the last two decades that this one doesn't pillage for intellectual property, stealing wholesale plot elements, concepts and designs from the likes of the low budget cult hit 'Moon' all the way up to blockbusters like 'Independence Day'. There's weapon and costume designs lifted from the game series Mass Effect, whilst many will be quick to spot the embarrassingly blatant similarities between Melissa Leo's character - an untrustworthy, disembodied computer-treated voice - and the game Portal. And that's not even mentioning how much it rips off the filmography of its star, as we watch his continued slow fade from relevance.

It's a film that allows Tom Cruise - in the increasingly desperate "I'm not too old, honest, look what I can do!" phase of his career - to run really fast across sand, to ride motorcycles wearing sunglasses and to play an ace-pilot-and-ace-marksman-who-is-the-best-at-everything-he-does-and-a-scientist-and-the-saviour-of-mankind-who-is-irresistible-to-all-womenTM. Within the first twenty minutes he's taken two showers and gone for a dip in a swimming pool, and whilst the man is in unquestionably good condition for a fifty year old (much better shape than I've ever been in, for the record), his ab-flexing determination to prove how he still "has it" really isn't at all appealing.

The film itself is at its most tolerable when it epitomises the world of Tom Cruise cliche rather than when it's raiding every modern sci-fi classic for ideas - but mostly it's a bland, flavourless waste of two hours. Sometimes it's at least a slick and reasonably pretty diversion, with Kosinski's bright white Apple-influenced brand of future chic carrying over from the similarly attractive-yet-hollow world of his last film. Yet more often the whole thing is a display of baffling incompetence on nearly every level, with a central premise that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, clunky exposition monologues repeated in their entirety more than once and twists you see coming a mile away (at least one of which is on the damn poster). The drone robots are fairly cool - with their use in war raising the film's only potentially interesting moral question - and the 'Top Gun' style flying sequences have their moments, but this is definitely one to avoid and, I would predict, one destined to be quickly forgotten.

'The Look of Love' - Dir. Michael Winterbottom (18)

The Steve Coogan/Michael Winterbottom partnership, which has served both so well over the years with the likes of 'A Cock and Bull Story' and '24 Hour Party People', continues with 'The Look of Love': an unfocused and shallow biopic about Paul Raymond - the infamous millionaire who was once Britain's wealthiest man. The film chronicles Raymond's career from - as the film would have it - a glorified circus ringmaster in the 1950s to an ageing property magnate and soft-core pornographer in the 90s, via his 60s/70s heyday as the proprietor of Soho's most sophisticated and talked about gentleman's clubs and publisher of a controversial, and widely read, men's magazine. The main problem with the film, aside from its strange refusal to engage with any social/political issues beyond glib one-liners, is that Coogan - a versatile performer - plays Raymond as indistinct from TV creation Alan Partridge.

Now, I bow to no man in my love of Alan Partridge as a comedy creation, but I'm guessing Paul Raymond was not so similar to Norwich's favourite son and Coogan's decision to play him this way is baffling. Every comic aside, awkward pause and geekish piece of trivia is pure Partridge, albeit a wealthy and successful one. It's a fact that cheapens the movie and renders its few attempts at real drama insincere. This is a pity as the film becomes more and more about the apparently complex relationship between Raymond and his daughter, as played by emerging star Imogen Poots - who steals the film out from underneath its star with a multi-faceted showing that ranges from vulnerable and troubled, to self-assured and downright cocky. The fact that the tragedy of Poots' character takes centre stage - being part of the film's framing device and used as a the catalyst for present-day introspection for Raymond - makes it even more of a pity that Coogan's central performance seems so disingenuous.

If the purpose of a biopic is to reveal something about its subject, to leave you feeling you know more about a person on the way out than you did on the way in, then 'The Look of Love' has well and truly failed. I leave the film none the wiser about what Paul Raymond was like as a man, with film engaging with this real historical figure the same way it engages with the "swinging sixties": presenting both with crude, cartoonish caricature and seemingly without affection. It certainly doesn't earn its mawkish and manipulative ending.

'Mud' - Dir. Jeff Nichols (12A)

In the very best of ways, 'Mud' - Jeff Nichols' follow-up to the impressive 'Take Shelter' - is a kids film. Not merely because its protagonist, Ellis (Tye Sheridan), is a 15 year-old boy, but because of the way the tale is framed: not simply as a coming of age story, but as a classic boys adventure in the mold of Mark Twain or vintage Spielberg of the 1980s. Or, better yet, 'Stand By Me'. The sort of film that looks children in the eye and treats a young audience with respect, refusing to sand away the rough edges yet not completely forsaking wonder. I have no idea whether Nichols ever envisaged the film as one for all ages - and it certainly isn't being sold that way and may not end up reaching that audience - but 'Mud' is a pretty perfect children's film, featuring a young hero in Ellis young boys can certainly empathise with. It certainly nails a certain time in a boy's life and this is easily as complete and challenging a role as a young actor is ever given, with Sheridan a real talent.

At its simplest, 'Mud' is the story about aimless, working class kids from broken (or breaking) homes who spend their days doing what boys do at that age: they go places they aren't supposed to, stay out later than they are meant to and make grand plans in secrecy. These boys, living on a river, take to playing around on a deserted and snake-infested island, climbing trees and playing with sticks, until one day they find an abandoned boat in a tree and decide to make it their own. The only trouble is a wanted man named Mud (Matthew McConaughey) has made the boat is home and makes them a deal: they can have the boat with his blessing, if they bring him some food and run some simple errands. Increasingly dangerous little adventures follow, which bring the kids deeper into Mud's difficulties than might be sensible, but - in the great kids film tradition - the kids go through hell to protect their new, social outcast friend from the threat posed by the local grown-ups: the police, the parents and the rest. In Mud McConaughey has a role every bit as memorable and intense as 'Killer Joe'.

'Mud' is a beautiful and moving piece of work. Sincere and populated by warm, genuinely loving characters right through the cast. It goes unexpected places and sidesteps every cliche you think you can see coming along the way. Overwhelmingly it's a film about love - in all its forms - in all its fragility and with all its pitfalls, but which ultimately manages to be warm and optimistic without compromising the gritty stuff. Love is hard and sometimes impermanent, it says. You might throw everything into it and get your heart ripped out, or even find yourself publicly humiliated as a result of unrequited affection. Yet it's worth it: it's the best thing we have and the only thing in this world worth having. That is basically the lesson learnt by the young hero through his trials and tribulations, but all without seeming twee or saccharine in the slightest. Quite an achievement - and a noble one at that.

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:

'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...

'The Amazing Spider-Man', 'Snow White and the Huntsman' and 'Your Sister's Sister': review round-up

Love that scene and that movie.

Dearest readers! I have been remiss of late in providing "content" for this blog. First there was a (successful) trial with a website, who want me to write for them as an assistant editor soon. Then came a trip to a small film festival in Amsterdam. And now a painful break-up with my long-term girlfriend which has left me - for practical and emotional reasons - unable to write for this blog. It happened at the weekend, after seven deliriously happy years, and that's all I'll say about it here because this isn't and never will be that sort of blog (not that there's anything wrong with that). I just wanted to account for my tardiness.

In any case, I have been able to see a few films over the last few days and whilst I can't be bothered to give them full reviews at this time, I thought it'd be a nice distraction to come on here and summarise my thoughts.

Starting with...

'The Amazing Spider-Man'
With great power comes great responsibility, and Sony have abused theirs with this cynical "franchise re-boot" that re-tells the Peter Parker origin story with some 'Batman Begins' grittiness that's, like, sooo 2005. They've also recast Parker (played by The Spectacular Andrew Garfield) as an angsty emo skater kid in a move that feels even more outdated. "This is what the kids like, right?" seems to be the question on the lips of executives, who also play up the romantic aspect of Spidey's relationship with High School sweetheart Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone), presumably in an attempt to make Spider-Man the next 'Twilight'.

The cast is uniformly great, with Martin Sheen and Sally Field taking on Uncle Ben and Aunt May respectively, whilst Rhys Ifans is a good fit as Dr. Curt Connors (AKA The Lizard) even if the film doesn't know what to do with him and the script restricts him to mostly pseudo-science exposition. And though I didn't like '500 Days (of Summer)' at all, director Marc Webb - the most awesome name-related coincidence since German football club Wolfsburg were managed by Wolfgang Wolf - does a pretty decent job with both the action scenes and some of the Spider-Man as metaphor for puberty teenage growth moments. In fact the film's highlight is easily the comic sequence during which Parker first encounters his super-strength, smashing his bed-side alarm clock.

It's hokey and cheesy to an extent that will probably grate with even fans of Sam Raimi's trilogy, with some truly god awful moments whenever the dialogue reaches for profound and the action attempts to carry some kind of great weight (such as when a New York construction crew come to Spidey's aid in improbable and extremely goofy fashion) but it does feel like a comic book, particularly when it comes to the Lizard's stupid grand scheme (turn everyone into lizards for some reason) and how Spider-Man moves during fights. The animation of Spider-Man doing his thing, swinging on webs and ducking and diving during bouts, is far superior to any other filmic translation of the character to date.

'The Amazing Spider-Man' hops wildly between being terrible and pretty damn good. And it's way too long and a little too slow. But it isn't the car crash I was expecting and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing an improved sequel with the same cast and, perhaps, a different creative team behind the camera. Oh, and the 3D is terrible: neither subtly providing depth or doing much obvious, in-your-face trickery. I removed my glasses during some of the non-action scenes and - at least from what I could tell - they were just 2D. So I reluctantly find myself agreeing with the "it's just a con" brigade this time around.

If I seem to have been overly kind to the Spider-Man movie, it might have something to do that I went into it right off the back of...

'Snow White and the Huntsman'
Totally terrible and without a single redeeming quality. Except maybe some of the special effects design concerning the transformative powers of Charlize Theron's evil Queen. For one thing it's brazenly ripping off a half-dozen better movies in every frame. There's a whole sequence lifted from 'Princess Mononoke', loads and loads of people-walking-over-mountains stuff captured by the second unit which owes an obvious debt to the 'Lord of the Rings' films, Kristen Stewart's Snow White gets dressed up in battle armour in a re-imagining that recalls Tim Burton's dreadful 'Alice in Wonderland' and the staging of the climatic battle - which sees cavalry charging across a beach - is almost shot-for-shot identical to the end of Ridley Scott's 'Robin Hood'.

Chris "Thundergod" Hemsworth has nothing to do aside from a ridiculous Scottish accent as the Huntsman, whilst Stewart - obviously not an unattractive woman - is totally miscast as the "fairest of them all". Particularly as she can't smile without gurning. She pouts her way through the entire movie, her character has no personality and it's one of those horrible narratives in which she triumphs because of her superior royal blood. I actually hate this movie. This wretched, distended piece of crap movie. If I hadn't recently sat through 'Rock of Ages' this might be the worst film of the year so far that I've seen (bear in mind that I don't go see stuff like 'Think Like a Man' or 'Jack and Jill').

The audience I saw it with did genuinely seem to connect with the seven dwarves when they showed up, but that's probably because they are played by established thesps (including Toby Jones, Nick Frost, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane) in miniature. Though this is a morally dubious move, taking away acting roles from real dwarf performers who make a living of exactly this type of film, it does work surprisingly well and they represent the only characters in the movie worth giving a damn about. Even if every joke around them is basically "aw, aren't they small!"

'Your Sister's Sister'
Unquestionably the year's biggest disappointment to-date, this one doesn't hold a candle to director Lynne Shelton's previous little indie movies: 'Humpday' and 'My Effortless Brilliance'. A miscast Emily Blunt, with a wildly varying American accent, is one of the key flaws, but mainly it fails because the little human drama just tries to go a little too big in the final third. It's the same problem with other recent "Mumblecore" forays into the mainstream - such as 'Cyrus' and 'Jeff, Who Lives at Home' - both co-directed by this film's male lead Mark Duplass.

The first half enjoys the same low-key, well-observed vibe of previous films, as an uneasy love-triangle type thing develops between those stars and Rosemarie DeWitt (who plays Blunt's drunken baby-obsessed lesbian sister). DeWitt is the best thing in it and, even as her character becomes less and less appealing, she is terrific. But when a high-stakes dramatic reveal is made the whole thing turns to shit. I don't want to spoil it so I'll just say it makes little sense (both as a real-world instance and in terms of these characters) and takes the film in a direction it didn't need to go. The smaller relationship drama was interesting without the need to inject gimmicky and contrived last-act soap opera.

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.

Superhero Trailer Special: 'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'The Amazing Spider-Man'

I haven't been updating here a lot recently, for several reasons. I've become slightly addicted to Marvel comics in the wake of 'The Avengers', for a start. Then there's the fact that Football Manager Handheld is now out on Android, which means I spend most of my time glued to my recently acquired tablet pretending to manage Portsmouth (for some reason). I've also been helping to write the programme for a European festival happening within the next two months, so that's taking all the time that isn't spent doing the other two things.

I saw George Lucas' 'Red Tails' yesterday but that's under embargo for the best part of a month. So, in lieu of anything else to talk about, I'll do what I always do when there's nothing left to say: I'll post trailers!

Below are the latest 'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'The Amazing Spider-Man' trailers followed by a bit of shallow chitchat filler. Yes, I'm obsessed with comic book superheroes at the moment, but then so is "the industry" at large. 'The Avengers' looks set to break that billion dollar mark during its run - it opens in the US today having already achieved a significant chunk of that milestone after a week playing internationally - so this summer look set to be dominated by the costumed hero more than any in memory.

Anyway, here's the third trailer for Christopher Nolan's third Batman movie: 'The Dark Knight Rises':



These Nolan Batman trailers - like anything else - lose impact viewed on a computer screen, as I found when I saw the previous trailer projected in IMAX in front of 'The Avengers'. There is an understated quiet to the way they are marketing this movie to date that benefits from the big screen treatment, pulling you into this world the way only a darkened room and a massive screen can. It's with this in mind that I say I'm not exactly over-enthused by this latest peek at the culmination of Nolan's trilogy, viewed at home and in daylight. But I'm not on the whole discouraged.

'The Dark Knight' is one of the best films of the last ten years and - prior to Marvel's latest - the last film to really excite me with its action scenes, so I'm sure 'Rises' will be (at the very least) good. But Bane as the main villain? That's not exactly inspiring, despite the presence of Tom Hardy, though Anne Hathaway is always good value which should make Catwoman interesting.

As for the trailer itself, it's hard to escape the feeling that they're now throwing all the major set pieces at us: the football field sinking into the ground, the mid-air hijack of (presumably) Wayne's plane, and the destruction of a bridge - though each of these moments looks excellent, let's hope there are some surprises left for the final film. Intriguingly, there is still nothing here overtly showing off Liam Neeson reprising his character from 'Batman Begins', so perhaps there's a whole side to this movie we still know nothing about. I hope so.

Also, the flying vehicle at the end of the trailer (as previously glimpsed in fleeting shots of the previous promo) looks decidedly un-Nolan. These Batman films have been all about stripping the series of fantasy elements (in the comics Batman has some truly weird villains) and going "real" and "gritty" with it. Yet this crazy flying car thing is clearly not of our reality. Taken along with rumours of the Lazarus Pit being used as a plot device, along with the possible resurrection of Neeson's Ra's al Ghul, could this mean Nolan's Batman is heading in a slightly less determinedly realistic direction?

Next up, Marc Webb's 'The Amazing Spider-Man' AKA 'The Pointless Reboot Nobody Asked For':



I'll lay my cards on the table from the off: I didn't like Marc Webb's last film, '(500) Days of Summer', at all. Smug, charmless, contrived, high on its own farts. Rubbish. I also don't see why 'Spider-Man', as established so well on the screen by Sam Raimi, needs a "re-boot" when it's so recent. 'Spider-Man 3' wasn't so bad that we all need to start again and find out who Peter Parker is, and see him get bitten by the spider, and see Uncle Ben get killed all over. That said, I do like Andrew Garfield and think he could do great things with the iconic role.

In this trailer we get a glimpse of Garfield as Spidey from the comic books, as the jokey, wise-ass. Him taunting the car thief about his small knife is funny and is the first real indication that this movie could work. However... everything else we've been shown so far is horrible.

Why is this movie all about Peter Parker trying to learn the truth about his parents? Since when was that a major preoccupation of Spider-Man? And his new suit looks so ugly: garish and over-designed. And, worst of all, the film's villain - the Lizard (Rhys Ifans) - looks appalling both in terms of design (where he looks more like a dinosaur than any previous incarnation of the comic book character) and in terms of the shoddy CGI. It's a far cry from the motion captured excellence of the Hulk in 'The Avengers'. And therein lies the film's biggest problem.

Nolan's Batman trilogy is its own thing, and whilst journalists will inevitably measure its success against that of Marvel's team-up monster hit, tonally and in terms of how it handles the subject matter it's likely to appeal to a different audience (albeit with a sizable overlap). Spider-Man, on the other hand, is a colourful Marvel hero and this film will (by the looks of things) suffer from comparison to either film - especially as it aims to take on an amount of Nolan-esque "gritty". It looks as though 'The Amazing Spider-Man' won't equal the escapist thrills and laughs of 'The Avengers' whilst also failing to convince those who hunger for increased realism and "darkness". In short, it'll please nobody. Then again these sub-zero expectations could see it become a very pleasant surprise.

I'll naturally still go and see it, but that's because I'm increasingly a Marvel comics fanboy. But boy do I wish Marvel owned the cinematic rights to this and several other flagship properties (Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil), as they have really lead the way in terms of making book-accurate super hero movies that are neither excessively camp nor po-faced.

'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 Avengers'/'Marvel Avengers Assemble' trailer:

I'm about as excited for the upcoming 'Avengers' superhero movie as it's possible to be, and the latest trailer (above) has done nothing to diminish my anticipation. In fact, my girlfriend and I are going on holiday to Rome at the end of April and I'm honestly more excited about getting back just in time for the film's April 27th UK release date. Which is pretty sad, I guess.

Now titled 'Marvel Avengers Assemble' on these shores, presumably to avoid confusion with the British 1960s spy series 'The Avengers' (already adapted into a universally panned mid-90s movie), the film sees Captain America (Chris Evans), Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) combining forces to fend off a threat to our planet - with Tom Hiddleston's Loki, brother of Thor, so far the only known villain. If this is a big hit then it could be a real game changer - ushering in a new era of inter-film continuity projects, particularly in the superhero genre. Once Christopher Nolan finishes with Batman this summer, perhaps Warner Brothers will attempt a similar arrangement with the DC heroes?

It's certainly an ambitious move and it remains to be seen whether director/writer Joss Wheadon can make a satisfying individual movie juggling so many characters. Will he feel the need to introduce all the heroes again and, in so doing, undermine the previous movies? Or will the film be inaccessible for those not already versed in the Marvel universe? It's an intriguing problem and I look forward to seeing how (if at all) it has been solved.

With this, 'The Amazing Spider-Man' and 'The Dark Knight Rises' all sharing a single summer, 2012 looks set to be another year dominated by comic book heroes.

'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.

'X-Men: First Class' review:

It's barely been a year since the release of Matthew Vaughn's last film, the ultra-violent indie superhero movie 'Kick-Ass', yet his new movie - Marvel comic book prequel 'X-Men: First Class' - is already upon us. As that rapid production time might suggest, 'First Class' feels rushed: poorly scripted, with ropey back projection, lots of intangible CGI and a forgettable score. Problems which are only slightly alleviated by an interesting and talented cast, which includes James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, January Jones, Kevin Bacon, Nicholas Hoult and Oliver Platt.

As the name implies, 'First Class' is an origin story about the founding of superhero team The X-Men, which centres on the relationship between future enemies Professor X and Magneto - Charles Xavier (McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Fassbender). It starts by contrasting the lives of the two characters as children in 1944, showing how the metal manipulating Erik spent time in a Nazi concentration camp, where his parents were murdered and he was victim of experimentation, whilst the telepathic Xavier spent his formative years living in a mansion, dedicating himself to the pursuit of knowledge in order to better understand the mutant phenomenon.



The film then moves forward to 1962 where Xavier is graduating from Oxford as an expert on gene mutation, spending his free time downing yards of ale and charming sexy students with his well-rehearsed chat up lines. Meanwhile, Erik has become a Nazi hunter, scouring the globe in search of the man who shot his mother and experimented with his abilities, an energy adsorbing mutant named Sebastian Shaw (Bacon). With Cold War at its height, Shaw sets about provoking nuclear conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States in the hope of destroying non-mutant kind forever. It is he who is behind the Cuban Missile Crisis, playing both sides against each other. Xavier and Erik meet whilst in pursuit of Shaw (Xavier in the service of the CIA), leading the pair unite and set about recruiting other mutants in the name of preventing his evil plan.

This convoluted, time-traversing structure means that the first half of the film consists almost entirely of insubstantial moments, as Vaughn cross-cuts between exotic locations and introduces us to a multitude of obscure Marvel characters. It takes an age to get moving and in this time none of the perfunctory sub-plots are developed beyond the superficial minimum, with the movie feeling like a simple box-ticking exercise. Many of the mutants - including Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), Angel (Zoe Kravitz), Havoc (Lucas Till) and Darwin (Edi Gathegi) - are not fleshed out at all beyond the level of simple archetypes and are only really present to make up the numbers, in a film which might have done better to restrict the comic book heroes on screen in the name of greater depth. Certainly the best scenes are those which rest on McAvoy and Fassbender, who make for an appealing pair of opposites.



With four credited screenwriters, including Vaughn and Jane Goldman (with whom he scripted 'Kick-Ass'), it is perhaps no surprise that 'First Class' isn't the model of structural coherence or thematic restraint. The dialogue rarely rises above in-jokes about Xavier's future baldness or trite, over-explained literary references, to Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde, though a few of the actors are able to rise above the material with their credibility intact. The whole thing also reeks of compromise as the director sets up some quite sadistic and threatening scenes of violence before presumably remembering the film's prospective family audience. The brutal final kill shot is one such example, as Vaughn's camera maliciously, even pornographically, tracks the action. Only, without the blood and energy that would have underscored such a scene in 'Kick-Ass', this self-conscious moment feels muted and misplaced.

Worse still, Vaughn's treatment of female characters is the stuff of mild teenage fantasy. We are introduced to Rose Byrne's Moira MacTaggert as she strips into her lingerie to gain entry to a club filled with scantily-clad women. Similarly, minor antagonist Emma Frost (played by January Jones) is given little to do but look pretty, whilst Kravitz's Angel is first shown as a stripper, dancing for Charles and Erik as they sip champagne. She demonstrates her mutation - her insectoid wings - in a hopefully "sexy" way as they watch her from a red velvet bed. "How would you like a job where you get to keep your clothes on?" asks Charles on his recruitment drive, in the most chauvinist, patronising tone possible. Jennifer Lawrence too is subject to the film's leering male gaze, with her sub-plot being that her often-naked blue-skinned shape-shifter Mystique just wants to have body confidence. Like Byrne and Jones, Lawrence is all but written out of the film's biggest action sequence and instead is reduced to a kind of romantic hot potato, thrown between three of the male leads in the course of the film's two-hours.



For me though, the most troubling aspect of 'X-men: First Class' is that Vaughn's sympathies lie with the forces of revenge, intolerance and indiscriminate violence - and as such he is at fundamental odds with the source material. Fassbender's enigmatic future-Magneto is cast as an effortlessly cool anti-hero and it's with sickening relish that Vaughn stages the character's violent revenge killings near the start of the film. His emphasis on Erik's concentration camp struggles make it clear where our most reactionary sympathies are supposed to lie. As with 'Kick-Ass' before it, the film runs on thinly concealed right-wing politics: this time promoting the idea that "victim's justice" is a form of common sense.

By contrast, it's the sheltered and wishy-washy Xavier, the college kid, who wants to get along with the non-mutant humans and "fit in" (tellingly, he is even shown to be disparaging of Mystique's natural blue form and wants her to undergo treatment to become "normal"). He hasn't lived life and felt hatred like Erik has and, naturally, harbours none of the resentment. Here the "good" concepts, of self-confidence and rugged individualism, are wedded to Erik and a militant ideal. Certainly, the film wants us to love McAvoy too, but Vaughn's heart really isn't in it. Vaughn celebrates Xavier most as a loutish drinker and sleazy womaniser, rather than as the genius future leader of the X-Men, and by the final shots it is clear who we are really rooting for under the stewardship of this cynical budget-Tarantino.



'Kick-Ass' had an infectious energy, matched by a humorous style and editing so slick that I was forced to turn a blind eye to its dark-hearted contempt for human life. Sadly, 'X-Men: First Class' didn't provide me with that same excuse and, consequently, I was never given permission to shake off my sense of disbelief and partake in the unalloyed joys offered by the best superhero movies, let alone Vaughn's love of mindless, anti-social violence. By commercial necessity, it's a weak, flavourless blend of 'Kick-Ass' and Bryan Singer's earlier films, which doesn't tread anywhere with much freedom or confidence.

'X-Men: First Class' is mean-spirited, but isn't mean enough. It isn't allowed to get as bloody as it would like to. It isn't as stylish as it thinks it is. It isn't camp enough to be fun in spite of these failings and it isn't knowing enough to be considered ironic. Conscious of its brief to please a wide audience, the movie limply rests somewhere between those positions, unsure of what direction to take and which movie it wants to be - hoping you don't notice amidst all the explosions and the boobs.

'X-Men: First Class' has been rated '12A' by the BBFC and is on general release from today in the UK.

'Thor' review:

Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Captain America are popular and, to varying degrees, iconic comic book superheroes. With this in mind, Marvel Studios decision to make big, blockbuster films based on these "properties" is understandable and even inevitable. But Marvel, now owned by Disney, have bigger plans for their so-called "cinematic universe" which involve interlinking their different characters in the same way they did with the comic book continuity years ago. It makes obvious financial sense: like Iron Man but not so fussed about the Hulk? Well, chances are you're going to pay to see the big green guy anyway because of that Tony Stark cameo.

The ultimate goal for Marvel, as announced way back in 2005, is to make what (they hope) will be a massive super-blockbuster in the form of 'The Avengers' - the superhero equivalent of the Travelling Wilburys. And they have been steadily and unsubtly promoting that future franchise ever since by shoehorning cameos, in-jokes and geek-oriented references into each film - often via Samuel L Jackson. 'Iron Man 2' was so concerned with setting up the Avenger origin story that parts of that film felt like an extended trailer. The problem with this game-plan is that, in order to form the on-screen Avengers, Marvel have to set-up some less iconic and potentially less cinematic heroes for that movie to make sense. That's what brings us to 'Thor'. A superhero movie no one asked for.



Thor is somewhat harder to buy into than his future co-vigilantes. Iron Man is a normal guy - albeit a billionaire scientist with a fancy suit - whilst Hulk and Captain America are just victims of experiments in radiation. Crucially, they are all human beings. However, Marvel's Thor supposes that the realm of Asgard is real and exists on a distant planet, with the Viking "gods" of Norse legend being super-powered, space-travelling aliens. Thor, an Asgardian, throws a huge mythical hammer, Mjöllnir, that can only be lifted by those considered "worthy". In contrast to the likes of Spider-Man, his family aren't "normal" either: dad is Odin and his brother Loki. How could this story of a fallen god landing on contemporary planet Earth possibly seem credible? Ancient myths, like that of Hercules, are full of such stories (as are texts as diverse and evergreen as The Bible and Superman), but 'Thor' has to fit in with the likes of 'Iron Man', which featured the War in Afghanistan as a plot element. How can planet Asgard and the War in Afghanistan possibly co-exist in the same filmic universe?

The daunting task faced by director Kenneth Branagh has been to construct a film which marries both worlds - the fantastical realm of Asgard and a dusty New Mexico town - in a way which makes sense. And, surprisingly, he somehow does this rather well, aided by 'I Am Legend' screenwriter Mark Protosevich who solves the principal problem by using self-effacing humour. When the brash and violent Thor (Chris Hemsworth) lands on Earth (stripped of his powers), after being cast out of Asgard by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) for starting a war with a race called the Ice Giants, the film immediately becomes a fish out of water comedy of sorts. Thor tries to beat up a hospital full of doctors who are trying to heal him before being knocked out by an injection, and later he smashes a coffee cup and loudly demands a refill in a busy cafe. He acts pompously and is lampooned as a figure of fun whilst he adjusts to alien surroundings.



This jesting is an effective slight of hand that keeps us from laughing at the transition between the two worlds. As with a stand-up comic who cracks jokes about their own obesity, the film heads off any potential tittering cynic at the pass because it's meant to be funny.

From then on the young "thunder god" adjusts to his new surroundings fairly quickly and the world of Thor comes to makes sense to us. By the time he dons his faux-Viking battle fatigues and does battle with The Destroyer (don't ask) on Main Street, we have successfully suspended our disbelief. Instead we can enjoy the fights which - let's face it - are the reason we go to the cinema to watch superhero movies. Branagh perhaps commits the crime of shooting too much action in disorienting close-up and some of the effects work is a little ropey, but 'Thor' is nevertheless good value entertainment with its share of climactic fist-pumping moments. It's also not as shallow as you might expect, with pretty well-rounded characters and a sympathetic villain. Its director is best known for adapting Shakespeare for the screen and, had the Bard penned a treatment of the screenplay, it would be easy to imagine this story from the point of view of Loki (Tom Hiddleston) as a great tragedy.



This unexpected depth owes much to the actors. Hemsworth, for his part, is pretty good as Thor and his transition from, as Protosevich has put it, "an Old Testament god to a New Testament god" is carried off well. It doesn't feel like the usual sudden third act u-turn when he becomes worthy of reclaiming his powers because he has genuinely changed before our eyes, becoming more humble and gentle through his association with scientist Jane Foster, as played by Natalie Portman. It may seem as though Portman, a recent Academy Award winner, is slumming it in 'Thor' (an accusation also levelled at Branagh) - and who could blame her after 'Black Swan'. But she gives her all to the role regardless and elevates a love-interest character into something more interesting and appealing. Like Hopkins, Hiddleston and veteran Swede Stellan Skarsgård, she adds believability to this obscure Marvel tale, and in doing so eases what must have been the studio's greatest concern.

Fun, light-hearted and - at times - morally complex, 'Thor' is more than just a cynical means to an end (even if it does feature a completely pointless and convoluted cameo for another Marvel hero). That is not to say, however, that it isn't also serving as a Trojan two-hour advert for 'The Avengers'. It's just that it's good enough that you won't mind. For comic book fans, summer 2012 can't come soon enough.

'Thor' is out now in the UK and has been rated '12A' by the BBFC.