Doctor Who: The Movie

So, in the world of the nation's favourite Time Lord, we've had some big news this week - namely, that some chap who has done some stuff with the Harry Potter franchise (a film series that leaves me utterly cold) is going to spend the next three years or so creating a Doctor Who film with a former producer of the show. Great news, right?

My response would be a very circumspect "hmmmmm". Now, it is true that Doctor Who has had two feature films that stand outside of what some people call the Whoniverse (terrible word, obviously) and they work rather well. They are fast-moving, they are exciting and they have a certain charm. But they aren't demanding, and they are simply rehashes of TV stories. It seems that the movie proposed this week will be a rather different proposition.

Which is my big problem with it. It seems to be trying to reboot the whole of the Doctor Who universe. Now, reboots can and do work. But they tend to work best when the original show/franchise has run out of steam. When it has ceased to be popular. When a fresh burst of creative energy is needed to make the whole thing a viable proposition again. And Doctor Who does not need that. Quite fundamentally, it has been firing on all cylinders since it returned in 2005. Arguably, it has never been as consistently involving and striking as the last season. So there is absolutely no need to reboot it and, let's be honest, it doesn't seem likely that there will be a need within the next three years. So a movie completely detached from the ongoing and growing continuity of the show is completely unnecessary. In fact, it is arguably going to damage the TV show as people might see the movie as more important than that lil ol' show on Saturday evenings. If it happens, it could come to dominate and overpower a TV show in its prime. Which would be a crushing shame.

But that's the other point to make here - if the movie happens. There have been numerous talks about Doctor Who films over the years, especially during the wilderness years between 1989 and the TV movie of 1996. And they all came to nothing. So you'll have to forgive me if I question whether this movie will even take place. But if it does, then I really worry about the impact it will have on a TV show that is going from strength to strength. When I see the director talking about how the show needs a radical change, I can't help but this that he is completely and totally wrong. And probably needs to bugger off and actually watch the show he's doing to start mauling for no reason.

But we'll see. As a wise man once said, time will tell. It always does.

Paranormal Activity 3

Let's be honest about it, Paranormal Activity 2  - or Paranormal Inactivity as I prefer to call it - was poor. As any horror movie that focuses on spooky goings on involving a pool cleaner for much of the first third of its run time would inevitably be. It felt like a tired, overlong re-run of the far more effective first outing for what is now a film franchise. Therefore, the idea of Paranormal Activity 3 did not sound desperately appealing to me. Fortunately, the makers of that film - who also made the impressive mockumentary Catfish - worked out what they needed to do to get the franchise back on track. And they do it in two ways.

Firstly, they don't slavishly follow the original, but instead play with the audience's expectations. So rather than this all happening concurrently with the original film (as the first sequel sort of tried to do), PA3 is a genuine prequel. And that helps to create some fun with the format. Aside from the (at times OTT) eighties references, the film has to cope with the fact that technology was not as advanced in the eighties, so documenting a demonic haunting would not have been as easy as it is in that day and age. This leads to a lot of improvisation - including using a fan-mounted video camera, which in turn leads to some of the movie's most effective moments.

It also introduces ideas such as the demonic force not being the sole evil force with this movie - something perhaps forced on it by the "revelation" in the previous film about the cause of the demonic haunting, but also a hand it plays well. And it also bucks the trend of having the leading male character being a dick by having a genuinely likable protagonist in Dennis. It becomes far easier to watch a film - and care about the character's eventual brutal fate - if he is basically likable rather than a bit of a dick.

But above all it remembers to be scary. It does this simultaneously by offering cheap scares based on the characters' awareness of the cameras (the babysitter disappearing and then jumping out at the camera) but also by offering some genuine chills and some truly stressful scenes - in particular, the "bloody Mary" sequences followed by the child's chair been kicked across the bedroom or the moment when the ghost/demon cleans the kitchen, only to bring it all crashing down again. The film knows it needs to up the ante in terms of the scares and the same time as confound expectations; it manages to do both.

As with everything, it isn't flawless. Indeed, there are a couple of moments when I positively winced - such as when the camera recorded the dust falling on the demon in the aftermath of an earthquake. And the ever-present problems of the found footage genre were there (why are you still filming this? Why the hell do you have the foresight to record this stuff but not to turn on the fucking lights when something goes bang in the night?) However, overall, this was exactly what it should be - a clever, occasionally scary and witty horror film that can make you jump. If you want more than that, then look elsewhere. But if you want more than that, seeking out the third installment of a horror franchise is the wrong place to start.

The Last Exorcism

In many respects, an anti-climatic film is much worse than a purely poor one. With a shit film you know it isn’t going to get any better. With an anti-climatic one, you end up expecting great things, only to be bitterly disappointed by the denouement. And that’s precisely what happens with The Last Exorcism.

It stars, as so many found footage movies do, with a bit of scene-setting. The protagonist – whose name escapes me despite only having seen the film less than 24 hours ago – is a priest who has done a lot of fake exorcisms. He is making a documentary to show how he fakes them, since he has lost his faith and wants to warn others about the dangers of exorcisms. So he duly selects one supposed victim of possession, and goes off to make his film.

From that point, the film does a great deal of good work slowly building up the tension. It refuses to commit to whether the possessed girl is actually harbouring a demon or having a psychotic breakdown. Furthermore, it hints at incest and parental abuse, further muddying the waters about the cause of this possession. Despite his best efforts, the ersatz exorcist finds himself caught up in the mystery.

Sure, it isn’t flawless – it certainly falls foul of the “why don’t you just call the police?” objection, particularly after the face-cutting/pregnancy revelation. Furthermore, the cat killing scene doesn’t work, and the way it is realised comes across as pretty amateurish. But the film has a carefully crafted ambiguity to it, and a strong central performance for the actor playing the “possessed” girl. It holds your interest – which is no mean feat for a modern horror movie.

Until the end, when it takes all that has been good about this film and spunks it away with an ending that combines The Blair Witch Project, The Wicker Man and Cannibal Holocaust without capturing any of the magic of any of those film endings. Seriously, it is like they just gave up. And as a result, it renders the whole film a spectacular waste of time. Unless, of course, you don’t watch, say, the final 10 minutes of the film.

And actually that’s probably my advice to anyone wanting to watch this film – if you do so, turn off after about one hour fifteen minutes and write your own ending. Seriously, it can’t be any worse than the ones the film-makers came up with...

Iron Man 2

There’s a tendency to lump all superhero movies together into one genre. Let me just say that to do so is utter bollocks. Don’t believe me? Well, just compare Iron Man 2 with The Dark Knight. Both have superficial similarities; sequels to successful films, these feature millionaire superheroes fighting bad guys who in some way resemble corrupted versions of themselves. But in terms of tone and style, the two films could not be more different. The Dark Knight is a dark film about escalating violence, and takes on elements of a Greek tragedy. Iron Man 2 is a glib, tongue-in-cheek two hour soft-porn film for technophiles. It is also interesting to contrast the two central characters – Bruce Wayne behaves like a dick to hide his alter-ego and protect his friends and loved ones. Tony Stark, however, behaves like a dick because, basically, he’s a dick.

But enough of that comparison; let’s talk Iron Man 2. What’s it like? Well, it is as if Favreau and his production team decided that the template for Pierce Brosnan Bond movies was a winner, and decided to carry on that franchise using Tony Stark instead. Consequently, you get a fun, brash, silly film with an engaging but often irritating central character. Downey Jr clearly has fun in these movies, and who can blame him? It is just a chance for him to strut around pretending he is king of the world.

And don’t talk to me about darkness in the film. Yes, Stark has health problems and Stark gets drunk and behaves like a fool. But that’s hardly ground-breaking and gritty, is it? And yes, there is character development – if you can call it that. Pepper Potts (unconvincingly) changes from being completely wet in the first film to a brusque businesswoman who has almost a maternal attitude to Stark. Her transformation isn’t about developing her character; it’s about giving Stark some sort of a foil to point out how annoying he is.

Then there’s Mickey Rourke’s performance as Vanko. Sure, he’s intense, and he gives a restrained, subtle performance in a role just crying out to be camped up. But seriously, he’s in the wrong sort of film for that performance. His character, and his character’s family, run through every cliché possible of a Russian villain, and his character’s actions in the film (like attacking a Grand Prix, for fuck’s sake) are hardly the actions of a thoughtful man. Watching Rourke in this film is like watching a gourmet chef try to make a decent meal out of a Big Mac. It ain’t ever gonna happen.

No doubt there will be Iron Man 3 - and the franchise could run and run as long as Downey Jr (given every other actor in the series is immediately replaceable) is up for it and as long as people keep on watching. And yeah, this is enjoyable nonsense – which I pretty much think is exactly what the producers and directors wished to achieve. But I find it quite telling that throughout the film, the DVD I had from LoveFilm kept on skipping (which is happening a lot, actually. Come on, LoveFilm, sort it out). Yet despite missing several scenes and the dialogue that ended the film, I really didn’t feel I missed out. Which, I suppose, is both the benefit and the potential flaw of this film; they are the very definition of non-essential. And this may well cause the franchise problems when it starts to come up against real opposition at the Box Office.

Movies Of The Year

Thinking about this year at the movies, I’m struck by just how uninspiring it has been. There has been very little to actually coax me from the comfort of my sofa into the cinemas. Part of the problem is the prevalence of remakes and sequels – while I’m interested in such films as Iron Man 2 and Paranormal Activity 2, I’m not interested enough to schlep all the way to the cinema, queue for aeons and then pay cinema prices to see them when I could pay a fraction of that and watch them via LoveFilm in the comfort of my own home. The same goes for something like the movie version of The A-Team. There is also the ongoing problem of the length of modern movies – there seems to be a temptation (which I blame completely on the tedious Lord of the Rings franchise) to try to make a movie seem epic by giving it an epic run time. I mean, does anyone really believe that Shutter Island needed to be as long as it was?

Yet two films do stand out to me this year, and while they are very different in content, style, budget and profile, they have one thing in common – intelligence. The first is Christopher Nolan’s Inception - a movie that takes larking about in people’s dreams and makes it into compelling viewing. There are two main reasons why this movie works – firstly, it is visually stunning. As a director, Nolan shuns CGI as much as possible, and we can see in this movie that really paying off. Nolan messes with reality, but the effects he uses to achieve this are given a more tangible quality by not being simply done on a computer. Yet despite being an effects heavy fantasy movie, Inception deals with complicated themes in a subtle, yet clear, way. Freud is a clear spectre in the film, and it is as much about psychoanalysis and the burying of painful emotions as it is simply about dreams. Crucially, it makes you think about dreams and how we respond to them. And that’s no mean feat for a film designed to be a blockbuster.

The other film that really stands out to me this year was Precious. Unlike Inception, this picture is very much based in reality – and the grim reality of abject poverty in America. Crucially, the film doesn’t pull any punches – it shows abuse (including a terrible example involving a newborn baby), welfare dependency, incest and discrimination in such a way that demonstrates the drama without slipping into melodrama. Parts of the film are very difficult to watch – but, then again, they have to be. To fully demonstrate the reality of Precious’s world, there has to be a realistic depiction of her nightmarish parents, the general debilitating impact on people of abject poverty and the inability of those tasked to help people like Precious to do so effectively. There are no easy solutions offered here, and as a result the film is innately political in away that many overtly political films are not.

So the two films that really made an impression on me are very different, yet they engage with the viewer’s intellect, and as such are worth actually going to the cinema for. And this is something that, in the era of 3D and endless remakes, the best filmmakers should bear in mind – if you want to make a film that genuinely stands out from the crowd, then you should try to make it intelligent.

RIP Dino De Laurentiis

As a producer, he was just as capable of making absolute rubbish as he was making works of genius, but his name is on many striking films that the Hollywood mainstream would not have touched. His impact on the career of David Lynch would be reason enough to celebrate his life and career; the fact is that there is much more to him than that is a testament to just what he managed to achieve during his life.

RIP indeed.

5 films to watch on Halloween

Let's be clear about this - the following five horror movies are not the best horror movies of all time. You could find better horror movies to watch on Halloween (if you are so inclined). But these films - as disparate as they might at first appear - are thematically linked. And I find the theme linking them fascinating and they all contain something that makes a horror film at least unsettling, if not properly chilling.

And it is fair to say that there are spoilers ahead.

First up, with have The Omen. A film notorious for its increasingly inventive death scenes (something that would come to dominate the franchise), the film includes the impaling of a former Doctor Who and the decapitation of a key character. It is also a masterwork in faux pomposity, even down to inventing a poem from the Bible to add credence to its really rather ludicrous story. Yet the reason why this film remains credible in my eyes has nothing to do with the fancy deaths or the admirable efforts by all concerned to play their roles with a straight face despite some of the outlandish scenarios and the wince-inducing dialogue. At the heart of this film there is a force so powerful, and so unstoppable, that as soon as you come into conflict with its malign intentions it kills you. You can't run; it will find you and despatch you. The Exorcist may have had the spinal tap sequence, the vomiting, the weird nightmares and the aggressive demon, but in the end the Church saves the day and the little girl is Ok. Contrast this with the ending to The Omen - the heroes are all dead and the demon child is now with the President of the United States of America. All the efforts of those on the side of the good were for naught - evil wins.

Which is also true in Paranormal Activity. Of course, this film doesn't have spectacular death scenes. It didn't have the money to film such things. Instead, what it does have is an unstoppable force that, despite the best efforts of the couple at the centre of the film (which are a lot more credible than those in The Omen but just as ineffective), is always going to win. And in a sense, the demon in Paranormal Activity is than the satanic forces at play in The Omen. See, in The Omen people die when they try to interfere with the progress of the antichrist. In Paranormal Activity the main characters have done nothing to warrant the haunting and the eventual death/possession. The demon is just fucking with them because it can. It is a chilling concept - something far more malign and powerful than you decides to terrify, stalk, attack and then possess you and kill your lover. In fact, that force - given it is invisible - might even be in the room with you now... but that's enough of that.

You could argue that the students in The Blair Witch Project have done something to invoke the witch's wrath - although the witch's revenge does seem a little excessive for the "crime" of simply shooting a documentary on her manor. Nonetheless, The Blair Witch Project fits in with our theme, as the trio of would-be documentary makers end up at the mercy of an unseen, malevolent force determined to stalk, terrify, and then remove them from the face of the earth. True, some people don't rate The Blair Witch Project but for me it works because it makes its main characters so helpless. To a large extent it is a claustrophobic film despite being filmed in the open air, because the power of the witch is such that she manages to make the forest into a prison that the protagonists just cannot escape from. The fact that the witch - like the demon in Paranormal Activity - is unseen merely adds to the feeling that the power of the supernatural element in the film is massive.

You can see who the source of evil is in The Medusa Touch - he's played by Richard Burton and everything. But this underrated, clever little film slowly chips away at the methodical, orderly approach taken by the police investigating an attempted murder and shows the awesome power in the mind of the antagonist. This is a man who makes Carrie White look tame - he has the power to destroy space missions, to make planes crash into buildings and - in the climax of the film - "bring the whole edifice down on their unworthy heads" as he destroys a Westminster Abbey filled with the ruling elite. The fact that the police managed to save some from the disaster is a pyrrhic victory; the final scene shows that the human monster has another - potentially must more devastating - target in mind. And he is still able to attack despite having been beaten into a bloody pulp and having been ripped off a life support machine. Such is the level of his misanthropy that effectively being killed will not stop the carnage.

You can also see the menace in the remake of Dawn of the Dead - although in this case it is not one man, but a whole world suddenly filled with cannibalistic zombie maniacs. The premise is not a million miles away from most zombie films - if you go outside, someone's going to bite off your face. But where this version of Dawn of the Dead succeeds is in making the situation in which the characters find themselves so utterly hopeless. The female lead only survives the initial outbreak through blind luck, and the mall that provides a brief respite is also located mainly through luck. When the group do try to do something to better their situation, it tends to go badly wrong. Trying to make things better in this film comes with a hefty body count. And this film does what surprisingly few zombie films are prepared to do - it ends with a clear indication (if you watch through the credits) that there is no option of sailing off happily into the sunset - in fact, the end of humanity is here, crushed under the weight of a world of zombies, and there is no hope.

Which is what makes all five films so striking - the evil/malign forces at play in each film are so powerful that the humans in the films are rendered helpless in the face of those forces. It doesn't matter whether it is satanic forces, or a demon/witch or a world full of zombies, whatever you do against them, you will fail and they will ultimately destroy you. Films like this strike at one of the fundamental (yet often false) assumptions many people have - that you are in control of what happens to you. These films depict far more powerful forces rendering individuals helpless even over questions of their own survival. And on so many levels, that is true horror for a good many people.

Enjoy your Halloween!

[REC] 2

At last! At last! A decent horror movie. One that meets expectations and delivers on what it promises. And given it is a sequel, that is no mean feat – particularly in an era when most "original" horror movies struggle to be good.

[REC] 2 is a great horror movie. It delivers a strong combination of scary moments and tight plotting and in doing so manages, just as the original did, an environment of constant stress. The pressure doesn’t let up for a second – this is about survival, just as the original was, but the stakes have been raised this time. It isn’t just about the survival of the characters – the implications of what is happening in the apartment block extend well beyond the barriers of the quarantine.

Indeed, the fact that the stakes have been raised is crucial to the success of this sequel. While it is true to the original, it develops the ideas of its predecessor rather than just repeating it. This is no longer about zombies and the authorities trying to contain it – there is something much more satanic going on. And there are new ideas as well, such as the things that can only be seen in the dark. It is a development of the original, not a rehash – and it bodes well for the films yet to come.

It even manages to have a complex plot, that tells a complex and developing story in a non-linear format. Events are shown in a non-sequential way to give different perspectives on the mounting crisis, and a crucial scene from the first film is revisited in such a way to completely change the scope of this story. This is ambitious story-telling for any genre – let alone the sequel to a Spanish zombie movie.

Is it perfect? Well, no. It suffers slightly from over-exposure in the story – part of the success of [REC] was that it was ambiguous as to what was going on. Fleshing out the story has, inevitably, limited a lot of that ambiguity. So the story is now reliant on how you feel about demonic possession as a credible idea in horror movies – personally, I think it works quite well, but some may not like the explicitly religious overtones of the film. Yet this is a small gripe. This is a convincing, well-told and genuinely unnerving movie. It comes highly recommended – something that I don’t often say about modern horror movies.

5 movies that...

...are not that well-known, but absolute gems.

5. Office Space: A silly comedy that can be enjoyed by anyone who has done a soulless office job. The insanity of office bureaucracy, the minor irritations of an office that become overwhelming and the sheer thoughtlessness of an unthinking management class are all mocked in this film. Furthermore, it also shows the idiocy of much of what passes for management consultancy, and how the right buzzwords can make up for an absolute lack of talent or business acumen. Plus, it gleefully and openly steals an idea from Superman III - a really nice touch as far as I am concerned.

4. Monkey Shines: Ok, this sounds more than a little silly - a paraplegic gets a helper monkey with whom he has a psychic link. And said monkey acts on said paraplegic occasional murderous rages. But the film is actually filmed in a gritty and realistic way, and has some moments of real tension. The climax in particular is a strikingly well-made piece of cinema - as the paraplegic tries to stop his monkey's killing spree despite not being able to move. His ultimate solution to the problem is simultaneously creative and grim.

Oh, and if you ever wanted to know how a paraplegic could have sex with a woman, this film will show you...

3. Zero Day: Two gawky, awkward teenagers are making a film about their lives. They are basically the losers at their local school, unpopular and seemingly isolated except for their friendship. However, it quickly becomes apparent that they are making the film for a reason - it is their testament to the world, designed to be seen after they die; after they have gone on a killing spree.

The film details their preparations for their attack, mixing the domestic with the chilling. Perhaps most strikingly, it manages to make the two protagonists appear as calm and reasonable people - no mean feat given what they are planning. And then you get the final ten or so minutes of the film: footage from the security camera in the school cafeteria, as they put their plan into action.

Remorseless and chilling; rather like the actions that end this film.

2. Halloween III: Season of the Witch: It doesn't have a witch in it, and nor does it have Michael Myers - which is why it sank at the box office. But this is a true undiscovered classic. It is a clever, unsettling and with some real moments of (non-gratuitous) horror. Sure, elements of the story are a bit ball-sack (the theft of Stonehenge, for example, is a part of the story that just does not need to be there), but it is the sort of film that becomes more and more compelling right up until the final scenes, which represent a desperate race against time to prevent a national catastrophe.

Plus, it has a catchy and deeply irritating song in it for the mask adverts. Altogether now: "happy, happy halloween, halloween, halloween, happy, happy halloween Silver Shamrock."

1. Requiem for a Dream: Whereas other films about drug addiction either make it so bleak that the film becomes almost unwatchable (see the compelling but incredibly Christiane F) or make it look at bit cool in a glib way (yes, Trainspotting, I'm talking about you), Requiem for a Dream is a stylishly directed film with a well-paced plot that doesn't pull its punches when it comes to the reality of addiction. Crucially, this isn't just about illegal drugs - it shows what happens when someone becomes addicted to legal diet pills as well. It is a claustrophobic, well-directed movie with a brilliant soundtrack - it is the sort of movie that stays with you long after the end credits have stopped rolling.

Any additions, well, you know where the comments section is.

5 movies that...

...are massively overrated. The first in an occasional series where I write (what I hope to be) controversial stuff about movies. In this installment, let's look at five of the films that are generally regarded as classics but leave me colder than an ice-cream in the Artic. First up:

5: The Godfather: Very well made, and with a sense of reality often missing from the many mob movies that followed. The big problem with it is that it is boring. And not just a bit boring:really boring. And that is pretty much it. It basically consists of Al Pacino looking intense and Marlon Brando mumbling like a stroke victim. I whooped when Brando's character died - if only because I assumed that the film must nearly be over. More fool me...

4: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings: Fuck me, this was a massive anti-climax when I first saw it. I'd read the books when I was a teenager and loved them. The radio series was even better - it transported me to Middle Earth. Then came the film... where Middle Earth was a barely civilised version of rural Wales filled with earnest over-actors trying to be gritty as they protect eminently punchable actors playing irritating hobbits. But what was worst of all was that this film showed me just how bad the original novel was. It can literally be broken down to "walk-fight-walk-fight-walk-fight-walk-fight" until the novel (and the faithful film adaptation) had gone on for long enough to appear to be an epic - if only because everyone was too numb to claim otherwise.

Oh, and don't tell me that the series got better. I've seen The Return of the King and its endless bloody ending. I hate it more that the first film in the series, but by that time I didn't expect to enjoy the films in this trilogy. It was the first film that crushed my expectations.

3: The Blues Brothers: I think I know how this film was written - through people sat in a room, with some decent-ish music in the background, snorting coke, drinking beer and saying "wouldn't it be cool if..." The end result? A cold, clinical movie that should be funny, but ends up just, barely functional. As an action movie it fails to be breath-taking - it has car crashes and little else - and as a comedy, it fails to be amusing. It is a lot like that person everyone knows who is able to take a funny joke, retell it, and rob it of everything that made it a good joke. I genuinely think that this film is the first manufactured (as in "we're going to tick every box to make this film successful" as opposed to "Jeez, I hope this works") "blockbuster", and is as soulless as many of those fabricated blockbusters that have followed in its stead have been.

And you want to know why people still like this anodyne, bland film? Because they don't like the film - they like the (admittedly not bad) soundtrack. Sit them in front of the film, and they get restive and start talking about the music. If you sat them in front of a version of the film without the soundtrack, then they would get bored, angry and resentful. Which is how I feel when people eulogise about this movie. Or when they try to get me to watch it.

2: Leaving Las Vegas: I do believe that any film starring Nicholas Cage has a 99% chance of being total crap. This film would be a classic example of that, but - unfathomably - seems to have been a Cage picture that has won critical acclaim. And I really don't know why. My only guess is that it makes people feel uncomfortable, and therefore they assume it must be worthy. They're wrong, of course. It is just shite.

A self-indulgent drunk goes to Las Vegas to drink himself to death, and meets a prostitute. They strike up some sort of relationship - as good a relationship as two maladjusted oddballs can do. The drunk fucks it up, then dies - with his prostitute friend fucking him as he does so. Few acclaimed films have a sense of de facto necrophilia in them, but that is what is happening in the final scene between the drunk and the prostitute.

I dare say that if you live a cloistered, unthreatening middle class life then there is something groundbreaking about Leaving Las Vegas. However, you should probably come and watch the winos in the park opposite my flat as they go on their morbidly focussed booze journeys. The show is free to watch, if you are so inclined, and also has the added benefit that it doesn't involve Nicholas Cage.

1: Star Wars IV: A New Hope: Oh, don't get me wrong, I can sit through this one - in fact, I find it far easier to do so than any of the others in this list. But what I cannot stomach is the level of applause this movie has got and continues to get. I must be missing the point somewhere, because as far as I can see this is just a well-realised romp in space. It isn't the greatest film ever made, or a genuine work of art, or the creation of another world in film. It is just a sci-fi adventure film with above average special effects. It is a good film. It is entertaining. But I'd argue it is a real stretch, based largely on nostalgia and an undeserved reputation, to say it is anything more than that.

So go ahead - agree, disagree, offer alternatives in the comments section, my people!

The New Spiderman

New decade, new Spiderman:

British actor Andrew Garfield is to play comic book superhero Spider-Man in the next outing of the film series, it has been announced.

Hmmm. I’m not going to comment on whether or not I think Garfield is a good choice as Spiderman – after all, I was very circumspect about both the casting of both David Tennant and Matt Smith as the Doctor, and I was wrong about both of them. However, I can’t help but feel that the replacement of both the star and the director of a film franchise if often not a sign of rude health for that franchise. Particularly if that franchise is about a superhero.

Furthermore, the success of the Spiderman films to date has, to a very large extent, been down to the star and the director. To lose them would be a little bit like the sequel to The Dark Knight starring someone other than Bale as Batman, and with a different director to Nolan.

Yet… yet it would take a lot to argue that Spiderman 3 was anything other than a disappointment. Raimi threw plotting out the window in favour of set-pieces showing of the latest Visual FX, while Tobey Macguire looked like a smug, puffy-faced Peter Parker and seemed incapable of playing the more malign version of the hero required by the film. And since this film – which is looking at the formative years of Parker – appears to be an almost necessary reboot, perhaps it is the best thing for the franchise.

For fans of the series, I guess we have to cross our fingers and hope that this is the Spiderman equivalent of Batman Begins rather than Batman Forever…

Moon

A sci-fi film dealing with a remote base harvesting vital minerals on another world may not seem to be a particularly original idea. Particularly when you throw a super-computer with a calm voice and various spooky goings-on into the mix. And while you could be forgiven for thinking that you have seen the crucial plot elements of the film Moon before, it is still worth a watch if only because it takes those well-rehearsed plot elements and manages to do something interesting, if not quite original, with them.

Sure, Moon is derivative, but that has been a problem for science fiction for a long time. You can certainly argue that Moon owes a hefty debt, in terms of scenario, construction and mood to a film like Solaris. Yet Moon acknowledges these debts by undermining the expectations created by its inspirations. The uncertainty comes from multiple representations of the same person, and the computer is far from the insane, murderous type depicted in 2001: A Space Odyssey: instead, it shows itself to be absolutely in keeping with its programming, by saving the man/men it was meant to look after, rather than following the malign directives of the company that created it.

Moon also manages to drag a decent performance out of Sam Rockwell - an actor I have very little time for, and who managed to destroy the already flawed film adaptation of Choke. Sure, Rockwell can't help but look smug in some scenes (although God knows why, since he is hardly blessed in the looks department), but he does manage to create a couple of clones who are clearly aspects of the same personality, but who have distinct characters based on their differing knowledge of the situation their facing. As a result, his performance comes across as subtle and clever.

Which would be a good description of the film as a whole - subtle and clever. This isn't the sort of sci-fi where sweating marines run around with stupidly large guns blasting the hell out of some sort of alien menace. Rather, it is a creepy, unsettling vision of a far-from-perfect future. The film's success lies in its ability to take familiar sci-fi trappings, and turn it into an interesting and though-provoking story. A great example of a film taking a far from inspirational premise and turning it into something that definitely rewards viewing.

Mr Eugenides has located this frankly superb review* of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. It sums up perfectly why this film killed the whole franchise (that I previously thought was quite diverting) for me. And also why Star Wars: The Phantom Menace remains the only film I have ever fallen asleep watching. In the cinema, anyway. Yep, Transformers was, without doubt, a shitter movie, but at least it was loud and bright. Which, if nothing else, kept me awake (and made me want to drink a lot of whisky after the end credits rolled). Star Wars: The Phantom Menace just reminded me that when you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back at you.

*The fact that it is done in the manner of some sort of violent serial killer doesn't negate the validity of the points raised. That much...

Long Weekend

Obscure horror films can be great finds. Those movies that don’t make it mainstream for whatever the reason (normally not being commercial enough) are often the creepiest, most imaginative entries in the genre. Of course there would be another reason why they are obscure – because they are shit. That’s the danger with watching a movie that few people know about.

Long Weekend - an Australian horror movie in which a couple are stalked by mother nature herself – is an odd combination of the two. It has some very, very creepy moments. The dead sea cow creeping up the beach unseen, the paths that lead round and round in circles, the feral dog in the tent, and the camper van floating under the crystal clear sea water are all wonderfully spooky ideas. And overall, the theme of the movie is that there is an awesome power toying with the two humans, just waiting to destroy them. Whatever the couple choose to do, they can’t escape. They were never going to. From the moment they arrived on the beach that the locals swore blind didn’t exist, they were doomed. It is horrific because it is all so inescapable.

The reasoning as to why the two face the wrath of nature is dealt with in a little bit of a heavy handed way in the film, but there can be no doubt that these two are crass when it comes to dealing with nature. They are destructive forces. They litter, they kill, they vandalise. The man has a tendency to shoot at nothing, and shoots in fear – something that later costs his wife dearly. They wipe out a substantial number of animals through carelessness, out of rage and just for the hell of it. As I say, it is dealt with in a terribly unsubtle way in the film, but it is easy to see why Nature might dislike this pair so much.

But that is the problem with the film. The couple at the centre of it are so unpleasant – to each other, to Nature, to just about everything – that it is difficult to have any sympathy with them whatsoever. At points in the film, the malign actions of Mother Nature are almost a blessed relief from the endless fucking sniping between the two leads. It isn’t even a case of one of them being in the wrong – they both are deeply unpleasant, selfish people. As a result, it is a little difficult to care when either one of them meets their untimely ends.

Long Weekend has some fantastic ideas in it, and works really well in places. It is also well-directed and, often, a strikingly beautiful film. Yet it could work so much more if the two leads weren’t so unbearable. It is a vital rule in the successful horror movie that the viewer should care about those under threat. And unfortunately, this is where Lost Weekend fails so badly.

Star Trek

Last Friday, I went to see the movie of the moment: Star Trek. Despite being an out and out geek, I'm not a big fan of Star Trek. I've seen a few of the big screen adaptations of Star Trek before now, and they tend to leave me cold. My personal *favourite* is Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Not because it is any good (it isn't), but a film about portly TV stars standing around in the pajamas talking about something called V'ger endlessly makes me laugh. Of course, it makes me laugh for about two minutes, then I get bored. Which is a real shame, because that film goes on for a lot longer than two minutes, without ever picking up the pace. In fact, if that film was any more slow moving, I think that the cast and crew would have had to retire (again) before the final reel. Mercifully, this new version of Star Trek wasn't like that.

It zipped along quickly, and never really required too much concentration. It didn't take itself too seriously, and accepted it was a sci-fi film that ultimately boils down to the good guys whupping the arses of the bad guys. There was none of the endless, trite moralising that - for me - makes so much of Star Trek unwatchable. 

Plus, the two lead characters - Kirk and Spock - were actually interesting to watch. Spock was an angry, anal character - determined to be cold and logical, whilst actually being far more emotional that he wanted to let on. Kirk, in this film, was hilarious to watch - he really was a grade-A cockbag, who manages to get up to being Captain despite being a violent, drunken stowaway with a serious attitude problem.

The film also did some work to tie it in with the continuity of the original series, and the concept of parallel universes (as well as giving an explanation for the presence of Leonard Nimoy) made sure that no-one could complain that it was departing from the original series - the very point of the story meant that the continuity of the film had to depart from the continuity of the series. Plus, there were concessions to people like myself who don't much care about the continuity of it all, but want to see the cliches up there on the big screen. And we had them - the red shirt dying on a mission to Vulcan, Kirk copping off with a green skinned woman and the various catchphrases.

It wasn't perfect; no film is. Scotty was underused - and quite why Simon Pegg would allow himself a Jar Jar Binks style side-kick is beyond me. Chekov was a complete cliche, right down to the godawful accent, and it was a little too much to tell us about the childhoods of Kirk and Spock. There is probably a market for Star Trek: The Difficult Teenage Years but I'm not sure whether it was best placed in this film. 

Yet for me it was a triumph - it was a great Friday night, Hollywood blockbuster. And as such, it was a perfect evocation of the original series. Yeah, some fans will attack the irreverence of this movie, but they forget that - for all of its messages of inclusion and peace - the original series of Star Trek was also about entertaining people. After all, this is the series that gave us The Trouble With Tribbles...

Watchmen. THE Review.

Watchmen.

So I watched it. No pun intended. In fact I watched it at the IMAX near Waterloo. I'd never been there before, despite repeated attempts to find a decent time to watch The Dark Knight there. And it was pretty spectacular - well worth a visit if you've never been there. 

And in fairness, the film was not bad at all. In fact, had I not read the novel, then I would think that it was a pretty bloody awesome. It has a real epic sway to it, and look stunning. The visual effects (and this was always going to be a FX heavy film) were grand - without ever becoming obtrusive. It was impressive, it really was.

Of course, most people will have caught the caveat in the above paragraph. "Had I not read the novel..." I have read the novel. Many times. I think it is a stunning piece of writing, and great novel in its own right. It is also a detailed, intricate piece of work that needs to be re-read and continuously digested. Simple it ain't. And like many highly complex and detailed novels, it will always be difficult to put it up on the big screen. 

The film does try. Visually, it is very close to the source material. There are no real compromises with the costumes, and many of the frames of the original comic are recreated 100% on the screen. It looks like a labour of love, and the picture exudes a real desire to be faithful - if not reverential - to the graphic novel. This also applies to the script. It sounds like comic book, with pieces of dialogue lifted directed from the panels of the original. It even recreates the more obscure elements of the novel, such as the ongoing Nixon Presidency. The film also recreates the 1980's realistically - almost to the point of being utterly anal about it. The director, and everyone else in the film, clearly wanted to be faithful to the original, and also wanted to make the legions of Watchmen. 

Which, for me, is at the nub of the problem. The film tries to faithfully reproduce a novel that is far to broad and deep for the confines of a commercially released film. You just can't do it justice, even within the vast run time of this picture. Reviewing the film in my mind, it becomes clear that it felt like a hurried, rushed reproduction of the graphic novel. A photocopy of the comic. And like all photocopies, it loses something in the reproduction.

One of the joys of the graphic novel is the level of detail within it. It is a non-linear story that truly fits together like a jigsaw - a jigsaw where the pieces are revealed over a long period of time. The characters are all rounded, complete and flawed people. Even the minor players have back stories. And whilst the film gamely tries to reproduce all this on the silver screen, it fails. And instead we are left with characters who don't quite add up, and a plot that manages to simultaneously seem hurried yet dragged out. The film feels like a half-remembered dream - the dream, of course, being the original graphic novel.

To do the story - and the whole concept - justice, you simply need a longer run time. And I'm talking about six to eight hours, at least. So I think that Watchmen should have been produced as a mini-series. Done by someone like HBO, with a real sense that this is an important story that should be told. With a more sedate pace throughout the film/series, and with a real chance to let everything evolve as it does in the graphic novel, the ending would become so much more compelling. And we would have cared about all the characters by the end, regardless of their flaws. I see the source material as a "slow burner" - and this is something that needed to be reflected in the screen adaptation. Of course, with a Hollywood action movie, that just couldn't happen.

The alternative is to take the basic ideas in Watchmen, mix them up, and make something recognisable but new with them. This idea would of course be complete sacrilege to legions of Watchmen fans out there, but with a simpler plot and fewer characters, you might actually end up with a far superior film. There is nothing wrong with taking the sentiments of a comic or a novel and moulding them into something more suitable for the Big Screen. It worked very well in Spiderman, The Dark Knight and Iron Man. Likewise, with novels like The Shining. Part of the problem with Watchmen was that is tried to change the medium of the story without really thinking what was the best way to represent the film within the both liberating and constricting confines of a live action film. 

Of course, you can level the charge that pretty much the whole of this review represents the rambling of a fanboy who wouldn't be happy if he had directed, written and played every single part in this film, and to some extent that is very true. And I'm not saying Watchmen is in anyway a bad film - quite the opposite in fact. It is probably the best Alan Moore adaptation I have ever seen (although this is damning with faint praise). But part of me feels that it could - and should - of been far more than it was. 

In summary, go see the film - it will be a worthwhile investment of both your time and money. But read the graphic novel first, because that is the true classic. And if you have a choice between reading the book and watching the film, I'd definitely do the former. 

Going to see "Watchmen" Tonight

And as a result I find myself in a state of what is referred to as "anticipointment" In Russell T Davies' wonderful The Writer's Tale. See, I'm looking forward to seeing the film. I have been a fan of the original source material for the best part of a decade now. I think the director's remake of Dawn of the Dead was original and outstanding, especially coming in an era when remaking a horror film seems to be an excuse to produce dross. But whilst I'm looking forward to the film, I'm also aware that I will probably walk away disappointed. 

After all, there has never been a good adaptation of an Alan Moore film. The best ones, the likes of V For Vendetta and From Hell are lightweight, ersatz representations of the genius of Moore's original comic books. The worst ones - stand up The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - sound so bad that I cannot actually bring myself to watch them. So I kind of know that no matter how good the film is, I'll still end up disappointed by it.

Hence "anticipointment." But we'll see. And for anyone who cares, I may publish a review of it over the weekend. That's assuming that it isn't so shit that I can't bring myself to think about it though...

The Oscars

*Yawns*

I've never really seen the point of the Oscars. Yeah, there are some excellent films out there, but they are celebrated through good box office returns and great reviews. Does there really need to be a ceremony to hand out gold statues to those films and performers that are (somewhat arbitrarily) deemed to be the best?

And why does the media in this country get so excited when a British film manages to win anything? Slumdog Millionaire could be a great film for all I know, but was Danny Boyle really the best director of last year? To my mind, any director would struggle to beat the technical accomplishment of Christopher Nolan for The Dark Knight.

Also, I'd like to have seen Mickey Rourke take Best Actor, because his performance in The Wrestler was outstanding. But again, maybe Penn did deserve to win. I don't know, I've not caught Milk as yet.

But this is the real point. I agree with some of the Oscar awards (Heath Ledger's, for example) whilst disagreeing with others. But I don't care enough to properly protest any of the choices. Ultimately, the Oscars represent Hollywood at it's most self-regarding. Good luck to 'em, but it all leaves me a little cold. 

The Next Superman Movie

The options from a poll in The Times* about a new Superman movie is worth looking at, (especially if you are a comic book geek like me). If only because the options are so awful.


Just let the big guy rest a while. No Superman movie for a few years.
Yeah, whilst this may be the best option offered by this poll, it just isn't going to happen. With the massive success of The Dark Knight and Iron Man, anything that comes from a comic book is in vogue and will probably get the greenlight to go ahead by the money-hungry people in Hollywood.


A straight follow-up to the Singer/Routh movie.
One small problem with this idea - the Singer/Routh movie was dull. It was really, really boring. I never realised just how boring Superman could be until I saw that movie. Even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (as pious and crap as it was) managed to be entertaining. Not so much Superman Returns. Long before the end of that movie my attention was not just elsewhere, but anywhere other than on the movie I was meant to be watching.


A big screen outing for Smallville.
That series only just works on the small screen. There is no way, particularly with all the years of continuity behind it, that it would work in cinemas.


Darkness in Metropolis. A Chris Nolan Superman.

No. Don't be dumb. Darkness works well for Batman - he is, after all, a vigilante with post-traumatic stress disorder. But Superman is a light hearted superhero. Making him dark is to completely miss the point of the character and what has made previous Superman movies so enjoyable.

Which, for me, is the point. A Superman movie should be big, brash and dumb. Forget the darkness, forget making it worthy or realistic. Just make it fun. It is about a man who can fly and who has a stupid kiss curl in his hair. Intellect and worthiness are not good matches for a Superman movie. It needs to be fast-paced, enjoyable and light-hearted.

So a memo to the makers of the Next Superman movie: make it fun**.

*Can't seem to get a direct link for it, but it is attached to this entertaining article here.
**And if you want someone to write the script for you, I'll do it. For a very reasonable rate. I've got an idea for it and all.

Films of the Year

Amazingly, two of them are Spanish horror movies. Can't say I'd ever seen a Spanish horror movie prior to this year. Unless you count Tesis as a horror.

5. The Orphanage

4. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

3. Rec

2. The Darjeeling Limited

1. The Dark Knight

In fairness, it has been an excellent year for films and it was a struggle to come up with just five options for that list. If you haven't seen the films in the list, I'd really urge you to.