The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Note to self - you can't catch fire... or throw it

                                  It wasn't long after this that the Nazi's fired their fashion designer

DIRECTOR: Francis Lawrence

CAST: Jennifer Lawrence (no relation), a load of men that aren't good enough for Jennifer Lawrence, one of seven psychopaths, the mother of JD's child, the head of Scientology, Kiefer Sutherland's dad, the pervert from The Lovely Bones, baboons, fog and blisters ... 

PLOT: It's the second adaptation in Suzanne Collins' immensely popular series of books, and with Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) trying to get over the fun of the first film, she's invited (forced) back for more Hunger Games brutality when a selection of the previous winners are pitted against one another.

The biggest issue that the makers of the The Hunger Games: Catching Fire had to go up against was producing a different enough story than Gary Ross' adaptation of the first novel. It would have been easy to become The Hunger Games 2.0 instead of its own film by just showing another competition of predominantly adolescents offing each other whilst trying to keep the BBFC from losing their shit. Not only did Francis Lawrence make Catching Fire its own film, he made it the better film.

For the first half of the film's arguably overlong duration some viewers may feel agitated. Instead of watching the aforementioned competitors fighting to the death which took up the vast majority of the time in last year's prequel and became what it is now famous for, we get a wider exploration of the themes and the problems that mare the District's of Panem and are delivered an engrossing and compromising character study, including a further insight into a love triangle and dystopian social and political commentary that may not be subtle but is certainly most welcome. 

This is a franchise that has been conceived and birthed during the Twilight era but the important difference is that it has some added weight... and context, intelligence, heart, and overall genuine talent, really.

                               The Stig had to find another job after Top Gear's eventual cancellation

But as with the predecessor, despite the fact that the cast are all exceedingly impressive (even the worst Hemsworth brother is quite good), the biggest draw to the film is Jennifer Lawrence. She holds the camera and our attention with ease with her effortless likability and her flawless ability to throw herself head first into any role that comes her way. With any other actress, her character could come across as droll and joyless, but Lawrence's charisma and willingness to grasp the low key emotional scenes as well as the high-octane scenes so firmly has made it so that Katniss Everdeen has become her own beast, almost her own creation; if you read the novels now you envision Lawrence, and nobody would rightfully complain about that. 

As with the second half of the film, the actual Games themselves, it is a step up from the first. There are more challenges other than the enemy "tributes", a further reliance on teamwork and surviving against the elements, some of which when listed out on paper sound absolutely ludicrous but actually work out very well onscreen. The quality direction and cinematography, combining with the great performances, makes the Games a evermore growingly tense viewing throughout, with small hints that suggests which direction the emotional climax and the remainder of the franchise is going to go in, but is thankfully never too obvious for less active audiences. 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a much more confident affair than its prequel. The unstoppable force that is Jennifer Lawrence grabs the role with both hands and the overall arcing story of Suzanne Collins' novels can no longer be backhanded by the ignorant as a mere knock-off of Battle Royale. It's become much, much more than that. The next two instalments, the novel Mockingjay which is being split into two films, will be a further test to translate to screen, but with the sustained talent of everyone involved, there's no reason that this unlikely phenomenon cannot continue to take the box office by storm.

* * * * 

Gravity (IMAX 3D)

"Ground control to Major Tom..."

                                                 "Aaarrrgggghhhhhh- ooo, a penny!"

DIRECTOR: Alfonso Cuarón

CAST: American middle-class woman that cares about black people and a man who stares at goats...

PLOT: During a spacewalk, Sandra Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone and George Clooney's Lieutenant Matt Kowalski are detached from the Hubble Space Telescope after they collide with debris, thus kickstarting their struggle to get home.

Now that I've caught my breath, what follows is a series of words and grunts that will try and do justice (and probably fail) to not only one of the best films of the year, nor merely one of the best science-fiction films of all time, but one of the best films of all time. 

Alfonso Cuarón previously said, and it's unclear as to whether or not he was joking, that he wanted to actually make Gravity in space, but studios (rightfully) wouldn't take him seriously due to the cost and the possible dangers for the A-list duo. Something for the future, maybe? Luckily that doesn't matter for now, though, as you could easily be tricked into thinking that this was genuinely filmed in space. The first few minutes could even pose as a documentary - albeit a stunningly cinematic one.

Bullock's and Clooney's performances are both magnificent; true tests in what actors will go through to capture performances so realistic. Often having to act on their own, Bullock puts in the performance of her career, and Clooney is a safe bet as usual, the sort of charismatic and calm voice you would want up there with you if you were to put yourself in the same predicament. 

But despite all of this, Cuarón is the real star. His vision to create something so monumental is both audacious and inspiring; not many directors would have been so far-reaching, but if anyone was to pull it off it would be the amazing Cuarón, who went as far to invent new shooting equipment with his production team in order to recreate what was existing in his mind. The first ten minutes or so is one continuous shot that will be enough to make many a viewer feel queasy, and accompanied by the fantastic CGI, you will be drawn into the film from there on in. This is a technical dream that will confuse not only film fans, but also filmmakers, prompting head scratching and question asking.

And that isn't all. Cuarón also manages to make the most impressive 3D film, ever. James Cameron needs to take a shit on his own face after seeing this, because there is not a better film at utilising the third dimension to such awe-inducing effect. Even with almost $150 million short of Avatar's budget, Cuarón and his effects team has set the bar high and proved that 3D may not be a gimmick after all. If 3D films looked this good all of the time, then it would be the preferred medium to view films. I for one cannot imagine seeing Gravity in two-dimensions (in fact, I could live with never seeing it again, as a television screen at home will never live up to the same expectations). See it in IMAX if possible because it really puts the grand scale of things into perspective; there were times when I was so engulfed by the narrative that I could imagine myself to be up there with the astronauts, especially in the opening scene.  

                                                     "No, this isn't Ellen Ripley..."

Some viewers have gone as far to criticise the constant dialogue coming from Bullock throughout the film despite the fact that she is often on her own. Defense is due for Cuarón and his son, as this choice is the correct one. It isn't expositional, it's sometimes character development, but it's always to add further feeling to the film. Imagine yourself in the protagonist's position: on your own in space, trying to survive a mountainous situation, with nobody to speak to. It's only natural that you would constantly speak to yourself in a bid to keep yourself sane, to keep yourself from giving up. Most people speak to themselves every single day when they are alone and performing the simplest of tasks. If you're trying to survive a cataclysmic event in outer space, you're going to keep on fucking talking to yourself.

And it's this feeling of isolation that serves the film so strongly. Never has there been a film that has represented space as true (I would imagine) as this - beautiful, peaceful, and very frightening, dangerous and empty, which is further highlighted by no diegetic sounds of rubble and objects colliding, accompanied by an almost perfect score that is unfortunately, only now and then, a little too overwhelming, namely in the final shot. But there's no cutaways to Houston, no cutaways to loved ones watching news reports, no cutaways to Earth. We stay with our protagonist in every single shot; this is our journey as well. Show future astronauts this film and they may very well question their career choice there and then.

Everything about this film is brave: the performances, the technicalities, the use of effects, and the beautiful cinematography and camerawork that incorporates unflinching long takes and POV shots that exists alongside the third dimension perfectly. Cuarón and co. deserve all of the plaudits. Believe the hype. See this before it exits the cinemas, there is literally no other way to witness it. This is what cinema is made for.

* * * * *

Thor: The Dark World

"Oh, for Thork's sake!"

                                                             Brains... or braun? 

DIRECTOR: Alan Taylor

CAST: James Hunt, the Black Swan, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hannibal Lecter, Bootstrap Bill, Nelson Mandela, Doctor Who? and a pair of boobs...

PLOT: With Loki imprisoned for kicking seven shades of shit out of New York City, all seems to be well in the Nine Realms... until Christopher Eccleston's hideous Dark Elf decides to kick seven shades of shit out of the universe.

The second 'Phase 2' Marvel movie since The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World had a lot to live up to having to follow up this year's monumentally successful and entertaining Iron Man 3. With Kenneth Branagh, director of Thor's first solo outing, out of the realm and replaced by esteemed US TV drama director of quality shows such as Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, and err, Sex and the City? you would put your money on the franchise being in safe hands.

Aside from the irritating pair of boobs that is Kat Dennings, and the equally irritating score that accompanies the light-hearted scenes on Earth (of which there are a fair few), and the, at times, weak editing and pacing, Thor: The Dark World continues to do justice to Marvel's cinematic master plan, offering comedy (most of which comes in the final confrontation), impressive action sequences (of which we needed more of), and charismatic performances from the ever-reliable and enviable Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston (of which we can't get enough of).

It could have been a lazy, but safe bet, to simply have made this Loki: The Dark World, as Hiddleston's career-marking character does show up before Thor even does; but instead he serves as an intelligent narrative device, rather than the entire narrative itself. We await Hiddleston's arrival into the action-fold with excitement, but it doesn't come until the halfway mark. Unsurprisingly, once that halfway mark is hit, the film excels and gets a lot more interesting. At the end of the day, we couldn't really give a monkey's shit about all of the 'sciency' exposition that tries to explain fictional happenings, all we want to do is watch Thor hit people with a hammer, and Loki charm his way into subconsciously manipulating all of the male viewers to question (or cement) their sexuality for almost two hours.

                                                                      Hammer time!

Unfortunately, the other main reason as to why this Thor adventure doesn't quite live up to its predecessor, other than the Branagh's solid direction, is the villain. As with the majority of superhero films, the ones with the best villains tend to stand out. You don't watch The Dark Knight for Christian Bale's in-need-of-a-Soother Batman, you watch it for Heath Ledger's stunning portrayal of The Joker. 

And although Loki still isn't necessarily a stereotypical hero, his threat and presence as the main antagonist is sorely missed. Christopher Eccleston's hideous Dark Elf, Malekith, isn't given enough screen time and his motivations aren't as clear or interesting as Loki's engaging backstory. Malekith seems to wreak havoc for havocs sake. A villain that wants to destroy the entire universe lacks any hint of empathy and we cannot see why he would want to do anything that he does. You'll end up missing Loki's wise-cracking ways and fabulously evil costume.

Overall, the film is better when hammers are being swung and effects are being fully utilised, namely when we get to see a lot more of Asgard. Where Branagh's 2011 Thor was arguably better when people were talking and joking with its comedic fish-out-of-water story, this one often falls flat and is much funnier during the climax that gleefully dots around London and the rest of the universe. It seems as though the antagonist should have been given a more credible backstory instead of Hemsworth's and Portman's forced romance, and the strange love triangle that is born with it which doesn't even have its surface scratched. Had Eccleston's evil-doer been given the full works, and a more solid script that didn't feel as if it needed saving by Joss Whedon towards the end of production, this could have been one of the best Marvel films yet.   

* * * ½

Captain Phillips

'Captain Birdseye, do you copy?!'

                                                   "Wilson!!!!!- damn, wrong movie" 

DIRECTOR: Paul Greengrass

CAST: Woody, the slut who loves John Malkovich, and the best talent Somalia has to offer...

PLOT: Based on the 'true' events of Captain Richard Phillips being kidnapped by Somali pirates in 2009, this film offers us an insight into how the incident unravelled.


Unless you were living in a hole in 2009, or you more realistically just don't pay any attention to the news, you will probably know the outcome of this entire film, as is the problem with adaptations that are based on real events. But despite this, Captain Phillips is never short of suspense or excitement, as Paul Greengrass toys with your adrenaline whilst Tom Hanks simultaneously manipulates your emotions, both combining to create a fiercely effective storytelling duo.

Neither individual lets one another down. They are the main players, here to tell the story of bravery and resilience with a hint of social and cultural commentary in both the US and Somalia without being too preachy. Cynics may be worried due to the casting of Tom Hanks - an actor who's American as apple pie and a main player in the US single-handedly winning World War II (WITH NO HELP WHATSOEVER), but this is never played out as a gung-ho film trying to recreate Bourne-ish thrills out at sea, it is instead a contained thriller that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

There's no urgent phone calls to the president, it's simply three parties - Phillips and his crew, the Somalian pirates (led by their brilliant captain and Somalian acting newcomer Barkhad Abdi, a dark horse for awards season), and the US Navy, whose importance isn't felt until the final act. There's no heroes and villains; much like real life it is just a story of two different men and their relationship during times of desperation, both of whom are at the core, fighting for survival. There's no dialogue to pander to its audience, Hanks doesn't try to convince his captors that they are the same as him. They're not and everyone knows it - different cultures, different backgrounds, different lives. Ultimately, though, one goal: survival.

And this is where the film really does excel. Nobody is demonised and nobody will question your morals if you at times feel inclined to side with the pirates. Their backstory, like Phillips', might be short, but it's all you need to see. They have to do this, regardless of whether they want to or not. Just as Phillips constantly tells his crew "everything is going to be ok", so does Somali captain, Muse (cool name). Thankfully Team America would never have to get involved in this situation, there's no explosions, no fantastical fist fights, or cheesy one-liners about who will be the victor. Everything is believable and plays as if this is exactly the line of events that happened in reality. Its realistic enough to make you sea-sick.

                                   "That boat is getting extremely loud and incredibly close"

Tom Hanks may constantly prove that he'd never lost form throughout the duration, reminding us that he's still one of the best actors in the world, but it's important to remember that the man behind the camera is just as important during Captain Phillips. Greengrass directs with a real sense of urgency, putting you right on the decks or inside the lifeboat, providing you with a suspenseful cocktail mixing excitement with terror. As Muse tells Phillips that he doesn't want anyone to get hurt, we pray that he's telling the truth.

With all biopics, there is always going to be controversies. There will always be people telling different stories and denying the events on-screen. Regardless of any of this, Captain Phillips stands as one of the best films of the year, signifying when two of the most talented and exciting individuals in cinema teamed up and made sure that there wasn't a dry eye in the house as the overwhelming journey leaves you gasping for air.

* * * * *

Filth

It's the sound of da police...

                                                        Fun for all the family

DIRECTOR: Jon S. Baird

CAST: Hippy Professor Xavier, Billy Elliot, a Jew at the world cup final, funny name Poots, village of the year obsessive, Moaning Myrtle and Billy Elliot's dad...

PLOT: You'll be asking how Detective Sergeant Bruce Robertson (McAvoy) ever got this far in his career during the adaptation of the same name from Trainspotting author Irvine Welsh, chronicling the efforts of the filthy, STI riddled, inhumane, hallucinating, immoral pig as he heads a Christmas-time murder investigation whilst attempting to cheat his way to a promotion.


Anyone that knew absolutely anything about the source material before the film was released wouldn't have been blamed for scratching their heads regarding the casting of the immensely likeable James McAvoy as the protagonist(?) of this potentially mental-scarring film for anyone whose mettle isn't up to the test of seeing a supposedly respected police officer blackmailing an under-aged girl into giving him a blow-job and then criticising her technique and comparing it to a "cheese-grater".

That morally obscene event happens fairly early on in the film and it doesn't get any sweeter when exploring the seedy sides of Edinburgh. But for people whose only knowledge of the film before the viewing is only that of the trailer and a short synopsis, you may be surprised to find that Filth also has a more serious dark edge to it, as all of the injustices are met with equally downbeat and harrowing repercussions.

This isn't simply a straight-up comedy watching McAvoy get his kicks from harassing witnesses and his co-workers (a superb cast featuring Jamie Bell and his on-screen dad in Billy Elliot, Gary Lewis), using copious amounts of cocaine, and indulging in hardcore pornography and erotic asphyxiation; it's also a dark and demented exploration of a broken human spirit being haunted by terrifying hallucinations and a frightening Jim Broadbent as his bulbous headed doctor. In one scene you will be keeling over with your sides splitting, in the next you will feel guilty as the phenomenal James McAvoy (quickly becoming one of the most exciting and unpredictable actors in the world) picks at your emotions and molests them one at a time and, against the expected style of the film, genuinely makes you feel for a complete wanker.

And it's a good thing that Filth director Jon S. Baird and McAvoy succeed in doing this else the film would be borderline unwatchable, apart from those that are literally affected by nothing. It could be clever marketing, but more than likely completely coincidental, that its release came so close to World Mental Health Day, because if it wasn't for the consequences and the justification of evil acts and exploring Sergeant Bruce Robertson's tortured soul, this film would merely exist to provoke with bad taste. The only better time that this film could have been released would have been to mentally scar your Christmas this fall.

                                                       Merry fucking Christmas

Aside from the dirty plot, this is also a terrifically made film, shot brilliantly giving a Hollywood-like feel to proceedings. Some may wonder why the cinematography was given the glossy treatment instead of taking on a more gritty visual style, but it could be read as Robertson's highly perched ego constantly giving himself more importance and credit than he deserves. Accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack which bi-polarises the subject matter, it all gels together perfectly. Albeit with a strange, disgusting gel that you wouldn't want to touch despite its ability to intoxicate.

Don't be surprised to see fellow audience members making their way towards the exits early on. Even if your resolve is tested too, do stick with it, as this is more than just crude behaviour, graphic sex, and Scotsmen swearing, it's much, much more than that.

* * * * ½


If my blog is not giving you enough of a movie fix, then maybe you should check out the Take3 podcast, in which myself, John Brown, and James Conibear discuss film news and reviews - check it out for free on SoundCloud by following the link below:

https://soundcloud.com/take3-podcast/03-10-13 

Prisoners

Not starring Wentworth Miller, Vinnie Jones, or Morgan Freeman

                                        Jackman had just watched Scrubs for the first time

DIRECTOR: Dennis Villeneuve

CAST: Van Helsing (lol), the Prince of Persia (lol), an actor from There Will Be Blood, Little Miss Sunshine and Looper (respect), black actress of the moment, the original War Machine, the new Evelyn O'Connell, and Mickey Ward's mum...

PLOT: When the BBFC's opening warning begins with telling you 'this film includes themes of child abduction', you know you're not in for a skip in the daisy field. In a remote US town, 'Keller' (Jackman) and 'Franklin' (Terrence Howard) have their daughter's kidnapped. With little faith in 'Detective Loki' (not Tom Hiddleston; Jake Gyllenhaal) and the rest of the police force, we see first-hand what depths father's will drop to in order to find their loved ones...


  
With the digital age and infinite knowledge and anticipation of the future directly at your fingertips, these days it isn't often that a film that you know very little about comes out of nowhere to completely blow you out of your shell. Despite the fact that the director is relatively unknown (not for long, surely), the calibre of acting talent on show would suggest that this would be many cineaste's one to look forward to of the year. Other than the odd recent trailer I had no idea of the film's existence. And due to the film's seemingly bland title (which will become more appropriate as the film rolls on) I had no intention of seeing it because of the false belief that it would be yet another conventional 'whodunnit' thriller that luckily managed to nab a few great actors with a high pay cheque.

But thanks to rave reviews and hushed Oscar buzz making Prisoners a dark horse for awards season, I thought I'd give it a shot and was subsequently shocked to the core in the best possible way. It opens in relatively recognisable fashion, introducing the families, the themes of religion and masculinity, and applying sound character development to let us know that these are neighbourly folk living a simple life in a remote little US town.

However, things quickly turn sour and the two young girls go missing, and from there on in you are hooked, wrapped around the little finger of Villeneuve and his brilliant cast, and just like that you are along for the ride. Albeit a long ride, it's the sort of narrative involving characters that are layered enough to warrant a television series, but instead, and thankfully due to the quality, this is a film that may be long, but it is never boring. You forgot to take a piss before the showing, you're two hours in, half an hour to go, and your bladder can't seem to hold out. Don't worry, your brain isn't letting you go anywhere - you'll sooner leave a puddle on your favourite seat at your local cinema.

There is only one moment in the film when it feels as if the story is going to peter out and lose its hard-hitting hook that occurs roughly three-quarters of the way through. But the film is quickly and expertly rescued and it soon dawns on you that the slowing of pace was used as a narrative device. Kudos to the fine acting, especially from Gyllenhaal who will struggle to ever top this career-cementing performance, for making sure that you don't lose faith before the powerful and gut-wrenching final act.

                            Gyllenhaal was desperately looking for a product that would tame his hair

One of the most impressive things about Prisoners is its balance within understanding. Many crime thrillers fail with the narrative, either being too simple that it bored audiences or too complicated that it angers and disengages audiences. Prisoners instead manages to ride the fine line directly in the middle - nobody that is actively viewing the film will be lost, yet nobody who believes themselves to be a genius and a film addict will feel that the plot spoon feeds them.

Prisoners puts the word thrill into thriller. When you see quotes such as "Edge of your seat stuff" on a DVD case, they're often lying. The following is not a lie - this is literally edge-of-your-seat stuff. There will be many a moment that you struggle to breathe and holding on for dear life. Most mystery thrillers you work out maybe halfway through, but this has you clueless right up to the final few scenes. You find out when our protagonist's find out. That's not to say that the conclusion doesn't make sense, or that the clues weren't there. They were just dealt with so well that we had as little of an idea as 'Detective Loki'.

This is also helped by the technical aspects and the execution of the film. The cinematography is beautiful in the bleakest way imaginable. The rain hammering down onto the ground, the murky, filthy locations, the detective with his own demons - it all rings true of old film noirs and it works a treat. It may be missing a femme fatale and characters chain smoking, but Prisoners is what it is, and instead utilises certain looks and feels if and when it chooses.

But at heart this is also a character study. As mentioned there is the religious and masculinity-obsessed father (Jackman), the job-obsessed detective with demons in his closet (Gyllenhaal), and the weird, ugly, child-obsessed suspect (Dano). You think that you'll know all of these characters, and you probably do. Yet you won't know them in the way that you think you do. Let the battle for shelf decorations commence!

Prisoners is by far the surprise of the year, and it is doubtful that any other film will come out of nowhere like this one and punch you in the brain and the heart in such a violent fashion for quite some time. If you're British but still consider Django Unchained a 2012 film, it's very difficult to look past this as the film of the year so far. This will stay with you long after the opening credits and then some. You will feel exhausted and overwhelmed; as if you've just stepped off the best rollercoaster in the world.

Perfection has never felt so seedy.

* * * * *

Elysium

"Where are the fucking prawns?"

                                                     'Maybe I should grow my hair...'

DIRECTOR Neill Blomkamp

CAST: Zoo owner, Clarice Staling, and South African "Howling Mad" Murdock...

PLOT: After getting a full blast of radiation poisoning, 'Max' ("Matt Damooooon") decides that he must get to a medical bay to cure himself of said poisoning. The only issue is, said medical bay is on a spherical space station inhabited by the rich that absorbs Earth named 'Elysium'... said.

Expectations were obviously high for Neill Blomkamp's follow-up to the critically acclaimed 'District 9'. These high expectations were then escalated when the explosive trailer for 'Elysium' arrived and promised more thunderous action sequences, selfish intentions and vague political commentary. All of the above were certainly delivered, but not quite to the same standard as 'District 9' treated us to. This doesn't seem as adventurous or fresh, it instead touches on formula in an attempt to appeal to more mainstream audiences. But some films will never be bettered, and when you could argue that Blomkamp perhaps peaked too soon in his directorial career, if you remember not to compare the two films, which can be quite difficult, then you will have a wholly enjoyable time at the cinema.

But despite aiming for a wider audience, with the lack of a verite filming style and a score that often rings out like 'Inception', what I was thrilled to see was more accounts of extreme violence and exhilarating action sequences with wonderfully destructive futuristic weaponry from Blomkamp, something he thankfully can't seem to leave behind. The violence is at times unflinching and quite shocking, usually delivered to us by the thorn in Matt Damon's side - the brilliantly deranged Sharlto Copley as a mercenary named 'Kruger' on the hunt for Damon's mechano-man. Copley is the purest sort of evil; an example of complete psychopathy that has no reasoning behind it. Whenever he's on the screen the tension and the excitement is turned up, anticipating awesome action and brutality. Jodie Foster's villain is child's play in comparison, despite being satisfyingly pretentious.

However, despite the fact that you will probably root for Copley, that's not to say that Damon doesn't deliver a good performance. As always, he's exceedingly likable and can handle himself well in the fight scenes, which will come to no surprise to 'Bourne' fans. It's a new look for Damon - with the slap head and a lot more stacked than the leaner 'Bourne', but this is your typical reliable Damon performance. His character doesn't have the most surprising arc throughout the narrative, but sometimes keeping a character's story simple is as good as applying complicated motives - the fight for survival is the most primal and important to anyone.

                                                      'Maybe I should get a haircut...'

The socio-politcal messages are thin, probably so as not to alienate too many viewers. The rich vs poor is spelled out, but other aspects could be read into more - such as the fact that inhabitants of 'Elysium' mainly speak French, and inhabitants of LA speak a lot of Spanish. But 'Elysium' is here for the fun - how else can it not be when your favourite character will be the deliciously evil 'Kruger'? Much like 'Elysium' itself, this serves as a fantastic joyride of escapism. 

Everything combines to make this a satisfying science-fiction romp; but what really stands out is Blomkamp's impressive visual style, some of which will remind of 'District 9'. It's dirty and dusty, making the futuristic Los Angeles look like a frightening realistic mix of Rio de Janeiro and his birthplace of Johannesburg. Blomkamp manages to keep most of the techniques and aspects intact that made 'District 9' a modern science-fiction classic. 

'Elysium is a much more formulaic and generic outing from Blomkamp, but it never lacks talent, excitement and entertainment, cementing him as one of the most promising directors about today. It might not be the best film of the year, but it's certainly one of strongest blockbusters, adding a lot of heart and a bit of brains to the summer's cinematic proceedings. Plus, how often do you get to root for a villain who is as purely evil as Copley's 'Kruger'?

* * * *

Kick-Ass 2

"Try to have fun. Otherwise, what's the point?"

                                                 You came to the wrong porno, friend

DIRECTOR: Jeff Wadlow

CAST: Aaron Taylor-Johnson's roid-rage, future Carrie, emo McLovin, Ace Ventura, Hot Tub Time Machine guy, a different guardian, racial "archetypes", Sid the Sloth, Turk with a lisp, the dude from the best episode of Black Mirror, a different Todd :(, Ser Jorah Mormont, Chuck Liddell, and Union fucking J...

PLOT: In the sequel to the psychotically fun Kick-Ass, the titular DIY superhero attempts to get to grips with life as a crimefighter, whilst Hit-Girl attempts to get to grips with life as a regular girl in high school. Meanwhile, Christopher Mintz-Plasse vows to get rid of all of the superheroes as his alter-ego - The Motherfucker.

When news broke that Matthew Vaughn wouldn't be directing the sequel to one of my all-time favourite films, I wept. Not literally of course - I'd already done my fair share due to the demise of Big Daddy. It seems to be a trend with the brilliant director. He makes a cracking film and then ditches the resulting franchise to start another. The X-Men franchise is comfortably in the safe hands of the proven Bryan Singer, but would the future of Kick-Ass lie in promising hands? 

Well, we were given a lifeline as Vaughn was allowed to choose his own writer/director for the project. 'Brilliant!' we were all thinking, 'surely he'd pick a terrific director - someone who he holds in high regard!' You can imagine our frustration when he chose the man whose last film before Kick-Ass 2 was Never Back Down - Jeff Wadlow.

Never fucking Back Down. 

It was important not to be too hasty, though - let's not be prejudice. Never Back Down may have had as many layers as a two-dimensional shape, but when it came to people punching each other, it was well-crafted and confident action filmmaking. Perhaps with a decent screenwriter, he could create something that could live up to Matthew Vaughn's deluded masterpiece. 

Jeff Wadlow was also named as screenwriter... shit.

And that's unfortunately where Kick-Ass 2 often falls flat. It's still got some fantastic one-liners and wickedly offensive humour - it's not often that you get to hear the word 'cunt' in Russian. But it's all of the talking in between the insults and the ass kicking that is tiresome; the exposition is flat and laboured, often repeating itself with many of the messages recited to us in Kick-Ass' first outing, and the use of voiceover even manages to outdo the predecessor when it comes to laziness. 

This runs parallel with a plot that is thin and uneven, the pacing miles off the snappy first film that managed to hit all of the right notes. This outing frequently manages to merge too many scenes into one mess, not helped by its convolution with too many characters (something that can be forgiven in the source material) and two stories that are competing for screen-time and quality - Kick-Ass' life as a superhero, Hit-Girl's life as a teenage-girl in high school.

It's definitely the latter that wins us over. This is very much Hit-Girl's show and Chloe Grace Moretz continues to take cinema by storm, often giving acting lessons to much older, more experienced actors. She's endearing and electrifying as everyone's sweary little girl, but now she's growing up she is burdened by the ever-lasting interest of bullies and being attracted to the opposite sex in high school. You're constantly egging her on to kick the shit out of everyone who crosses her in the corridors, but due to conflicting promises and needs, it doesn't come that easily to her, making her the person that we care about. She composes the emotional beats despite the fact that the film never hits the emotional heights as the first Kick-Ass which Nicolas Cage's Adam West spoof gets "owned".

The cinematography is too bright, sugar-coated and fake; looking as if it could expose its green screen behind the foreground action to reveal that the New York backdrops are, shock-horror Mr. Carrey, fake! This is probably due to the surprisingly low-budget ($2 million below the first Kick-Ass), considering the first was a successful hit. It could be argued that it's attempting to go for a comic book style, but why fix something that isn't broken? The first Kick-Ass nailed the colours, the look, the feel. This overboard fakeness highlights the two-dimensional story - deaths aren't fully felt, they're merely shrugged off as inconveniences by the time that the next scene has come around; there isn't enough repercussions when something doesn't go our heroes' way (Kick-Ass' girlfriend is conveniently dismissed earlier on, and despite how hot she is he couldn't give a shit!); and there are plot holes, such as David Lizewski (Kick-Ass) and Mindy Macready (Hit-Girl) discussing the importance of keeping their superheroic identities secret... whilst sat in the back of a taxi. 

                                       Jim Carrey being violent, whether he wants to or not 

But if you're watching this for masterful storytelling and award-winning cinematography, then you're certainly doing it wrong. The sooner you realise the quality of this piece of filmmaking isn't going to better what Matthew Vaughn can create, and you begin to relax, the better. Because I seriously doubt that anyone involved in Kick-Ass 2 gives a fuck. They don't care - the filmmaking might be well-below par, but it's almost as fun as the 2010 hit.

At a glance that still might not appear complimentary, but when you consider how much mind-blowing awesomeness and fun came with the first Kick-Ass, almost hitting the same level is still a reasonable achievement for Wadlow and company. The action is wild, over-the-top and full of gore. Despite no scenes living up to scenes from the first film, such as Hit-Girl destroying everyone via night-vision, or destroying everyone to the tune of Bad Education, it's still some of the best action and the most mental experiences you could ask for in a cinema this year.

However, despite all of the enjoyability from Aaron Taylor-Johnson's likability, Chloe Grace Moretz's charisma and Christopher Mintz-Plasse's magnificently named, gimpish supervillainy, there are some aspects that this film cannot mask. The addition of Jim Carrey's Colonel Stars and Stripes, replacing Nicolas Cage's Big Daddy as the father figure to our inexperienced heroes, is short-lived and criminally underused. He never poses the same threat or intrigue as Nicolas Cage managed in the predecessor.

And certainly worst of all, is the music. It's not bad, by any means. It's just generic at times, and lacking the quality of the soundtrack we were treated to by Vaughn. There's no Elvis, no Prodigy, no Joan Jett. We instead get Union J. It may have been used as a slightly amusing narrative tool, but that doesn't really give anyone the excuse to assault our ears with Union J. The audience's adrenaline will never rise to the glitzy heights of Kick-Ass fighting thugs with Omen blazing in the background.

However, despite all of the bad aspects, you will be sat there with a semi-insanical grin on your face as you watch the wackiness unfold. It's still got bags of energy and enthusiasm which will transfer itself to the audiences. Just try not to compare it to Kick-Ass too much, else the negatives will seem greater and you'll instead be wishing to watch the predecessor throughout the duration (as soon as I got home, I whacked it on). With talks of a third now that the comic books are being released, it's difficult to see where this franchise will go. A spin-off for Hit-Girl, by far the best character, would be the best option. Whatever happens, I'll be looking forward to it, but with a slight anxiety.   

* * * 

Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa

Aheeeeeee!... Wait, that's not right

                            Not the police officer you want knocking on your door to deliver bad news

DIRECTOR: Declan Lowney

CAST: The shit director from Tropic Thunder, the pilot from Die Hard 2, a man who is going to be in a film that is literally called The 4th Reich, fake John Cleese, and a Geordie... 

PLOT: Alan Partridge is back, and when his Irish co-worker is fired from North Norfolk Digital after the company is taken over by a company that wants to make it fresh and new, he drinks some Guinness (presumably) and takes his fellow DJ's hostage. The only person who he will negotiate with during the siege is, you guessed it, Alan himself. What could possibly go right?

Alan Partridge is perhaps the epitome of marmite, up there with the likes of the comedy stylings of Ricky Gervais and Little Britain - his comedic style is equally loved and hated by many of the British public. But the sign of a true heavyweight of comedy is definitely the ability to split people down the middle. It's much easier to be seen as simply adequate in the eyes of many, but a lot braver to make comedy that will be die-hardedly followed by some, and sneered at by others. 

But that all contributes to make Alan Partridge one of the most celebrated characters of British comedy since his birth on radio over twenty years ago. And at the end of the day, much of the audience of Partridge's first ever big-screen outing must have already been set in stone prior to pre-production. There will be those who flock to the cinema, and those that intentionally avoid it at all costs. 

Then there's those who have little or no experience of Steve Coogan's creation, such as myself. Aside from seeing a few episodes of Alan Partridge sitcom I'm Alan Partridge years and years ago with my dad, the last series of which was made in 2002, I am no expert on the character.

However, I am an expert on comedy... or at least I like to think that I am.

                                   The Norfolk annual Fun Run advertisement paid for its typo... 

The biggest challenge for Coogan and company was to make a satisfying transfer of Alan Partridge from radio and small screens to a much larger screen. It's fair to say that not even hardcore fans of the character were screaming for an Alan Partridge film from the rooftops, and there were worries about whether the character would be able to hold your attention for 90 minutes whilst providing a narrative and tone that still resonated with earlier Partridge works, and didn't get too 'Hollywood', if you will, and stick to its largely dull Norfolk roots.

When the picture opens with establishing shots of the Norfolk area, accompanied by the music from the experimental film Koyaanisqatsi, famous for being a morbid depiction of the state of our home planet due to humanity's lack of care and unrelenting assault on the world's resources, it does just that. It might not be laugh out loud funny, but when you're sat there with a huge grin on your face it's easy to forget that it's not often that establishing shots in a film can be so fucking hilarious - a genius stroke from the director and writers.

But it doesn't waste time with establishing shots - the film jumps straight into hilarity, wasting no time with getting the narrative running and giving our eponymous intelligent idiot a brief introduction by perfectly and beautifully miming to old school tunes on his way to work at the local radio station. A long introduction isn't needed, not even for those who have never heard of Alan Partridge, you already know what you need to know - he's a dick, albeit a funny one, but still a dick. You've probably got a similar friend - when he or she is in your company and yapping on about shit you don't care about, you're thinking to yourself 'what a fucking dick, I wish you'd go away'. But when they're no longer in your presence, you kind of miss them. You know who I mean. Although, if you don't, you're probably that person.

Shit.

Long time fans will be rewarded by spotting familiar faces and receiving long-running inside jokes. But if these are wasted on you, never fear, as the rate of gags isn't per minute - it's per seconds. Where a joke may fall flat with you, it won't be long until that's forgotten about and you're folding over with laughter again. You'll be quoting for days from the gut-wrenchingly funny dialogue, discussing what would happen if Judaism and Islam combined - "Jislam", for the record; and you'll be shouting "He's got a shooter!" at your friends. Or if you're a bit more serious you'll slap a mate as an SS soldier would. 

It's fair to say that the British are well and truly owning comedy this year, and this may very well be the best that is on offer if it wasn't to do with a certain apocalyptic ice cream flavour. This is Steve Coogan at his ruddy best, widening his appeal but not losing touch with what makes him a brilliant taste for the acquired. Accompanied by a solid story, morals that are positive and get the piss taken out of, and a thin exploration of the state of the radio industry that is being strangled out of all of its independence and individuality (also thankfully taken the piss out of), this is either a brilliant big-screen swan song for Alan Partridge, or the beginning of another media platform that will receive masterfully witty, laugh-inducing assault.

* * * * 

The Wolverine

The literal man of steel

                                                     "Man of adamantium, actually"

DIRECTOR: James Mangold

CAST: A singing French ponce, a red-haired alien, Poison Ivy, and Famke Janssen's cleavage...

PLOT: After being in the midst of the United States' nuclear bombing of Japan towards the end of World War II, 'The Wolverine' (Hugh Jackman) saves a Japanese soldier from inevitable annihilation. Over 60 years later, said Japanese soldier is dying, and requests to say goodbye to 'Logan' in person. Sounds like an uplifting, tear-jerking drama, doesn't it?

Oh yeah, and there's something to do with some rich girl getting kidnapped, the Yakuza, double-crossing, etc, etc. 

Soon after watching The Wolverine, I came up with a theory about certain superheroes. Superheroes that were victimised were both the indestructible Wolverine, and the equally indestructible Superman, who made his first successful (but in my opinion, underwhelming) big screen outing in quite some time this year. And here is that theory, whether you asked for it or not...

Due to the fact that these two immensely popular superheroes are essentially immortal, the writers of their respectable(?) films build overly convoluted plots that ultimately prove to be both incoherent and very fucking annoying. Rather than simply pitch our heroes against their foes in a more straightforward fashion that we would be accustomed to in Spider-Man, Batman and Iron Man films, the writers seem to feel the need to up the ante, in a narrative sense, to trick us all into believing that our hugely powerful superheroes are in danger. 

But they're not in danger. They're in no more danger than if you were to put them up in a straight-up fight with their enemy. Previous X-Men films have gotten past this issue because Valjean had to fight other mutants such as Magneto, a being capable of controlling the metallic Logan, and thus proving to be exciting and dangerous. Even the dismal Origins managed to set Logan some tough tests, such as his near-enough equal half-brother, Victor. But when The Wolverine has to deal with mere mortal human beings, the only danger that he is in is if his head were to explode.

Unfortunately, to reiterate, in the process the plots become convoluted, incoherent and very fucking annoying; and we would all really appreciate it if Logan turned Wolverine and began to hack and slash his mortal enemy. If the narrative is this stupid and the acting this poor (with the exception of the lovely Hugh Jackman), the only sensible route would be to turn the action up to eleven and delve into pure popcorn fodder fun. The Wolverine does not take this route; instead it's all po-faced and a lack of, what superheroes should be all about - fun.

                                                               "Deshi! Deshi! Basara!"

The film opens with Logan as a POW near Nagasaki during WWII. The atomic bomb falls and the sequence turns out to be hugely impressive. Soon after, he breaks a vow to never hurt anyone again... within about three minutes. And then, building on from the trailer that didn't exactly scream enthusiasm during the marketing campaign, our angry neighbourhood mutant puts the fun back into funeral. Yep - it looked as if we were going to get a great film.

However, before long, the film began to dive into its complicated messy story, as noted. And the supporting acting prowess wasn't as strong as what we are used to in Jackman's long career as The Wolverine, missing talent such as Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, or even Liev Schreiber. The supporters are brilliant when it comes to the action scenes, a fantastic one coming on top of a bullet train, but when they mumble through a plot that is equally indiscernible you'll be fighting the urge to replay First Class in your head again in an attempt to stay entertained.

The change of scenery is a breath of fresh air but it isn't a trick that is taken advantage of to its full potential. The oriental world of Japan goes with Wolverine as much as whips goes with chains. It's nice to see cool fights in traditional Japanese houses with thundery backdrops and establishing the location through showing the neon jungle that is Tokyo for all of five seconds, but the culture isn't fully immersed into, barely cracking its shell. It's a crime that the absurd climax didn't instead take place in a location that rings of Japan, instead regrettably indulging in formulaic bullshit.

Despite all of the double-crossing and the forced twists and turns, which are predictable, if not nonsensical, it's hard to care much about what is happening on screen when people aren't being killed. Making The Wolverine a lot more vulnerable than we are previously used to is inspired, it even went a fair distance to saving this from being a complete waste of time, but with strange insects and a Poison Ivy rip-off, you'll ask 'at what cost?' Surely it could have been done in a much better way. We were promised The Wolverine movie that we deserved. But the sad truth is at the end of the day is if Origins didn't exist, this would be seen as a total failure.

P.S. Stick around for a post-credits scene that will get you more excited than the entire film that you've just watched.

* * 

The World's End

Is the third cornet full of flavour?

                                       The Marauder's Map for alcoholics wasn't as popular

DIRECTOR: Edgar Wright

CAST: Thomson and Thomson, "ANDY!!!!", Bilbo Baggins, Inspector Lestrade, Miranda Frost, and a whole lot of other British cameos that I won't give away!

PLOT: The third and final edition to the Cornetto trilogy, and this time Wright, Pegg, Frost and co. are trying to complete an epic 12-pint pub crawl in the shitty 'little England' town of Newton Haven. Oh yeah, and they also get attacked by alien controlled robots posing as townsfolk...

There's just something brilliant about this trilogy of films. Both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz have the tendency to glue a stupid grin to your face throughout their entirety, as you witness a zombie getting hit with pool cues to the music of Queen, pensioners unloading shotguns in protest to human statues, and Simon Pegg struggling to hop fences. And despite The World's End not being quite as funny as its predecessors, it still manages to stick a big stupid grin on your face that will last long after the closing credits have finished rolling. It may be the least shiniest piece of gold, the least flavoursome ice cream, but it's still golden ice cream nonetheless.

Even though that this film doesn't quite hit the deluded comedic delights of zombies and murderous villagers, that's not to say that it isn't funny (it's easily the best comedy of the year so far). The sight gags aren't as frequent as what we have previously been used to, but this will be quoted by fans everywhere, with some fantastic lines cocnerning the likes of Legoland and Alexandre Dumas. 

But what is probably the most striking thing about the quintessentially British end of the world is the action sequences that Edgar Wright manages to impeccably craft. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Wright can shoot action, especially after Scott Pilgrim, but it will always be a surprise when some of the best action that you have seen in the cinema all year comes from a film that is advertised as a comedy. The fights often take place in a very few amount of shots (often in just the one), zigzagging about the pubs as Pegg tries to down a pint whilst being splattered with blue ink from the menacing robots. Who knew that Nick Frost beating the shit out of people with bar stools could be exciting enough to increase the heart rate and move your arse to the edge of your seat? 

                     Pretty much my face when I heard Batman will be appearing in a film with Superman

One of the ways that this series of films has proven to be so popular is how they all share a lot of themes and styles, such as growing up, having regrets, tolerating imperfections, etc. but still manage to feel fresh and new. The World's End is equipped with an awesome soundtrack, chock-a-block with pop culture references, lovably flawed characters and crazy action sequences. 

However, one of the most noticeable differences is the change of character types. We are used to seeing Nick Frost as the man-child liability and Simon Pegg as the reliable man-with-a-plan. These two roles are given a straight switch, and both actors show off their skills by proving that they can do either almost as well as the other. This time most of the laughs come from Pegg's Gary King, a man who is stuck in the past and failed to grow up, but who is also given his fair chunk of surprisingly uncomfortable backstory that elevates the drama - something that we know Pegg can do just as well as make you laugh. Pegg grabs the opportunity to let loose with both hands and gives it all that he's got, making a character who would be unlikable in lesser hands lovable, with impeccable comic timing and unwavering enthusiasm.

The supporting cast also pulls their weight, which is exactly what is to be expected considering the strength that they possess. Martin Freeman's property dealing tool is a specific joy; but away from the main supporters, the film is also crowded with an abundance of British faces that you will be able to recognise and even remember their filmography's, but most probably not be able to remember their names. 

Apart from perhaps the final showdown towards the climax of the film, which is a slightly convoluted and long-winded explanation as to why all of the strange occurrences have happened, making you wish for an ironic take on evil plans which would be akin to the villains intentions in Hot Fuzz, there are few faults to find here. Everyone involved have clearly had an insane amount of fun making this and it will transfer straight to the viewer. Here's hoping we will see the prodigal sons - Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost - assault genre cinema at least one more time.

* * * * ½

Monsters University

Where dropping LSD is a commonplace...

                                                              ...I told you

DIRECTOR: Dan Scanlon

CAST: Harry Burns, Walter Sobchak, Mr. Pink and some crazy old woman going skits at some drummers outside a theatre...

PLOT: Mike Wazowski and James P. Sullivan are back, but this time they are younger versions of themselves attempting to work their way towards graduating from the famous Monsters University!

I imagine that I wasn't the only person who had doubts when they heard the announcement from Pixar stating that they were going to make a prequel to 'Monsters Inc.', incidentally my favourite film from Pixar, telling the story of how the little one-eyed green dude met his big, blue, furry friend (submit your dirty euphemisms in the comment box at the end of this review). It's a prequel that I'm sure very few people were asking for and the amount of sequels and spin-offs coming out of Pixar at the moment is a worrying sign that they may be struggling to come up with new and original ideas. Perhaps it's time that they began to accept scripts from writers that don't already work for the famous animation studios?

However, any scepticism is quickly forgotten about in a mere amount of minutes into the opening of 'Monsters University'. The beautiful animation, bright and attractive colours, and the sheer inventiveness of this parallel universe to our own, full of weird, wonderful and wacky monsters is so immersive I just couldn't help but transform back into the excitable little shit that I was when 'Monsters Inc.' was released in 2001. 

When you think about it, if any Pixar film (except for maybe the 'Toy Story' franchise) is to spawn more adventures, this universe is the sensible and best choice. You have 'Sulley's' and 'Mike's' world, and then you also have our own boring world that supplies the screams - two destinations to find adventure. Also, the characters can look like any mental creation that the animators dream up. There's no rules and anything goes. This makes every shot rich and immensely interesting, as your eyes scour the frame trying to take in all of the slimy and hairy beings. And despite the fact that these characters are often covered in slime or hair, you still manage to see yourself in a few of them despite the fact they are monsters, as you notice the extras rushing to their exams, one with multiple eyes reading multiple books held by its multiple limbs, another with multiple limbs drinking multiple cups of coffee. Chances are if you have taken any exams in your educational life (and assuming you cared about them) you will be able to associate yourself with one or the other, maybe even both.

Which is a good job, because there are plenty of interesting characters to fill the shoes (if monsters even wear shoes) of your old favourites from the previous outing as they don't all feature again. And even then you'll still have fun spotting the cameos of a few familiar faces. New main characters including those of the fraternity are all lovable in their oddball way, a stand-out perhaps being the one who is, adults will spot, an obvious stoner; which continues to prove that Pixar caters to old'uns as well as children. And Helen Mirren puts in a great performance as the horrifying Dean of the university - a monster even the monsters are afraid of.

But it's still the brilliant voices of Billy Crystal and John Goodman that steal the show, which is not to be seen as a surprise. Their characters' relationship and chemistry is flipped over from 'Monsters Inc.' as they both rival each other, but the light entertainment is never lost and it adds a welcomed new dimension to the friendship that you thought you already knew.

                                   Shed the skin of an Oxbridge student and this is what you get      

Faults are few and far between, and they're quickly forgiven due to the fantastic quality of the film as a whole. The plot is a simplistic one which treads down familiar paths, but then again it is easy to forget that this is a film for kids. Plus, it's often hilarious, thanks to clever sight gags and glorious characters - full of heavy metal loving mother monsters (try and say that quickly), goth monsters and a nerdy Steve Buscemi monster - so who the hell cares?        

Plus, without the presence of 'Boo', we aren't really given a bridge between our own world and this fictional one. But in saying that, their world is a whole lot more interesting - so who the hell cares? 

After having a bad day, I soon forgot all about my troubles and once the credits began to roll I couldn't wipe the big stupid grin off my face. This is escapism at its very best and 'Monsters University' will be welcomed to sit alongside the marginally superior 'Monsters Inc.' We might still be hoping that Pixar returns to giving us more stand-alone titles in the future, but nobody can claim that this isn't pure Pixar. A wonderfully imaginative story with endearing and hilarious characters has always been the name of the game for them. This is monsters incredible.

* * * * ½

Man of Steel (IMAX 3D)

Man of Copper...

                                   Constantly turning around doesn't constitute as a performance

DIRECTOR: Christopher Nol- erm, no- I mean Zack Snyder

CAST: ME!, Micky Ward's girlfriend, that guy Eminem punched, The Postman, Russell Crowe fighting around the world, Paulette Goddard and the Silver Surfer...

PLOT: A reboot of one of the most universally famous superheroes, we go through the origins of Superman being Nolan-afied. 

I've never liked 'Superman'. It's difficult to begin as to why I don't. Firstly, how the fuck do we kill him? Not by shooting him in the eye, we know that much already. He's too... super. He hasn't got enough weaknesses, and thus we can't see ourselves in him. Bruce Wayne's parents are dead, Tony Stark's an alcoholic and prone to anxiety attacks and Peter Parker is a massive nerd. And all of them subsequently make far more interesting superheroes.

David S. Goyer also reminds us that he stands as a patriotic symbol to the US, especially with the ill-advised line "I grew up in Kansas, General. I'm about as American as it gets." So the US won't rest at westernising the Middle East? They can also westernise aliens as well; and end up using them as propaganda tools.

Oh, and I've always hated the disguise of a pair of glasses.

But due to impressive trailers, and Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan being on board, of course I had to sit up and notice. It gave me high hopes that the good sides of 'Superman' could be embodied in the film. Such as the positive message that can be given to people - that we can all be a superman and act bravely, no matter how small said act may be. 

However, with having the directors of 'Watchmen' and 'TDK' trilogy as the creative force of the film, it's obvious that 'Man of Steel' was going to be a lot more serious and darker than what we're used to. And this ends up being one of the film's biggest failings. The whole ridiculous premise of 'Superman' could be half-forgiven with the Christopher Reeve movies because they were camp and light-hearted. They knew that it was ridiculous. 'Batman' could get away with being more realistic (at least in a comic book sense). Superman cannot. 

Thus, what we are given is a joyless, po-faced origins story that drags on for at least half an hour and takes itself way too seriously. It's not helped by a hammy Michael Shannon performance as 'General Zod', who seems to spend most of his time turning around into a close-up, looking menacing and snarling direlogue such as "either you die! Or I die!" The amount of exposition and explaining of his evil plans doesn't make him anymore villainous either. Instead he just seems a bit pathetic and moany; an age-old bad guy who tells everyone what he's going to do, which of course means that we already know the outcome.

On the plus side, at least Henry Cavill was a convincing enough 'Superman'. His chiselled jaw, perfect hair cut and herculean body will probably make sure that he is blue tacked to a lot of teenaged girls bedroom walls. Other than that, he's not given an awful lot to do as 'Clark Kent', and is instead spending the majority of his performance pulling determined faces as talented VFX teams make him fight in bloated video game-like action sequences that last for far too long.

                                  He'd had a bit too much to drink at the work-do's fancy dress party

Considering that this is supposed to be an origins story, we don't really receive any new information or any different angles to what we already know. The origin is skipped past, and we only get glimpses of his childhood that look like they have been shot using Instagram; all of which that we have already witnessed in the trailers. 

In fact, the whole film is like a two-and-a-half-hour trailer. It never takes a rest to settle down on a scene and give any of the characters a quiet moment to develop. And because of this you find yourself not giving a shit about anyone involved. Even the unlucky ones of 'Metropolis' (basically New York) who are blown up for about 40 minutes of the film - something 'The Avengers' did better.

The moments that are supposed to feel epic thanks to Hans Zimmer's ear-assaulting score subsequently fails to resonate on an emotional or thrilling level. When so much is fitted into one text, it's hard to care and you'll begin to think about what you're going to have to eat when you get home.

One thing that definitely is missing - a bit of slow motion. The action is so quick that it's often difficult to know what is happening. And the hectic, hand-held style doesn't compliment the third dimension either (if you're desperate to give it a go, see it in good old 2D!) You'd be forgiven for not knowing that 'Man of Steel' was in fact directed by Zack Snyder, even though it is visually brilliant, but not groundbreaking. If you want a superhero film for 2013, you're best off giving Robert Downey Jr. your attention. 'Man of Steel' unfortunately feels as if Nolan has tried to turn 'Superman' into 'Batman'. It wants to be 'Batman Begins'. But after trying so hard, 'Batman' is still conclusively the superman of the DC Universe. 

* *  ½