Go see Stanley Kubrick: The Exhibition at EYE!!!

A happy accident occurred whilst visiting Amsterdam last week, in that my time in the Netherlands coincided with the beginning of a really excellent Stanley Kubrick exhibition at the EYE Institute near the city centre (well, a short ferry crossing from the back of Central Station). There are few things on Earth I love more than the films of Stanley Kubrick, so I made sure to check it out - and was thrilled by what I saw.

Running until September 9th, the exhibition features props, costumes, vintage promotional materials, documentary clips and more relating to twelve of the master's thirteen feature films (nothing on the disowned 'Fear and Desire'), presented with their own dedicated space and positioned in chronological order. The focal point of each section is a large screen upon which clips of that particular movie are projected. Apart from the fact that this gives you the chance to watch key scenes from everything from 'The Killing' to 'Eyes Wide Shut' on a proper screen (a considerable boon considering how rare screenings of these films are), a winsome side-effect is that it's possible to turn 360 degrees on one spot and take in the sights (and sounds) of 'Barry Lyndon', 'The Shining', 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'Eyes Wide Shut'.

Before you get to his feature films, at the entrance there's a room dedicated to the filmmaker's early newsreel shorts - with clips of both 'Day of the Fight' and 'The Flying Padre' - and still photography, with an additional room (fittingly enough positioned near the middle) looking at the great unrealised projects of his career: 'Napoleon' and 'The Aryan Papers'. The fact that these two spaces are included means that, provided they read the descriptions as they progress, even those with little knowledge on the subject going in should leave with a pretty good overview of his career from his teenage years in the 1940s up to his untimely death in 1999.

To give you some idea of the array of treats on show, the exhibition includes: original storyboards for 'Spartacus' drawn by the legendary Saul Bass, spaceship models from '2001', Malcolm McDowell's iconic droog outfit from 'A Clockwork Orange', Tom Cruise's Venetian mask from 'Eyes Wide Shut' (above), Jack Nicholson's famous wood-chopping axe from 'The Shining', the "Born to Kill" helmet from 'Full Metal Jacket' (complete with peace badge) and the special Oscar statuette the director received for special effects in 1968. Each of those items should be enough to entice people with a decent general interest in movies, regardless of their feelings for Kubrick specifically - with each being an instantly recognisable piece of film history.

Hardcore fans of the director will also be pleased to find materials that go a little deeper. For instance, they will delight at the simple pleasure of being able to flick through one of Kubrick's index card filled drawers used to collate his extensive Napoleon research, as well as the chance to look at the pioneering Steadicam used on 'The Shining' and the equally ground-breaking lens used to shoot the candle light sequences in 'Barry Lyndon'.

There are also numerous interesting bits of archive material throughout, including correspondence between the director and some of his collaborators (for instance 'Lolita' writer Vladimir Nabokov and 'Paths of Glory' star Kirk Douglas), pages detailing the breakdown of the production budget for 'Killer's Kiss', and an invitation card to the cancelled premiere for 'Dr. Strangelove' upon which the director has scrawled, with zero detectable sentiment: "NEVER HELD. THE DAY KENNEDY WAS SHOT."



To compliment this exhibition EYE are also screening all of Kubrick's movies over the period of the event, with a discount of a few Euros offered if you buy a movie ticket at the same time as paying the entrance fee (entrance: €12, movie ticket €10, combined ticket €18). I saw '2001' on the big screen for the first time thanks to this offer and, aside from some grating projection issues (the house lights were on for the first 5 minutes, whilst the aspect ratio and focus were being modified well into the opening 20 minutes), it was well worth the price of admission.

If you're a UK based Kubrick fan, it's well worth noting that you can fly to Amsterdam pretty cheaply these days on budget airlines (the round-trip can cost under £50 if you go in the week) and - with the flights only taking 45 minutes from Gatwick to Amsterdam Schipol - it's feasibly something you could do as a day trip without feeling unduly excessive. This exhibition has been touring Europe since 2004 and - as I understand it - there are currently no plans to bring it to the UK, so Amsterdam seems as good a place as any to venture if you're a big fan. Especially since its next planned stop is Los Angeles.

Cinema Al Kolenkit (Donations Welcome!)

I'm spending the next week in Amsterdam, in order to visit the Cinema Al Kolenkit festival - a human rights focused event being run by a good friend of mine. I've been writing copy for the festival programme and might also be volunteering in some other capacity (will find out when I get there), so it should be a very interesting and fulfilling event for everybody involved.

It's certainly a very nice project to find myself involved with, with the aim being to bring some art and culture to a stigmatised district of the city (and for free!), with many of the featured films being directly about communities coming together and urban renewal.

Cinema Al Kolenkit is a very small non-profit event that's been set up by a friend of mine in the name of a good cause, so - if you feel so inclined - feel free to make a small donation here. I'm sure even 1 Euro (80p?) would be wonderful if you feel you can spare it.

The upshot of this is that it looks like another week without updates for this blog, though there will hopefully be some reviews and interviews from Kolenkit when I return next week.

Out of the Office...

Dear loyal readers,

I am not going to be posting on this blog for the next week due to an exciting development. Instead I'm going to be editing and writing full-time for WhatCulture this Monday to Friday. It'd be swell if you were to follow me over there and read all my features and news posts in order to make me seem popular and successful. If you feel so moved, you are encouraged to "Like" things I write on Facebook and "re-Tweet" them on Twitter.

You can keep track of articles I've authored at WhatCulture by click here!

Thank you and I'll be sure to update here again at the end of the week.

'Rock of Ages' review:

Did this really happen, or was it just a horrible dream? 'Rock of Ages', the star-studded adaptation of a popular stage musical, is a dreadful movie. A film where every beat is played for humour but nothing is even remotely funny. A film that takes actors as good as Paul Giamatti and Alex Baldwin and makes you wish you never had to look at them again. It's a cringing and overlong slog which takes various 1980s hair metal classics and proceeds to turn them into the sort of creakily staged, amateurishly performed ditties made famous by Halifax ads. It feels so hollow and inherently false that it somehow resembles a karaoke cover version of itself. It lacks atmosphere, charm and any small trace of entertainment value. It's not clear which demographic this film is for, but I know I never want to meet them.

The story - little more than a thinly veiled excuse to move the characters between "I Love Rock and Roll" and "Don't Stop Believing" - runs as follows: smooth-skinned small-town girl (Julianne Hough) meets smooth-skinned small-town boy (Diego Boneta) after both move to LA to make their rock dreams come true. They immediately - as in during their first day together - fall in love. However, they are just as easily broken up by the sort of contrived misunderstanding usually reserved for the dying days of a hokey sitcom - as boy sees girl emerging from the dressing room of "rock icon" Stacee Jaxx: Tom Cruise reminiscent of his pathetic and empty character from 'Magnolia', only this time you aren't supposed to feel uncomfortable.



In the mix are Baldwin and "funnyman" Russell Brand, as comedy relief and owners of a once-awesome, now lovably ramshackle concert venue in danger of closing its doors unless X amount of money is raised, etc etc. For some reason a mother's organisation, lead by the mayor's wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones), wants to shut the place down, even though it's more smiley and non-threatening than the cast of 'Glee'. Oh, and the mayor is played by Bryan Cranston for some reason, with his appearance here somehow even more thankless than his brief turn in 'John Carter'. He literally has nothing to do and his sub-plot - that he enjoys kinky, extra-marital sex - comes to nothing at all. Not only does it not have any sort of resolution, but it doesn't even connect with the other plotlines. It's just one of many cut-away gags that must have seemed funny at the time.

Cruise is the only bright spot and, though fifty next month, he embodies his shirtless rock god character with an energy and commitment not matched anywhere else in the cast. The film is still bad when he's on-screen, but at least it feels vaguely alive. It's disappointing that Zeta-Jones doesn't get to sing a few more songs, given how she won an Oscar for her show-stealing role in 'Chicago', but anyone who sits through one of Baldwin and Brand's duets will know that "the ability to sing" was not a prerequisite for appearing in this movie. This garish, ugly, waste of talent with no redeeming qualities of a movie.

'Rock of Ages' is rated '12A' by the BBFC and is set to be released in the UK on June 13th.

'2 Days in New York' review:

Chris Rock and Julie Delpy form an appealing on-screen couple in '2 Days in New York', as local radio personality Mingus and struggling artist Marion - two perennial malcontents whose fragile equilibrium is disrupted by a visit from the latter's French family, to amusing effect. Rock, a big talent who's never really found Hollywood a perfect fit, really shines here, playing laid-back and charming where he would usually be typecast as loud and manic. Delpy, who wrote and directed this sequel to her earlier '2 Days in Paris', is radiant as ever and with that same attractive quality of not taking herself - or her status as a glamorous movie star - too seriously, whilst paradoxically giving the impression of having a tremendous intellect.

A lot of the film's humour is self-depreciating, but not in a way that feels condescending to the audience: Marion's worries and concerns, about her fading beauty and embarrassing relatives, seem genuine, even autobiographical in spite of her undeniable elegance. There is a deeply personal feel to '2 Days in New York' that is best exemplified by the continued casting of Delpy's real-life father (Albert Delpy) as Marion's father Jeannot - a scruffy but adorable old gentleman who falls somewhere between an unkempt vagrant and a beloved grandpa. A Los Angeles resident and naturalised US citizen, Delpy writes the cross-cultural comedy in a way that feels authentic, if exaggerated for comic effect.

In fact the whole things fritters unevenly between a small-scale, dialogue-driven romantic comedy, in the tradition of Woody Allen, and a much broader farce - perhaps in the tradition of older, zanier Woody Allen. Both aspects work and are funny in isolation, but the mix between urbane maturity and the bigger, more whimsical moments makes the film feel scattershot.


'2 Days in New York' is on a limited release in the UK, rated '15' by the BBFC.

'Casa de mi Padre' review:

My appraisal of Will Ferrell's Spanish language oddity 'Casa de mi Padre' is now up at What Culture. The comedy, which spoofs Mexican soap operas - or "telenovelas", also co-stars Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna. It's pretty funny and made with obvious love, but most of all it's an interesting one-off: a strange movie with niche appeal.

Anyway, read my full review here.

'Casa de mi Padre' is released in the UK on June 8th, rated '15' by the BBFC.

'A Royal Affair' is Better Than the Marketing

Far be it from me to criticise Metrodome Distribution. After all they are to be applauded (and loudly) for bringing one of my favourite films from this year's Berlin Film Festival to the UK, in the form of Danish monarchy drama 'A Royal Affair' ('En Kongelig Affære'). Yet their handling of it troubles me, at least in terms of how it's being marketed. I reviewed that film back in February on this blog and could hardly have been more fulsome in my praise, concluding:

Everything about 'A Royal Affair' is stunning. Its ambitious scope in terms of subject matter, its intelligence, its brilliant cast of actors (I'll now happily watch anything with Alicia Vikander in it), and its lavish production values. I cried at the end, with the once vital Caroline separated from her children and living in exile, and I laughed far more and far harder than I have at the last dozen or so comedies. The story of a doctor who gives a king new confidence and inspires him to greater things, it could easily be billed as Denmark's answer to 'The King's Speech'. It's far better than that.

Yet I'm not certain the trailer (above) or theatrical poster (below) would have sold it to me. There's nothing wrong with either from an editing or design point of view, in fact both are stylish and sophisticated. But therein lies part of the problem: they aim to attract the traditional "heritage" cinema or "costume drama" audience. "Utterly seductive... an epic story of forbidden love" runs a quote from Radio Times, whilst the central image plays up the idea that this is the tale of a love triangle in fancy dress. Yes, I see the angry mob in the background, with an ominous fiery orange glow enveloping the stars, but the overwhelming impression this poster gives is that this is the tale of how two men court the same woman. Were that the case I don't think I would have been so moved by it, nor as thoroughly entertained.



What's truly great about 'A Royal Affair' - aside from the stunning performances - is that it doesn't feel at all stuffy and period bound. In fact it feels modern and dynamic. And whilst period films tend to be conservative and usually play up a romanticised view of the past, this one is all about radical political philosophy: the ideals of the enlightenment versus the grip of the ruling class in eighteenth century Europe. This is the story of how a German radical basically exploited his friendship with the insane king of Denmark in order to institute a raft of audacious reforms which quickly (and, as fate would have it, temporarily) transformed one of Europe's most politically backward countries into its most progressive. And all before the French Revolution. If you can't find a way to make that sound exciting to an audience, let alone in the fractured Europe of 2012, you have no business selling movies.

Is the titular "royal affair" important? Well, yes of course; But it isn't what the film is about. In fact even the central love story - not really a "triangle", because the king doesn't really give a damn - is mainly explored in terms of how it compromises the idealism and integrity of Johan Struensee (Mads Mikkelsen). For instance, after the affair becomes a convenient stick for the German's political opponents to beat him with using the newly free press, Struensee is driven to enact new censorship laws in an effort to safeguard his own interests. It's about how power corrupts and how absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's about the canny knack of the media and the aristocracy to mobilise the poor against their own interests - a theme that resonates very strongly today. And it's being mis-sold willfully, because the people who made the poster know and understand all of this.

'A Royal Affair' is a young film being sold as an old one for an easy buck. The market for historical costume epics is tried and trusted, whereas the appeal of eighteenth-century-radicalism-morality-fables is far less certain. I understand completely where Metrodome are coming from and I hope this release proves incredibly lucrative for them, because this film deserves to find an audience (even if it's the wrong one). I suspect many of those coming to see it on the basis that it's a scintillating love story for the ages will still enjoy the less cosy film they see before them, but the sadness is that 'A Royal Affair' could be written off by many who would find great appeal in its musing on ideology and the nature of political power.

Perhaps the image on the poster is not at fault, but rather it's the pull-quotes around it which need changing. "Utterly seductive" should be replaced by "politically incendiary" and the word "revolution" should appear somewhere. And instead of "their love would divide a nation", how about "their friendship would divide Europe"? And the word "love" (which appears twice) should not appear at all. Not because there is not a love story, but because focusing on that relationship and ignoring the ideological debate is ironically the exact same thing the yellow press does within the film. There's no doubt the marketing department played it very safe with this one and I hope it doesn't work against one of the year's best films.

'A Royal Affair' is rated '15' by the BBFC and will be released in the UK on June 15th.

'Men in Black 3' review:

'Men in Black 3' doesn't make any sense. I don't mean the time travel plot which, even if the rules are seemingly being made up as it goes along, is easy enough to follow. But it don't understand in on a much more basic level: it's existence makes no sense at all. And for two reasons. The first and most obvious is that the (largely forgotten) original films came out over a decade ago, meaning that their audience has long since grown up, whilst the kids of today surely have no idea who these characters are. Perhaps that wouldn't be a problem if this were just a brand new adventure featuring our besuited heroes, slap-happy xenophobes Agents J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones), but the story and its intended emotional beats require some vested interest in the relationship between these two characters. In fact Columbia seems to be marketing this sequel mainly on the strength of Josh Brolin's eerily accurate impersonation of Jones as 1960s era K - something a ten year old in 2012 could care less about.

The second reason this movie makes zero sense is thus: Will Smith is the biggest movie star on the planet. He is the only guy left in modern post-star Hollywood capable of guaranteeing a hit movie by the mere fact of his presence. Since 2002's 'Men in Black 2' every movie Smith has starred in has grossed over $160 million. His is a star so popular that even vehicles as messy and bloated as 'Hancock' and 'I Am Legend' were substantial global mega-hits. And, prior to his return to Barry Sonnenfeld's sci-fi comedy franchise, he had been away from movie screens for four years. In other words: he could have named his next project. He could have made anything he wanted. Every major studio must have been hassling him with offer after offer. Quentin Tarantino supposedly approached him to star in his upcoming western. And he chose to make 'Men in Black 3'. Just think about that. For a man who has several times stated a desire to one day run for president, that betrays an astounding lack of ambition.



Anyway, by now it's clear I'm stalling having to write about the film itself and that's because there isn't an awful lot to say. I'll lead with the few positives. 'A Serious Man' star Michael Stuhlbarg is pretty funny as Griffin, an alien who can see the future with a fairly entertaining twist: he can see all possible futures simultaneously. This paves way for some neat visual moments (as he enjoys a future baseball game in an empty stadium), some entertaining comic bits (as he frets about whether various absurd and unlikely events might come to pass) and a few nice character details (such as his multiple layers of clothing, presumably in preparation for every possible future). He is easily the best thing in the movie.

Then there's the fact that the villain, Boris the Animal, is played by 'Flight of the Conchords' funnyman Jermaine Clement. Though Clement is underutilised he does at least read lines in an entertaining way. Another plus is that several of the most irritatingly wacky supporting characters from the two previous movies have been written out, with the talking pug dog and the vaguely Hispanic cockroach guys the most welcome absentees. Unfortunately they've been joined on the casualty list by Rip Torn (whose Agent Z has been killed off between sequels), though the actor's recent legal troubles probably account for that. The problem is that his replacement is Emma Thompson who, though an infinitely superior dramatic actor, doesn't exactly bring the funny. Her character, Agent O, is also embroiled in 1960s shenanigans (played by Alice Eve) and is supposed to have been a long-term friend and love interest of Agent K - something which is undermined by the fact she's never been mentioned at all previously.

It's also to the film's detriment that, as good as Brolin's impersonation is, there is nowhere near enough Tommy Lee Jones. His sly, taciturn delivery is an essential part of what originally made the J and K partnership watchable - whereas Brolin is cast as a younger, less grumpy version of the character who doesn't really have the same appeal alongside Smith's hyper-chatty hero. Barry Sonnenfeld's handling of action and spectacle also leaves much to be desired. For instance, several scenes include shots which establish nothing more than that our hero is "very high up" - quite a mundane form of threat in a film featuring lazer-gun totting aliens and quite a boring one for an audience that's presumably just seen 'The Avengers'. Then there's the stuff we've seen before in the series - as little silver guns make aliens explode - and stuff we've seen done much better dozens of times elsewhere - such as a car chase through the streets of New York (the characters might be riding impractical futuristic motorbikes, but they're still basically just motorbikes).

The very worst thing about 'Men in Black 3' I've saved until last, and that's its basic premise and single joke: that difference is inherently hilarious and that usually the "different" are not human. The film continues the series' proud tradition of revealing how everybody with a funny face or voice or a different ethnicity to the protagonists is in fact in an alien. See that Chinese guy? He's a hideous alien! Hahaha. See that supermodel? Models are all aliens! Hahahaha. Lady Gaga? Tim Burton? Those weirdos are aliens! Hahahaha. Repeat for almost two hours. And these freaky people can be exploded and punched without consequence or guilt because, well, they're not from around here. It's basically a light family comedy about ultra-violent immigration officers.

'Men in Black 3' is out now in the UK, rated 'PG' by the BBFC.

'Prometheus' review:

A running theme among the half-dozen trailers that have teased Ridley Scott's 'Prometheus' is that they've tended to be more alluring and spectacular when focused on the numerous eye-catching shots of spaceships and strange alien worlds, whilst offering only fleeting glimpses at the story and characters. It turns out that's because 'Prometheus' has no story or characters. It has a basic sort of "plot", I suppose: astronauts head to a distant planet in order to find answers about the creation of mankind. And it has characters in the sense that there's a reasonably impressive international ensemble cast thanklessly filling the various spacesuits - including Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba and Charlize Theron.

Yet there can be little doubt that 'Prometheus' is a triumph of design and special effects rather than human drama. The film looks stunning, with the CGI spaceships and beautifully crafted interior sets having a sort of painted concept art look. But for all its self-important posturing around issues of faith, god and the nature of creation, the film's pretense at being this summer's "thinking person's blockbuster" comes to nothing. During its few cod philosophical exchanges - some of which should make your toes curl - the film's grasp of the deeper issues never seems to want to venture beyond truisms. It's a shame because the set up suggests something much smarter, or at least more interesting.

Rapace, as scientist Elizabeth Shaw, is the ship's blindly faithful Christian, whilst her lover and fellow scientist (played by Logan Marshall-Green) is supposedly the on-board skeptic as they search for humanity's alien creator. Meanwhile, Fassbender is David, a humanoid robot whose behaviour is modeled on his creators, something he seeks to perfect by watching old films in his downtime. A wrinkly old Guy Pearce is his creator and surrogate father, as well as the head of the huge corporation financing the mission. Charlize Theron has her own nascent "creator" issues as the stern and possibly treacherous leader of the expedition. Given that this is nominally a prequel to Scott's seminal 'Alien', it's entirely appropriate that it should explore that franchise's theme of motherhood and the destructive, violent act of creation itself: it's a melting pot of strong character archetypes with competing ideologies, which seems primed to react - only there is no heat.

Potentially interesting characters die left and right with scarcely a decent scene to their name. Supposedly sensible people react in increasingly irrational and oddly inhuman ways as the film goes on, for instance when a group of characters voluntarily give up their lives without any clear indication of why (in fact they don't really even ask for one, but as a united group blindly accept death at the merest asking). The film lurches messily between fussily directed action scenes which lack either the body horror of 'Alien' or the excitement of a crowd-pleasing summer movie, almost as if the filmmakers lacked the courage to devote any screentime to the potentially divisive "let's all talk about religion" thing the movie seemed to kind of want to be about originally. There are nods to various big ideas and questions here and there, but they are extremely tentative.

Then there's the handling of the film's various alien creatures and their multiple messy incarnations which lack credibility even if you suspend a whole universe's supply of disbelief. (Those sensitive to SPOILERS might want to avert their gaze now.) How does this reproductive cycle work?:

1) There are rows of eggs full of black goo.
2) A human man eats the black goo and becomes a sort of crusty monster.
3) The crusty monster man has sex with a human woman and she quickly gives birth to a tentacle monster.
4) Left alone for (presumably) a few hours, said tentacle monster becomes enormous. It then latches onto a huge white alien and eats his face.
5) Once partly-devoured by the tentacle monster, the big white alien's body yields a chest-bursting, quadrupedal alien not dissimilar to the original "xenomorph".

Please explain how that makes any kind of sense. I genuinely want to know why I'm supposed to think anything other than "this sure is a random sequence of events" at this point. Even if you accept that this primordial gloop is simply enabling the rapid evolution of an organism (and that's a leap you have to make yourself), doesn't it sort of imply that the "xenomorph" would then also become something else entirely different the next step along the chain? So then why do all the Aliens in the sequels look the same? Are they supposed to represent the pinnacle of evolution? I'm honestly not trying to be pedantic in the least - I just want to know how this could possibly make sense, even in the limited way a film about sexy future-spacemen warrants.

A friend of mine said that (one of) his problem(s) with 'Prometheus' is that it raised far more questions than it answered, at least pertaining to the way it links into 'Alien' continuity. I disagree. It's not a problem that the film raises more questions than it answers - after all, so does '2001'. The problem is that the questions it raises are invariably very silly, all relating to the who-could-care-less world of the 'Alien' mythos. Whilst it labours to provide trite and convoluted answers to the grander, more universal questions that are perhaps best left enigmatic. It should have been the other way around.

'Prometheus' is out now in the UK, rated '15' by the BBFC.

'Moonrise Kingdom' review:

The story of two young and "mentally disturbed" lovers who run away from home during the summer of 1965, 'Moonrise Kingdom' packs all the wit and whimsy of director Wes Anderson's other work whilst also feeling entirely fresh. Everything is in keeping with his very deliberate and composed signature style, but some of it's been tilted slightly, adjusted just enough to let some air into the room. It's the same elaborate, four-poster bed you've enjoyed sleeping in several times up to now, but he's changed the sheets (or something metaphorical like that). The cinematography here, though still by long-serving Robert Yeoman, has a washed-out, almost instagram look, though each frame still bursts with bright colours and retains that children's book illustration look.

Music also plays a slightly different role here, moving away from chic 60s/70s alt-rock tunes and towards a unifying theme which subtly likens the ensemble cast to sections of an orchestra. Though regular composer Mark Mothersbaugh and music supervisor Randall Poster are still involved, Alexandre Desplat takes on main scoring duties following his work on the animated 'Fantastic Mr. Fox'. It's also perhaps his least dialogue driven of his films to date - the screenplay once again co-written with Roman Coppola still full of memorable lines, but with the storytelling often completely visual. At no point more so than at the film's emotionally charged climax, where the shot choices and movement of the camera are sublime.

The cast too has been shaken up very slightly. Though Bill Murray (in every film since 'Rushmore') and Jason Schwartzman are still on hand in small supporting parts, this is the first Wes Anderson movie not to involve at least one Wilson brother. As a sweet-natured scout master with a note of sadness behind the eyes, Ed Norton ably takes on the role which might otherwise have gone to Anderson's former writing partner Owen Wilson. The best of the new additions to Team Anderson is undoubtedly Bruce Willis, who underplays his role wonderfully, though Bob Balaban is also very funny as a sort of meteorologist-cartographer-narrator. These changes are signposted even before you get passed the credits by the very deliberate change in font from his beloved futura to something yellow, squiggly and italicised.

All the same preoccupations and stylistic flourishes are present though, from that one moment of expertly timed slow-mo to the tale of a dysfunctional family, populated by wounded and disappointed people struggling to connect. At times the young runaways - Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) - and their armed boy scout pursuers could be mistaken for members of the Max Fischer Players, mounting an ambitious production of 'The African Queen' by way of Lord of the Flies, as the film riffs on a 12 year-old version of pampered rich girl meets man of the earth on romantic wilderness adventure. Like all of Anderson's films to date it's earnestly kind without ever coming close to twee, and nostalgic without seeming kitsch or staid. There are moments of heart-breaking melancholy and times where the humour verges on black, but it's primarily an innocent and joyful experience.

Though I personally loved 'The Life Aquatic' and 'Darjeeling Limited', those films seemed to represent Anderson's movies becoming bigger and, to some extent, less tightly focused. The star-studded ensemble is no less eclectic here but 'Moonrise Kindom' instead feels stripped back somewhere closer to the simplicity and economy of 'Rushmore'. It's a change that's kept the director's formula from wearing thin, coming at the right moment. It's a film that makes Wes Anderson exciting again, as opposed to the master of an increasingly predictable framework (however lovely). I used to say that 'Bottle Rocket' was my favourite but conceded that 'The Royal Tenenbaums' was Anderson's most mature and accomplished film. 'Moonrise Kingdom' calls into question both ends of that statement.

'Moonrise Kingdom' is out now in the UK, rated '12A' by the BBFC.

Splendor Cinema Podcast #98: Nanni Moretti

Jon and I haven't posted a "Pantheon" podcast for a little while, but we've timed the latest one - on Italian director Nanni Moretti - quite nicely. After all, Moretti was president of the jury in Cannes this year, where he just helped award the Palme d'Or to Michael Haneke's 'Amour'. The comedy director's most recent film 'We Have A Pope' played in competition at last year's festival, but Moretti won the top prize himself in 2001 with his uncharacteristically straight drama 'The Son's Room'. Another of his films which found an audience outside of Italy was 2006's 'The Caiman' - a look at the scandal-filled political career of Silvio Berlusconi.

Those three are varying degrees of brilliant, and probably represent his most polished work to date, but my personal favourites are his two most nakedly auto-biographical: 1993's joyously whimsical 'Caro diario' and 1998's tender and ambitious 'Aprile' (also to some extent about Berlusconi). Both are episodic and very light for the most part, but seem to best represent what Moretti is all about; He plays himself in both films, ever the self-aware, cinema-obsessed, germaphobic, left-wing intellectual, though less twitchy than Woody Allen.



On the podcast we gloss over some of his earlier films, of the late-70s and 80s. In the case of the former that's down to the fact that they're (for me at least) incredibly difficult, requiring a degree of very specific contemporary Italian cultural knowledge to get the jokes and the political jibes. There are still some very funny moments but the dialogue is very quick and super-intellectual, which doesn't lend itself particularly well to sub-titled viewing. I think the relative calm of his more laid-back and urbane later stuff might be a key reason why it works better for me. In the case of his middle period - the 1980s - those are the only of his films I haven't yet managed to see. Though that's certainly something I'm going to remedy.

In any case, the Moretti Pantheon is available now to iTunes subscribers and can also be streamed in an embedded media player here.

The Pantheon series sees us look back at the entire career (or as much of it as we can get through) of a great auteur and assess the relative merits of their work, stating our favourites. Along the way we point out key themes and preoccupations of that filmmaker and try to give some sort of context as we take a chronological walk through filmography.

'Red Tails' and 'Iron Sky' reviews:

Two kitsch, CGI-filled action films about African American heroes biffing Nazis are hitting UK cinemas today. Receiving a limited release is the Finnish comedy 'Iron Sky' - which sees a black US astronaut battle against the combined forces of Sarah Palin (in all but name) and space Nazis from the dark side of the moon. It's very, very silly indeed and a lot of the jokes fall flat - but there are a lot of jokes, so many of them do find the target. It's best described as Mel Brooks meets Dr. Strangelove... in space! I reviewed that one for What Culture when it played at this year's Berlin Film Festival and you can read about it here.

'Iron Sky' is released today in the UK and is rated '15' by the BBFC.



The second is far more earnest and, as a result, far more boring despite its good intentions: the George Lucas produced WWII flier movie 'Red Tails'. That film receives its UK premiere today before a wide release on June 6th. Based on the true story of the Tuskegee Airmen - a pioneering, ace squadron comprised of black fighter pilots - the action scenes are spectacular but the human drama is simplistic and uninspiring. It's a pity because this story clearly means a lot to Lucas and the real-life events do sound genuinely fascinating. You can read my review on What Culture, as published here.

'Red Tails' is released on June 6th and is rated '12A' by the BBFC.

'Jeff, Who Lives at Home' review:

Following their broad mainstream ascent from indie "mumblecore" roots with the comedy 'Cyrus', the brothers Duplass taken another swing at Hollywood acceptance with 'Jeff, Who Lives at Home'. Though this time the comedy is less broad and much more slight, bordering on absent altogether. In fact it's difficult to decide whether 'Jeff' is an unfunny failure of a comedy or simply an unsatisfying attempt at nuanced character study. It's watchable, even if the co-directors insist on a determinedly lo-fi, shaky cam aesthetic with the camera zooming in and out of every shot, but that's mainly due the presence of some appealing performers in Jason Segel, Susan Sarandon and the underused Judy Greer.

The story concerns the titular Jeff (adorable, doe-eyed manchild Segel) who lives in his mother's basement at the age of 30. He's a jobless stoner who desperately wants to believe in "signs" and "destiny" but who has no clear path or lofty aspirations. He spends his days frustrating his mother by failing to perform the modest domestic tasks he is given. Meanwhile Jeff's unconscionable prick of a brother, Pat (Ed Helms), is - at least in the traditional sense - the successful one: he has a new sports car, a beautiful wife and a high-paying job. However things aren't right with his marriage to Linda (Greer), and he suspects her of having an affair. Their mother Sharon (Sarandon) feels unable to connect with either of her sons and is deeply isolated and unhappy, spending her days in a small office cubicle and her nights alone. The plot takes place over one day as all their lives intersect and Jeff discovers his destiny, re-connecting with his brother along the way.

Segel is a wonderful actor and owns the film's half-dozen funny moments, most of which are born from delivery rather than anything inherently funny in the dialogue. He is also the film's heart, creating a likable if pitiable loner - a naive but good-natured man with infinite sadness just behind the eyes. His story - a man in search of a place or purpose, for whom life has not lived up to youthful expectation - is immensely relatable, though the resolution of his arc is a deeply disappointing cop-out, with his destiny hackneyed and overblown. His situation is grounded but the climax is contrived claptrap. Sarandon's arc suffers from a similar third-act departure into movieland: enjoyable and sweet for the most part, but resolved with a cringing display of unfettered whimsy.

'Jeff, Who Lives at Home' is out now in the UK, rated '15' by the BBFC.

Trailer: Paul Thomas Anderson's 'The Master'

It's been five long years since Paul Thomas Anderson released 'There Will Be Blood', but now his long-awaited follow-up 'The Master' finally has a trailer. Fans of Anderson will immediately recognise his use of oppressive and rhythmic music which creates tension and discomfort, as best exemplified in this clip from one of my favourite all-time movies. It's also great to see the return of Jaoquin Phoenix in his first film since 2010's mockumentary 'I'm Still Here' - a film that took about four years out of his career all told. He looks great here in another wholly transformative role. What's really impressive about this trailer is that it's immediately involving. That the film looks this good before we've even seen Phoenix's co-star Phillip Seymour Hoffman is something to be very excited about!

'The Master' about a religious cult led by Hoffman, thought to be based on Scientology. It was thought cancelled a year or so ago but has reemerged and now looks set to be released in prestige season - so expect to see it December/January time.

'The Dictator' review:

'Borat' was hilarious. A much weaker follow-up, 'Bruno' still had its moments. But 'The Dictator' - the latest comedy character creation from Sacha Baron Cohen - is just dreadful from start to finish, lacking atmosphere, laughs and heart. The story concerns a North African despot who is forced to go to an emergency UN summit in New York or face war over his pursuit of weapons grade uranium. However, Admiral General Aladeen is betrayed by his scheming uncle (Ben Kingsley more or less reprising his thankless role from 'Prince of Persia') and replaced by a simple goat herder with an uncanny resemblance. He then finds himself lost in the Big Apple, plotting to sneak back into the summit in order to unmask his betrayers and take back the fictional nation of Wadiya - a plan which involves ingratiating himself with Anna Faris, the manager of a small ethical produce store improbably tasked with catering the big event.

Baron Cohen's shtick has long been divisive, since the earliest days of iconic street wigga Ali G on British television critics have been split over whether he's a genius satirist or merely a man without shame, determined to say whatever offensive thing he could in order to get a cheap laugh. I have never been in that latter camp, believing even his most extreme comic bits came from a good place, with a social conscience that enabled him to lampoon bigotry rather than simply being a bigot. For instance, the palpable respect and uncharacteristic solemnity Ali G reserved for legendary Labour MP Tony Benn during one of his comedy interviews seemed to support the belief that Baron Cohen's integrity ran deeper than the pursuit of easy giggles.

Yet the target of the satire in 'The Dictator' is hard to locate and the level of wantonly offensive humour seems unjustified as a result. I feel like an arch and humourless Daily Mail reader writing that, but (and call me a busybody, PC square) I don't get what's funny about Aladeen playing a fictional 1972 Olympics massacre video game on the Nintendo Wii, mimicking the slaying of Israeli athletes. I don't get what's supposed to be funny about a dialogue exchange in which Aladeen talks about his sexual abuse of 14 year-old boys.

I'm not offended, even if (crucially) I don't find moments like these particularly funny, imaginative or inspired - my monocle hasn't fallen into my champagne flute in disgust that he dare joke about such things - but what does trouble me is that there doesn't seem to be any intellect or conscience behind his comedy at this point. He's just a man shouting "AIDs", "look, a black man!", "look, a gay!". He's becoming the unthinking school bully or the boorish workplace loudmouth, only with a budget of millions and a great deal of acting talent. He seems locked in a battle of one-upmanship with himself, in which he now feels the need to top each "shocking" and "taboo-defying" moment with another of increased savageness.

What is the point of 'The Dictator'? Is he perhaps standing up and saying "dictators do/say/think some pretty bad things don't they?!" If this is his point then I'd question whether it's really the work of a brave and near-the-knuckle comedy pioneer to satirise the world's most loathed dictators for the exclusive benefit of pre-existing enemies. Too often Baron Cohen seems content to indulge in broad racial stereotyping, such as when he arrives in America riding a camel. Jokes like these used to be defensible as sending up our expectations and prejudices, but here it just seems to be another throwaway idea and not a particularly original one. There is one moment near the film's climax where, perhaps inspired by Chaplin's similarly earnest speech in 'The Great Dictator', an oddly neutered Baron Cohen attempts to draw parallels between his evil dictator and the government of the United States. It could have been the film's redemptive moment but there's no real venom or force behind it and instead it comes off very weak.

It's also sad that in Admiral General Aladeen we have the least interesting character created by Baron Cohen to-date, the upshot is that we don't really even get to enjoy his Peter Sellers-like chameleon powers at their fullest. Then there's the litany of tired and (already) dated cultural references that jeopardise the film's long-term relevance: a play on the title of a reality TV series here, a dig at the expense of the Kardashians there; a cameo from Megan Fox. Perhaps the one bright spot, aside from a genuinely funny if overplayed sequence on a tourist helicopter, is the presence of low-rent comedy mainstay Faris as the love interest. Like everything else in the film she is characterised broadly and her comic moments are either crass or obvious, but she rises above the material to create an appealing character nonetheless.

'The Dictator' is out now in the UK, rated '15' by the BBFC.

'Dark Shadows' review:

It's not big and it's not clever to reject the latest film from Tim Burton out of hand. Though it's fair to say that he hasn't done anything good in a while (and nothing truly great since the mid-90s) the man who brought us 'Edward Scissorhands' and 'Beetlejuice' always deserves a fair crack of the whip - even when the trailer for his most recent feature looks beyond dire. This was the case with promos for long-gestating passion project 'Dark Shadows': a broad comedy with Gothic horror trappings, loosely based on a cult late-60s soap opera series of the same name, that reunites the director with an increasingly irksome Johnny Depp. And though the film is slightly better than trailers suggest, it's still a baggy, barely cohesive mess of style over substance - a joint vanity project for a distinctive visual artist and his showboating leading man.

Where Depp was once the most exciting and unpredictable actor of his generation he is now, post his Jack Sparrow rise to pop culture ubiquity, restricting himself to the immensely lucrative "lovable oddball" side of the market. His Willy Wonka and Mad Hatter - themselves in two of Burton's most risible movies - are Halloween costumes more than characters. They are funny voices and affectations in brightly coloured hats around which Depp can construct another peculiar, pantomine creation. This time Depp inhabits the gloomy make-up and wardrobe of Barnabas Collins: an eighteenth century fishing magnate-turned-vampire who is dug up after nearly two centuries underground to discover the multi-coloured, drug-infused wackiness of the 1970s. Fish out of water hilarity ensues, ticking every box you might expect given the setting, with Barnabas encountering lava lamps, Alice Cooper and college stoners. Just what will he make of it all?!

Perhaps this is why the Depp/Burton partnership was proven so long-lasting: both men now seem unable to go below the surface of whatever weird character or world they are presenting on screen. If Depp is increasingly drawn to playing broad, wacky cartoon creations in over-designed costumes, then Burton is rapidly jettisoning what little interest he ever had in story in favour of elaborate set design and showy visual flourishes. As Barnabas first re-enters his stately mansion house after his lengthy absence, he immediately begins to describe in detail the pillars, the chandeliers, and the Florentine marble fireplace. It's as if he's breaking the fourth well to compliment the film for its art direction and set design. Which he may as well do because that is all this film is.

One genuine bright spot is a scene-stealing performance from Eva Green as the villain - the witch who turned Barnabas into a vampire for rejecting her advances and who now dominates the fishing industry of his small town (that's the story by the way). Otherwise it's populated by decent actors in thankless parts, with key characters going unaccounted for during the entire second act (Michelle Pfeifffer's matriarch and supposed central love interest Bella Heathcote) and the young Chloe Moretz overtly sexualised to no real end. Johnny Lee Miller plays an absent father to similarly little payoff, whilst Helena Bonham Carter continues her unbroken 7-film Burton streak as a live-in therapist whose every scene could be excised from the plot in a way which would only impact on the bloated running time. There are perhaps a half-dozen different versions of this film on a hard drive in an edit suite somewhere and perhaps one of them makes for a coherent movie.

I didn't hate or even strongly dislike 'Dark Shadows' (slap that on the DVD cover) and, if I've given that impression, it's only because - despite the low quality of his last decade's worth of work - Tim Burton still apparently has the capacity to disappoint. But this is certainly no worse than 'Planet of the Apes', 'Alice in Wonderland' or 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. It probably belongs in the next category up, alongside the instantly forgettable 'Corpse Bride' - more "Burtonesque" than Burton. Like that drab animation, 'Dark Shadows' feels less like the genuine article and more like the work of an art school student excessively influenced by the most showy aspects of his visual style.

However, there are a few nice visual touches and neat ideas, most of which benefit from the clear affection the film has for traditional vampiric tropes, as it refreshingly eschews all revisionism of monster lore prevalent since the hip and post-modern 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'. It must also be said that among the obvious gags about disco balls, automobiles and television sets, there are also a few very funny moments involving the time-displaced bloodsucker - such as when he first encounters tarmac.


'Dark Shadows' is out now and rated '12A' by the BBFC.

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.

'Damsels in Distress' review:

"It felt longer than it was" said one cinema patron, checking the time on his way out of a showing of 'Damsels in Distress'. Never a good sign. But even worse when you consider Whit Stillman's hyper-stylised indie comedy - his first film in over a decade - lasts scarcely 99 minutes. Yet it really does outstay its welcome despite a beguiling first half and another fantastic performance from mumblecore queen Greta Gerwig, as the defacto leader of a gang of female students selflessly seeking to improve those deemed below their station. It's not that 'Damsels' is without charm, wit or laughs, indeed it's easy enough to see why many cite Stillman as an influence on the likes of Wes Anderson, but it's so resolutely deadpan that it can't sustain beyond the first hour.

It's also at times difficult to locate the target of Stillman's American college satire, with many of his characters so broad and extreme that they seem to lack a clear real-world analogue. There's, for example, the American girl who has affected a British accent after a brief period of study in London and the rich fraternity boy who never learned the difference between colours. Sometimes the film seems a wholly ironic putdown leveled at the vapidity and pretension of youth, yet it could also be seen as entirely earnest and sympathetic towards its off-beat gang of co-eds: the suicidally depressed, the confused, and the tragically dim. It might be that there's something really rewarding and ingenious at the centre of 'Damsels' for those prepared to weed it out. I remain at a loss.

'Damsels in Distress' is out now in the UK, rated '12A' by the BBFC.

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.