The Bourne Legacy

Fittingly enough, I forgot about the new entry to the Bourne series coming out this year. Luckily, I remembered for long enough to get my arse to the cinema and watch it. I hope you've been playing "Shit Pun Spotter" with the reviews for this flick by the way. I've seen "Bourne Again" and "Bourne to Run" so far, but I bet there are plenty more face-palmers out there. Do reviewers actually think these are funny? If that's their idea of humour then fuck 'em.

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

As a big fan of the original Bourne trilogy, I had huge misgivings about The Bourne Legacy when it was announced. For starters, director Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon wouldn't be returning, which is a huge hurdle to get over for anyone even thinking of continuing the franchise. Still, some of those nagging little mindvoices were silenced when they released a dynamite trailer showing Jeremy Renner being a Bourne-like badass, Rachel Weisz doing medical things and Ed Norton taking the vacated role of "stressed greying guy in control room surrounded by screens".

"Jason Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg."

Let's get this sorted. Jeremy Renner does not play Jason Bourne. He plays a similar black ops agent called Aaron Cross, who is hunted by his organisation after Bourne starts uncovering all sorts of dirty little secrets. With previously top secret initiatives like Treadstone and Operation Blackbriar hitting the headlines, the CIA go into panic mode and call in retired USAF Colonel Eric Byer (Ed Norton) who decides to eliminate their in the field agents like Cross before similar stories come out. One of the things that sets Cross apart from Bourne is the he's part of a genetic modification program that means he's dependent on physical and mental enhancement pills. After initially evading his executors, Cross meets Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), the lone survivor of an horrific workplace shooting, who he enlists to help with his pill problem. Whilst The Bourne Legacy is technically both a sequel and a reboot, it is also a "sidequel" i.e. a sequel that takes place within the timeframe of its predecessor as Legacy runs in parallel with the events of The Bourne Ultimatum. I would suggest that you rewatch Ultimatum to familiarise yourself with the events, but I'll explain why I'm hesitant to do that later. Given his first proper action lead, Renner proves to be every bit as capable as I expected him to be. It's a shame that the part isn't up to his mad skillz, but he does well. Rachel Weisz also does sterling work as Dr. Marta, giving us a smart, capable anti-damsel who conversely conjures some genuine concern for her wellbeing during the aforementioned shooting scene. Ed Norton was also decent, giving us the closest thing the film has to a proper bad guy until the third act of the film, when a new challenger appears.

All the hallmarks of a Bourne film are here. We've got a badass agent on the run, people in control rooms arguing about how to track down said agent and cover their arses at the same time, plus various action scenes somewhat grounded in reality. In fact, if you watched it on mute, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Matt Damon was going to pop up any minute. The main failing of the film is that none of these elements mesh together into a single cohesive story. Rather than being a brave step to launch what presumably is to be a Cross trilogy, The Bourne Legacy is a shaky half-step, with one foot set firmly in the familiar and relying on the audience's love of the Bourne series to get away with singing the same old song. Whilst I liked the office politics in the first three films, even Ed Norton couldn't save them from boring me in this one. It's nowhere near as smart as a) it thinks it is and b) I've come to expect from the Bourne series . The film takes a punishing 40 mins or so to start making any sense, leading to a feeling of "Well, if the film isn't going to bother, why should I?". The pacing is dreadful. I rewatched The Bourne Ultimatum afterwards and noticed the film moves like a freight train compared to Legacy. As I said, with all the familiar elements in place, you may think that all the Bourne films were this slow. They're not.

So yeah, I wouldn't recommend watching (or re-watching) The Bourne Ultimatum beforehand. Firstly, because Ultimatum is a much better film and it may colour your expectations for this one. Secondly, there's a hell of a lot of familiar things, specifically the action sequences. Both the rooftop chase and the dirtbike shenanigans are recreated somewhat, breeding a real feeling of déjà vu. I concede this may be intentional as the film runs parallel to Bourne's actions, so there may be some sense in Cross echoing them, but still. Also, without spoiling too much, Legacy kinda ruins Ultimatum's ending. It's like watching a Disney film where the prince and princess got married and assumedly lived happily ever after, only for the sequel to come out and for it to be revealed that they went through a bitter and drawn-out divorce. Plus, (and here's the kicker) the action wasn't even that good. It didn't have the same frenetic energy or furious invention that the Damon films had. There are a couple of decent bits, but I expect more from the series that even managed to change 007's tune. To put it stupidly, there aren't as many awesome bits as there should have been.

"Welcome to the program."

A lot of Legacy doesn't make sense. I wasn't a huge fan of the whole "super-soldier pills" plotline as it seems a bit too out there for the series (although they're apparently in the books). I liked the character of Aaron Cross (once the film stopped playing silly buggers and started actually telling a story) and I really think a trilogy starring him would be a fine thing. They just need to get Greengrass back or get director Tony Gilroy some extra help in the writing department. As the head writer for the Damon Bournes, I would have thought that Gilroy would have knocked it out of the park story-wise. I've read many reviews imploring you to switch off your brain and lower your expectations. I don't buy those excuses any more. There is no reason why a film can't have kick-ass action as well as a compelling and intelligent plot as the previous Damon films proved. As for lowering your expectations, well, I was promised a new Bourne film. We all were. That comes with a certain expectation. It's like buying a BLT sandwich, but having everyone tell you to adjust your expectations about the bacon-ness of your just bought snack as it actually tastes like Egg & Cress. Well, I like Egg & Cress, but that's not what I was sold. It says BLT on the packaging, so that's what I fucking expect. Same with this film. I will say this: there is potential for a decent new direction for the franchise here. I like Cross, Dr. Marta and Eric Byer. I hope the film makes enough money so they can have another crack of the whip. As it stands though, The Bourne Legacy is pretty poor and doesn't do enough to earn its Moby-scored end credits.

The Dark Knight Rises

So yes, a review of the film everyone is talking about (partially for unbelievably tragic reasons.) I can't think of much else to say. It's the motherflippin' Dark Knight Rises. You know the score.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

It's pretty safe to say that The Dark Knight Rises is 2012's most anticipated film. Geeks and non-geeks alike have been waiting with bated breath for the final installment of the Dark Knight trilogy, a film that not only marks the end of Christopher Nolan's stint behind the camera, but also Christian Bale's time in the batsuit. It's been a fantastic ride, but even the best rollercoasters have to come to a stop.

"Don't worry, Master Wayne. It takes a little time to get back into the swing of things."

After the events of The Dark Knight, Batman has been gone for 8 years. An older, more physically enfeebled Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become a Howard Hughes-type recluse, barely leaving his bedroom and tended to, as always, by his faithful butler Alfred (Michael Caine). However, it seems he's not needed as thanks to the Dent Act, the streets are clean and safe- leaving Comissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) with a massive moral quandry on his hands.Wayne is forced to become the Bat once more when a hulking great mercenary by the name of Bane (Tom Hardy) who aims to send Gotham into turmoil, aided by his army of incredibly loyal followers. Also cat-burglar and seeming moral vacuum Selina Kyle/Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) and rookie hot-headed cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are in it but it's annoying me I'm still typing a fucking plot summary rather than reviewing the film. The plot is solid and probably the least convoluted of the trilogy. Without spoiling too much, although it has elements of The Dark Knight, it has more in common with Batman Begins. The returning cast are the best they've been, with Michael Caine making me tear up a few times.

The newcomers also bring their A-game. Anne Hathaway is awesome as Selina Kyle (she's never referred to as "Catwoman" in the script), giving the film a sorely needed fun injection every now and again with all the unremitting bleakness, misery and bum-gazing going on. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a lot with what initially seems like a largely pointless and uninteresting role as John Blake, a young, intuitive policeman. He brings real depth to what could have been a thankless part. Marion Cotilliard is predictably great as the mysterious billionaire investor Marion Tate, who for the first time since the late Rachel Dawes believes in Bruce Wayne, rather than just his nocturnal alter-ego. As is the case with everything Batman, the villains are the real talking point and Bane is no exception. He is one scary motherfucker. Hardy does a great job giving Bane some personality considering 80% of his face is covered by a speech-garbling mask. Certainly this is the first time we feel that Batman is out of his depth physically, which gives us some fantastic showdowns between the two. He's just not as interesting as The Joker or even Scarecrow. He's a bulked up Ra's al Ghul, filled with the same "Gotham must burn" League of Shadows philosophy we've seen before. It doesn't help that Batman is absent from most of the film, leaving the film to uncomfortably rest on Bane's considerable shoulders.

Time to lay the cards on the table. I think ...Rises is the weakest of the trilogy. That's not to say it's bad, because it isn't at all. It just doesn't quite stack up to the the previous installments. Considering I love the first two films so much I consider them family members, this is still a huge, although admittedly backhanded, compliment. For the first time in a Nolanverse film, I was getting a bit bored, especially in the middle where the film is desperately struggling to keep up with its own plot. As I said earlier, the plot isn't as complicated as previous films, but still has a lot of threads to keep track of, some of which aren't kept as taut as others. ...Rises is a smart film, but its misplaced some of its I.Q. points since 2008. Unlike previous entries, the social relevance aspect (The Dark Knight being a huge allegory for the War on Terror and the "any means necessary" approach) seems forced. There are distinct parallels drawn between the #Occupy movement, raging against the 1% and the global recession but it's handled with such inelegance that I didn't care. All those political undercurrents were woven in to The Dark Knight so carefully you could easily miss them. ...Rises' social commentary just sits on top of the plot, like oil on water. I know what you're probably thinking: "Big fuckin' deal, it's Batman, dickhead- not Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy."* and that's true, I wasn't rubbing my hands with glee in the queue because I was looking forward to some searing satire, I was looking forward to Bats kicking arse. It just stood out to me is all. Now get the fuck off my case, imaginary douche. What I'm saying is that it just doesn't feel as clever as the other films. This is also present in the dialogue, which is nowhere near as memorable or as quotable as it has been, with a fair few clumsy lines littered here and there.The pacing was also a slight problem. The film felt like one of those extended/director's cuts you get. There are a lot of scenes that add nice little character moments, but sacrifice pacing for them. I wouldn't go as far to call it overindulgent, but it is a little bloated.

Despite spending that paragraph above slagging the film off, consider me a critic by exception. Everything else is awesome. The scale of this film is off the fuckin' chain. There are scenes with hundreds of extras that justify the price of IMAX alone. If you can see it in IMAX, do. Nolan loves the format and filmed half of the film in super-resolution IMAX-o-vision and it adds a real sense of scope to everything. There are so many things that worked too. I loved the huge set-pieces, including Bane's seige on Wall Street, leading to a fantastic exchange between him and a sharp-suited prick banker, who explains that the money isn't real so it can't be stolen, to which Bane replies "Then why are you people here?". Genius. The opening plane scene is also jaw-droppingly good and really feels like an old-school James Bond setpiece. Somebody give Nolan a shot at directing the CraigHulk as Bond. They'll make magic together, trust me. Also the scene that nerdy people like me have been expecting ever since we heard Bane was in it was worth the wait. It's just as brutal and bad-ass as I wished it would be. In terms of the quieter moments, every scene Alfred has with Bruce is superbly written and incredibly touching. Hats off to both Bale and Caine. There are also some neat little references to both the previous films and the comic book lore dotted around that made me squeal like a Japanese anime schoolgirl.

"I won't bury you. I buried enough members of the Wayne family."

The Dark Knight Rises is damn good. It's just not as good as we've (possibly unfairly) come to expect from Nolan. The watermark set by The Dark Knight is ridiculously high and it's a tough act to follow. The thing that really tickles my pleasure lobe is that even at its worst, ...Rises kicks the shit out of 90% of the current mainstream, multi-million dollar offerings. The film series has never pandered or patronised and I'm so pleased that people are responding en masse to this kind of filmmaking. The Dark Knight trilogy is now one of the best trilogies around- up there with Toy Story and Lord of the Rings. Whilst sceptical about the already announced Batman reboot, the film does hint at the direction they with, which I definitely approve of. ...Rises is one of those films I think will improve on multiple viewings. There's a lot packed into the 164 minute runtime, it's just spread unevenly. You'll laugh, you'll definitely cry, but mostly you'll walk out of the screening thanking whatever deity you pray to that another franchise wasn't sullied forever. Highly recommended.

*I just noticed in my original draft this read  "Tinker Sailor Soldier Spy" which is a very different kind of film that I'm surprised they haven't made yet.

The Dark Knight (Redux)

"Interesting" sidenote on this one. The Dark Knight was the first film I attempted to review. I emerged from the cinema completely shellshocked and felt compelled to write about what I'd just witnessed.  So I did. On MySpace. Took me a while to realise this was akin to yelling "Fire!" as the Titanic went down, but I realised I liked writing about stuff I loved ( a revelation to me, a no-brainer for everyone else) so here we are, in this grotty little corner. All because of Batman.

The Dark Knight (2008) (Redux)

How does one say anything about The Dark Knight without their voice immediately becoming lost amongst the hyperbolic masses? It’s a tough thing to do. If you’re anything like me (and I hope for your sake you’re not) the more something is trumpeted about, the less likely you are to bother with it. That’s largely irrelevant here however, as statistically, you’ve seen the film multiple times, own it on a shiny disc and have been working on your terrible Batman/Joker impressions ever since 2008. To the five people who haven’t been living in a Batcave these past four years, let me try and explain what makes The Dark Knight so extraordinary.

"Do you wanna know how I got these scars?"

The thing to understand is that The Dark Knight was always going to be big, but just how big it turned out to be surprised everyone. Elements started coming together before release (thanks in part to a revolutionary viral marketing campaign), before things started snowballing right up until release date. For starters, Batman Begins had introduced and won a lot of people over to the Nolanverse and its new, gritty take on The Caped Crusader, so naturally these people wanted more. Secondly, instead of facing secondary, lower-level villains like Ra’s al Ghul and Scarecrow, ol’ Bats would be squaring off against his most famous adversary, The Joker. Thirdly came an element that nobody could have foreseen- the tragic death of Heath Ledger mere months before the film was due to come out. This undeniably pushed knowledge of the film beyond the reach of even the most ambitious marketing drive. Amongst the grief and sad head-shakings about a life cut short, a morbid curiosity about Ledger’s last completed role started to rise- a phenomenon that also helped Terry Gilliam’s The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. People were champing at the bit to see this film and luckily, it turned out to be an astounding piece of work. If Batman Begins was all about laying solid foundations, The Dark Knight was about escalation, or, as The Joker himself so aptly puts it: “aggressive expansion”.

With the criminal stranglehold on Gotham City loosened by the tireless work of Batman (Christian Bale) and Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), regular street thugs are running scared from the Batsignal. However, when an unpredictable goon in clown make-up shows up calling himself “The Joker” (Heath Ledger), the gangs turn to him to get rid of their bat problem. Meanwhile, a new hope for Gotham emerges in the shape of the new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who Bruce Wayne hopes will turn into the reason to hang up the cape and cowl. Things are slightly more complicated as Dent is dating Wayne’s old flame Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes). This is about as good as it gets for not only comic book adaptations, but films in general. The plot is slick, tight, compelling and immersive, treating the audience like they’ve got a brain in their head (still a rarity in blockbuster filmmaking). Take away the costumed sillies and you’ve got yourself a damn fine thriller in its own right. The cast, once again, are fantastic, with the possible exception of Maggie Gyllenhaal, who seems to be holding back her acting talent seen in things like Secretary for another artsy-type film. This is pure speculation of course and she’s certainly not bad, I just can’t shake the feeling she’s not as into it as everyone else. As I said in my Batman Begins review, I would have liked Katie Holmes to have reprised her role, especially as the emotional pay-offs for the Rachel Dawes character are in this one.

The smack-in-the-face obvious stand-out is Heath Ledger’s Joker, who gives the film a manic energy and a genuine menace. For the first time on-screen, The Joker is scary. This is a far cry from Nicholson’s portrayal, who came across as a wacky uncle, rather than the demented psychopath we’re presented with here. You can never quite get a handle on Ledger’s Joker. He’s unsettling, sinister and devious but amusing and incredibly entertaining at the same time. He also gets most of the best lines, with some of my favourite moments of the film being his insane diatribes, such as his conflicting stories about how he got his trademark scars to goading a policeman about how many of his friends he’s killed. Ledger deservedly won the Oscar for this portrayal. Oh- and to all the people who said he won it “just because he died”, fuck you- it’s all there on screen. It’s truly a powerhouse performance and one I never get sick of seeing.

As for the rest of the film, it’s astounding. The writing is great and the score is especially awesome (with the usually happy-to-rest-on-his-laurels Hans Zimmer re-teaming with James Newton Howard to build on the amazing work they did on the Batman Begins soundtrack.) With such an emphasis on story and dialogue, you’d think the ball would be dropped by adding in some generic action beats. However, the action manages to be jaw-dropping whilst keeping it realistic. There’s the famous chase through the streets of Gotham which introduces the cool-as-hell Batpod and culminates in a huge 18-wheeler being flipped. You will believe a truck can fly. The opening bank heist is incredibly well done too. It sets up the film beautifully.

My favourite scene that doesn’t feature gravity-defying vehicles is the interrogation scene where Batman and The Joker have a nice little sit-down before it all goes to hell. To me, this defines The Dark Knight as a whole. In the wrong hands, this scene could have been infamous, up there with the “nuking the fridge” bit in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, as it’s basically a man in unconvincing clown make-up taunting a gravelly-voiced knob in fetish gear armour with silly little bat ears. However, in practice it’s an uneasy, shocking scene that reminds me of a similar bit in L.A. Confidential where Russell Crowe’s Bud White loses his rag with a detainee. The scene is so good, I’m trying my utmost to not quit this review, jam the Blu-ray in the player and lose myself in it all over again. It honestly gets better every time I see it.

I was trying to think about any problems I had with the film and the only one I have is the dialogue given to the cop driving the armoured truck. He seems to think he's in a standard jokey action adventure, rather than one of the bleakest populist films in recent memory. Lines like "I didn't sign up for this!" seem really out of place. This reaches a nadir when the Joker orders his men to "rack 'em up"- shoot metal cables into the path of a police helicopter to take it down. The cables do the job and we cut back to out piggly friend who says "That's not good!", followed by more heli-destruction and another cut back to Sgt. Snout: "OK, that is not good!". I can't help thinking: "Your colleagues/friends are almost certainly dead, or at the very least seriously injured AND you've lost your air support in one fell swoop. You're being hounded by a psychopath and his cronies with shitloads of weaponry and all you can do is spout shit action phrases?!". It's a nitpick, sure, but it really does bug me and it's especially noticeable when surrounded by so much awesome.

"You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

In my not-at-all humble opinion, The Dark Knight is not only the best comic book adaptation but one of the best films in the last ten years. It’s one of those films that will be an eternal favourite, something I pop on when I want to be reminded of how good films can be. It’s not just the film you deserve, it’s the film you need.

Batman Begins (Redux)

When looking at the daily stats on this blog, I'm always fascinated by the old reviews of mine that pop up. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor always manages a few hits, for instance. Thing is, I went back and re-read some of my earlier reviews and was shocked at how short and poorly written they were. They were superficial and made no attempt at getting down to the filmic nitty-gritty. So, I decided to do a redux review of some of them, so I can have a better representation of my current thoughts available. Plus, it's an opportunity to revisit some great films. Rather than do a George Lucas i.e. replacing the original and burning the negatives, I thought I'd do a separate one. Also, I originally did this for The People's Movies, where the archive of my stuff can be found here.

Batman Begins (2005) (Redux)

 

As great as the genre-defining hallmark The Dark Knight is, I think it’s fair to say that it wouldn’t have been half as good without having the solid foundation of Batman Begins to build on. Until 2005, the (live-action) Batman adaptations were some of the best examples of wasted potential. Previous directors never really “got” Batman. He wasn’t a Gothic, limsy-wristed tragic poem of a man, stalking an Art Deco hellhole, nor was he a family-friendly, camp, action figure peddler who inhabited a headache-inducing neon nightmare. Christopher Nolan had a healthy respect for what made the comics great and, more importantly, knew that the most interesting way to get the audience to connect with the character was to get under the cowl and into the mind of the Bat.

"You must become more than just a man in the mind of your opponent."

In case 1) you haven’t seen it or 2) can’t decipher that cryptic-as-fuck title, Batman Begins is, unsurprisingly, about Batman beginning, exploring the origins of the Dark Knight and giving the series the reboot it so sorely needed. After his rich and powerful parents are shot and killed by a opportunistic mugger, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is recruited to the League of Shadows by the mysterious Ducard (Liam Neeson), a group of ninja assassins who believe it is their duty to purge the decadent and corrupt elements of society. Rejecting their judge, jury and executioner mentality, Wayne returns to Gotham City and uses his company’s money and technology to dole out vigilante justice as Batman. Gotham is a shadow of its former self with widespread corruption, mostly leading back to powerful mob boss Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). There’s also a new threat in the form of Dr. Crane (Cillian Murphy) a creepy psychopharmacologist (that’s a real thing, I didn’t just lean on the keyboard) who experiments on his patients and has shady dealings with Falcone. Batman vows to end the Gotham’s decay with the help of rare good cop Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), tech genius Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), tenacious assistant D.A. and childhood friend Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine).

Batman Begins is a refreshingly realistic and smart take on the Batman mythos. It chops and changes some of the most memorable comic stories like The Man Who Falls and The Long Halloween and manages to bring these various elements together into a solid, cohesive narrative. Yes, it is kind of silly to have a real, psychological take on what basically boils down to a nutter in a rubber bat costume, but you won’t question it for a second when you watch it. The cast are uniformly great. I feel Katie Holmes has been unfairly maligned as Rachel Dawes and it’s a shame she didn’t get to reprise the role in The Dark Knight as I think she would have silenced her critics. Stand-out of the film for me is Cillian Murphy who gives an unsettling, uncanny performance as Dr. Crane/Scarecrow, a man who possesses a stare that could melt Kevlar. Dude’s scary before he pulls the burlap hood over his head.

I’m hugely thankful for Nolan and David S. Goyer not messing up the Wayne’s deaths. In Burton’s Batman, they were shot by the man who would later turn into the Joker, a lazy attempt to add a personal stake in defeating the villain (see also: Spider-Man 3). What Burton (and Raimi) failed to realise is by doing that, you completely invalidate the reason why these heroes continue doing what they do. Once Keaton’s Batman defeated the Joker, why did he continue fighting crime? To have the culprit be just a random mugger means that Batman isn’t just seeking vengeance. He’s fighting something a lot more conceptual than that. Nolan understood this and to implicate that it may have even partly been Bruce’s father’s fault for not acting is a masterstroke. Batman is all about the guilt.

There’s something very scientific and methodical in Nolan’s approach. Everything that is iconic to Batman is explained in a satisfactory and believable way. For example, Batman’s gadgets are Waynetech’s abandoned military contracts, deemed too expensive for use. The new Batmobile, the Tumbler, exemplifies the new Nolanverse. It’s functional, realistic, anti-camp (unlike previous flimsier models) and undeniably kick-ass. My only real problem is with the origin of the Bat signal, where Batman leaves the unconscious Falcone lashed to a huge spotlight, creating a rudimentary bat shadow in the sky. I just can’t stop thinking about the heat those things pump out and the fact that Falcone would be sizzling like a cheap steak by the time the police cut him down.

"Bats frighten me. It's time my enemies shared my dread."

Until rewatching it for this review, my opinion had always been that Batman Begins was very good, but The Dark Knight was the one that knocked it out of the park. Whilst I still believe that The Dark Knight is the superior film, it’s by a lot smaller margin than I originally thought. Batman Begins is a truly fantastic film. It’s the New Hope to TDK’s Empire Strikes Back and I don’t say that lightly.

The Amazing Spider-Man

God, my output has been patchy of late. I have been doing stuff elsewhere (which you can find here,) with the result that this blog has been overlooked somewhat. Still, I've got some bloody plans for this place, so hold on to your goddamn hats. Anyway, did somebody say Spider-Man?

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

And yes, it is written as "Spider-Man". Fucking sick of not seeing the hyphen in there when people talk about it. Am I being a pedantic wanker? There's always a good chance, but say I was to write about BatMan or Super-Man. People would have a problem with it. As a Spider-fan, it greens my goblins. So, it's 2012 and we have a reboot of a franchise barely a decade old webslinging its way in fuckmothering 3D to a screen near you. I've heard many people decrying the film for being a perfect example of the fact that Hollywood is officially out of ideas. Whilst that isn't entirely false, you must understand that The Amazing Spider-Man is purely a business decision. Y'see, Sony own the rights to the Spider-Man franchise. They contractually have to do something with the license or the rights revert back to Marvel/Disney. Sony aren't stupid. The Spidey franchise has made them billions of dollars and they're not just going to roll over and let Marvel take their money-shitting machine home. Plus, after Spider-Man 3 thoroughly salted the earth with the tears of fanboys and moviegoers alike, it was time for a change.

"I am issuing an arrest warrant for the masked vigilante known as Spider-Man!"

The Amazing Spider-Man retells the famous origin story of everyone's favourite nerd fantasy projection, Spider-Man. Abandoned by his parents and left to live with his aunt and uncle, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is a typical nerdy high-schooler. He gets beaten up and has a hard time talking to girls, especially beautiful blonde Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). However, when he decides to investigate his parents' disappearance, starting with his father's close friend and colleague, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), Peter unwittingly signs himself up for a date with eight-legged destiny. All the marketing for this film has been focused on telling "the untold story" of Peter's parents. Much like the best marketing, it's what they don't tell you that's key. This is basically a retread of what we've seen before in a slightly different wrapper. My main problem is this: did we really have to see Peter get bitten by a spider again? As a webhead of many years I have seen the origin story played out a thousand times, with various versions present in the comics, the many different animated series, the video games and the Raimi film. Why the film didn't take a leaf out of 2008's The Incredible Hulk's book, where the opening sequence alludes to the gamma accident and doesn't take up half the goddamn film treading old ground, I'll never know. At the end of it all, Peter's still bitten and Uncle Ben's still six feet under (more on that in a minute). It's probably the most famous superhero origin story out there. We didn't need this retelling/reimagining/re-whatever.

As for the actors, Andrew Garfield makes a fantastic Parker/Spider-Man. He's just the right side of shy and dorky and has the acting chops to really sell those emotional scenes (something which I never really got from Tobey Maguire's performance). Emma Stone is probably the stand-out as Gwen Stacy as she shares some fantastic chemistry with Garfield, completely charms and manages to turn what could have been a forgettable gal pal role into a memorable and likeable performance. Also great is Rhys Ifans, who was already fairly reptilian before all those expensive effects. He's tasked with really selling the Jekyll side to his dual role and does well with it. I also loved Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. They were so wise and caring. I want to stay at their house and eat May's apparently terrible meatloaf (not a euphemism). The film really humanises its characters, rather than them being one note or two dimensional. It gives me great hope for future franchise entries as it looks like this take on Spidey is a lot more emotional than we've seen before. I really felt Peter's pain after Uncle Ben's death, especially when he snaps and slams Flash into a locker. It's realistic and affecting.

The main success of the film is the central romance between Peter and Gwen. Director Marc Webb (no, really) knows his way around romance as seen in his previous work (500) Days of Summer. It's believable and surprisingly sweet. I was pulling for the relationship to work. I actually cared. There are little character moments, like a bit where Peter gets shy and his voice cracks more than normal because he realises he's in his girlfriend's bedroom, that sell the relationship. It's cute, but not in a retch-inducing way. The action and all-important webslinging are well handled too. The school fight with the Lizard is fantastic and also features the best Stan Lee cameo yet. I like the fact that Spidey invents comic accurate web-shooters as opposed to the organic ones Maguire-Man had. What I found confusing was the fact that the web is apparently a commercially available Oscorp product. I may have missed something, but he either bought or stole the "bio-cable" or whatever the hell is was called. Parker's smart enough to have invented some shooters, it wouldn't have been that much of a stretch to say he came up with the webbing as well.

What's less of a success is the rest of it. I walked out feeling quite underwhelmed by the whole experience. There were just too many things that were off about it. Firstly, they tweak the Uncle Ben incident. which is fine, but it messes with Spidey's motivations somewhat. Uncle Ben dies due to his own stupidity, rather than it being Peter's fault. Having said that, I liked the manhunt Peter goes on to find his uncle's killer. I wasn't a huge fan of how the Lizard turned out. Whilst I thought Ifans did well with what he was given, the things that were interesting about the character was largely ignored. All Dr. Stumpy did was bang on about his missing arm. Yeah, I get that losing a limb sucks, but still, the guy needed more motivation than that. Plus, the Lizard's design was rubbish, as were some of the effects used to bring him to life. Also, that lizard/mouse thing was RETARDED. As with most lazily written things, coincidence seems to be the driving force behind most happenings. At once point, Peter falls through a roof, into a wrestling ring, where he sees a poster for a luchador which gives him the idea for the iconic Spidey mask. A lot of things just struck me as a bit too convenient.

I was looking forward to this film correcting one of the greatest oversights in the Raimi films- the fact that Spider-Man is a witty, sarcastic kind of guy. This film makes attempts at this, but some of the "comedy" lines and sequences are about as funny as a mass puppy drowning. Dear Lord, it isn't that hard to crack wise, but the film makes it seem like a Herculean effort. A lot of the humour is misjudged. That's not to say it's entirely unsuccessful, as the occasional one-liner or neat little gag made me chuckle, but I expected more. It shouldn't be a thigh-slapping fest, but if you're going to attempt humour, make sure your jokes work. Very few people were laughing in the packed screening I went to. C'mon Sony, Joss Whedon can't be the only person who can illicit superhero-sized belly laughs. In fact, most of the dialogue is pretty god-awful.

Also (BIG SPOILERS AHEAD, highlight to read or skip to the final paragraph) is it me or were there plot holes a-go-go? I don't normally pick a film up on this type of thing, but sometimes it'd feel like I missed a scene or two. Where did all the lizards in the sewer come from? What happened to the evil Dr. Ratha (Irrfan Khan)? He was on his way to test the serum on orphan kittens or something equally ridiculous, has his car chucked off the bridge by the Lizard and is then saved by Spidey. We don't see him again. I expected a conclusion to his arc. Why was Flash all pally at the end? I know he showed understanding about Uncle Ben's death, but still, it's a big leap. Plus, I can't tell you how much my heart sank at the beginning of the crane scene, which thankfully managed to be slightly more tolerable than the arse-puckering scene in Raimi's original where Spidey gets protected by the New York public: "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!" Urgh. Nice to see a gratuitous shot of the American flag though. Not fucking sick of those in this franchise. Also, Peter struck me as a bit of a dick at the end. He doesn't show up for Captain Stacy's funeral, supposedly honouring his promise to stay away from Gwen. He then breaks up with her on the day she buries her father, then he fucking breaks the promise later anyway. What a douche!

"Thirty-eight of New York's finest, versus one guy in a unitard!"

Reading it back, I realise I actually sound quite bitter and angry. I'm not. To tell you the truth, I was pretty disappointed with the whole thing. It was fairly entertaining, but crushingly average. My real problem was the fact the film felt it didn't have any real soul- it felt very mechanical at times, ticking off boxes until it was sufficiently different from the 2002 film . Maybe I'm just a nitpicky fanboy, but some of these issues are basic movie failings, rather than spider-inaccuracies. There are so many elements they got right, it just didn't come together as a whole for me. It's got a great cast, some really decent effects work and a believable romance that has the potential for amazing sequel fodder. Here's what I want from the sequel: a non-shit villain, a better director and writers and J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. To me, it felt like a pilot for a TV show, lots of interesting ideas and potential coming out of its ears, but not a fully-formed piece of entertainment. Fret ye not, this isn't a Spider-Man 3 type disaster. I just wish this new series had kicked off with a bit more oomph.

Prometheus

Seems you can't turn a figurative corner on the 'Net without some tiresome prick shoving their own little thoughts on Ridley Scott's latest in your face. Since when did having a keyboard and an broadband connection automatically make you a film critic? It's sort of sad, really.

Say, do you want to know what I thought of that new and exciting film Prometheus, currently showing in cinemas? Also, SPOILERS abound. It's hard to discuss the film whilst dancing around what specifically makes it good or bad. I'll try not to spoil much, but if you want to go in blind, don't read past this point.

(Coy little aside: I saw Prometheus in IMAX 3D and I felt it was worth every extra penny. Visually, the film is a stunner and seeing on a gargantuan screen truly enhanced the experience. If you can check it out in IMAX, do so. It'll blow your eyes out of your arse.)

Prometheus (2012)

It's undeniably an exciting thing to have Sir Ridders return to a genre he has mastered not once, but twice. Okay, maybe saying "mastered" is a bit strong, but both Alien and Blade Runner are stonking classics and, to my mind at least, show how diverse and interesting the sci-fi genre can be. To tell you the truth, I've struggled with reviewing Prometheus and have been putting it off for about two weeks now. I liked it, but there were just too many things holding it back for it to be the unmitigated success I wanted it to be. The frustrating thing was, I couldn't nail down and articulate what most of these problems were which, as you can imagine, is a big problem for a reviewer. As the Facehugger's out of the bag as to whether or not the film is an Alien prequel, I decided to rewatch Alien to remind myself of the mythos that was being expanded upon. They're different beasts and it's not exactly a fair comparison, but, in keeping with one of the major themes in Prometheus, it's important to know where you came from.

"Big things have small beginnings." 

After finding a common celestial pattern in ancient cave paintings and tablets, a team of scientists, lead by Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) and the crew of the starship Prometheus, including android David (Michael Fassbender) travel to the indicated star system to try and discover who created the human race and answer some of humanity's biggest questions. Naturally, spacetits go up and soon the crew are meeting their makers in the more euphemistic sense. I really dug some the ideas Prometheus plays with. To meet our makers and to have them reject us is a genuinely scary thought. As for the cast, Noomi Rapace was great as the proto-Ripley, Elizabeth Shaw. She wasn't the tough, action heroine I expected her to be, but she wasn't a scream queen either. I thought the distractingly beautiful Charlize Theron was great as ice-queen boss, Meredith Vickers, although maybe this says more about me, but I found most of her "evil" decisions to be actually sound, especially (invisotext) her decision to torch Holloway, doing something that no person in the Alien franchise has thought to do- realising that bringing weird alien shit and/or infected crew members onboard your ship is a bad idea. However, the scene-stealer extraordinaire is Michael Fassbender's David who effortlessly diverts any attention paid to the cast onto him. He's the logical Bishop kind of android as seen in Aliens and the character we probably spend the most time with. Watching him go around the ship on his own, riding a bike and playing basketball (at the same time!) and especially observing him dying his hair and modifying his speech based on Peter O'Toole's performance in Lawrence of Arabia is joyful. Prometheus goes for the same slow start that Alien did and it pays off.

Let's start with the good. There's a lot to like on display here. The film has truly amazing visuals and the sets and effects are astounding. Ridley Scott is known for creating grounded worlds and locales for his characters to move around in and this film doesn't sully that reputation. Everything feels real and lived in, however fantastical. The much promoted set of the massive Olmec-style head and strange oozing containers in particular is incredible. Despite it being on every poster and in every trailer, I still felt a chill go up my spine and a bit of terrified urine go down my leg when the crew ill-advisedly entered the chamber. It's nice that Prometheus keeps some of the Alien themes running too, one of which leads to the best (and most squirm-inducing) scene in the film where Dr. Shaw learns the true meaning of the old adage "be careful what you wish for." Plus, I loved the designs of the creatures, with genital-obsessed H.R. Giger (apparently pronounced Gee-ger, not as in the radiation measuring thing) being roped in to add to the universe's roster of terrifying bastards. Plus, there's some fantastic attention to detail, including the Weyland logo being part of David's fingerprint in a close-up on the tip of his finger.

As for the bad, well, I wanted it to be scarier than this. Alien is a masterclass in atmosphere building and ratcheting the tension up 'til you can't stands no more. After the promising slow and thoughtful David-heavy intro, it soon devolves in the most generic scares possible. The main failing was that fact that I didn't really care for the crew. Basic horror rules state that in order for a scare to be at all satisfactory, there needs to be an emotional resonance with the characters. Even if you hate their guts and you're willing the stupid jock douchebag to get stabbed eight ways from Sunday, it's still an emotional response. You are reacting to the film and, as a result, are more invested in it. Apart from a couple of broadly painted walking stereotypes, Prometheus didn't have anything like that. Except for Dr. Shaw (and David, obviously), these people didn't feel real. To compare it to Alien once again, the crew of the Nostromo were talking about getting paid and what was for dinner. Everyone in Prometheus feels like they're reading from an Alpha course leaflet- constantly asking each other "the big questions". Yes, the Nostromo was a commercial towing ship and this is a scientific discovery mission and would therefore by inhabited by very different types of people, but still, a bit of humanity would have gone a long way. All of this not helped in the slightest by an intrusively stupid orchestral score that feels the need to underline every jump scare with a string screech and every plot revelation with a echoing, booming drum thud, as if saying: "You get that? Didya see that? Did ya, eh?!". If the score was a person, it wouldn't be invited to many parties. Maybe Prometheus was never the sci-fi horror spectacular I'd built up to be in my head, but it was a letdown all the same.

Prometheus ends up asking more questions than it answers. I'm all for mystery and the fact that they're keeping some plot things vague at the moment is promising. However, with the high probability of this having a sequel, it would be naïve to think they're not holding back some things for the second (and possibly third) instalments. There are even questions to be asked of the film itself, like why did they slather Guy Pearce in ageing makeup when they could have simply cast an old man? (Having said that, the viral video Weyland TED talk is superb) Why does Idris Elba have the worst Southern 'Merican drawl possible when he fucking nailed the Baltimore accent in HBO's The Wire? I suppose my biggest question is whether the Xenomorph origins needed to be explored at all. Still, no use crying over spilled acid blood. At least they haven't categorically fucked them up. Yet.

"A king has his reign, and then he dies. It's inevitable."

Prometheus is a decent watch. As I said, it's got incredible visuals and a strong cast. Whilst it may be hitting above its weight in terms of themes and ideas, it's still bloody entertaining. This isn't the kick-ass return to form for the Alien series that people like me (read: NERDS) were hoping for, but it's not the disaster many of us were bracing for either. I know this isn't saying much, but it's a hell of a lot better than the Alien Vs. Predator films and one of its biggest successes is rendering those cinematic holocausts uncanonical. It's a good film, I just wish it hadn't made so many basic errors. In terms of a rating, it's like a 3.5 out of 5. Thing is I don't do half measures here at the ol' PB and it's just not quite good enough to be a 4. So, it's an average 3 star rating with the caveat that it's better than that may imply. Go and see it if you haven't already.

Men in Black III

Back once again on my home turf to review the film that finally dethroned the mighty Avengers from its box office throne. Was the world crying out for another Men in Black? I wouldn't have thought so, but ticket stubs don't lie. Plus, anything is a step up from the concentration camp that was the second one.

Men in Black III (2012)

The original Men in Black is one of my all-time favourite films. I loved it as a kid and I love it even more  now. It combined schlocky sci-fi and social commentary with great special effects and wrapped it up with genuinely witty dialogue and the fantastic central chalk and cheese pairing of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. I don't know if you remember the ending, but it was pretty final. MIB didn't warrant a follow-up, but the all important beans (that are counted by the bean counters? I'm being all metaphorical) dictated otherwise. Factor in the fact that in the intervening 5 years Will Smith had become one of the most famous actors on the planet and a sequel was inevitable. Shame it was such a car crash, then. A sloppy rehash of a story, some god-awful writing and most insultingly of all, a complete ignorance of what made the first film so good all added up to something which disappointed audiences worldwide. So, a hefty decade later, we're ready to do the same dance again. The big question is whether it's a cheeky little foxtrot with an attractive partner or a frantic, desperate Charleston after you've just shat yourself. Well, it's kind of halfway between, but before you have a chance to fully form an horrific mental image of that, let me try and explain myself as best I can.

"I'm getting too old for this. I can only imagine how you feel."

The plot goes thusly: one armed alien biker dude, Boris the Animal (played by a virtually unrecognisable Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords) escapes from his lunar prison and makes a plan to go back in time to kill K (Tommy Lee Jones) and get his arm back. After K disappears from the timeline, only his long term partner agent J (Will Smith) has any memory of him. J must then travel back to 1969 to prevent Boris from killing the younger K (Josh Brolin) and changing the future. Watching the trailers, I wasn't convinced by the whole time travel thing. After the world the first film created where aliens live among us, we're going back to the cliched '60s? To pull time travel out of you arse and present an alternate reality is normally the death knell for any franchise (Shrek Forever After, anyone?)  In the film, however, it sort of works. It's not a runaway success, but it's a passable plot device, rather than the afeared final nail in the MIB coffin. Splitting up Smith and Jones may seem like madness (and exactly the sort of shit that the second one pulled) but again, it actually works to the film's credit. Josh Brolin does a scarily good impression of Tommy Lee Jones and actually brings some humanity to the gruff, grizzled character we're used to seeing. Of the newcomers, Zed's replacement Agent O (Emma Thompson) is decent enough, although we don't get to see that much of her and the Mork-like Griffin (Michael Stuhlbarg), a being who can see all parallel timelines and future possibilities simultaneously is a nice addition. Clement's big baddie Boris is a fairly decent villain, but seems like a pale facsimile of Edgar the Bug from the 1997 original. His "thing" is that his right hand is home to a creepy insect-like creature that can shoot sharpened spines at people. What I don't understand is why Boris is so fixated on getting his arm back. Sure, it'd suck to lose an arm, but he's got the one that has the special murder bug in it. Did his other arm have one too? It's never explained.

There are some great ideas on display here. I loved the look of the '60s MIB headquarters, with the peerless Rick Baker showing off some of his awesome prosthetic creations. The '60s gadgetry is also well thought out and designed too. J being black in the still struggling with civil rights 1969 is an interesting concept and close to the social satire of the first, but apart from a couple of scenes is largely ignored. The finale with the Apollo 11 is well done and I even liked the ending (which has been used as a stick to beat the film with by several joyless critics) which adds a genuinely moving aspect to J and K's relationship. It's a shame they felt the need to signpost so thoroughly throughout the film, ensuring I wasn't accidentally surprised or intrigued.

My main gripe is that the film needed to be funnier than this. Most of the jokes fall flat and the (hate this word) banter between Jones and Smith at the beginning seems really forced. There is the occasional funny line or quip, but the film seemed frightened to let go of some of the entertaining jokes from the first that were ploughed into the ground with MIB II. A cursory glance at the background screen at MIB HQ will inform you that Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber and Tim Burton are all under surveillance as undercover aliens. Plus, the series favourite "worm guys" make their contractual appearance. There are a few cameos too, with Bill Hader popping up as Andy Warhol and Will Arnett giving an eager turn as AA, J's alternate future partner.

"I used to play a fun game with my dad, it was called "catch". You see, I’d throw the ball to him and it would hit the wall cause he wasn’t there."

Thankfully, Men in Black III isn't the shitbomb I had prepared myself for. It's not great (and for the people out there saying it's the best one, I'm all for difference of opinion, but you're just plain wrong) but it's not terrible either. It plays out like an amalgamation of the previous two films and produces the mixed results one would expect. It's simply average, but I couldn't shake the feeling that it really needed to try harder, especially in terms of humour. Chances are, you'll probably walk out content, but whatever you feel, feel it quickly and exit the screen before the aurally offensive theme song by Pitbull starts. The credits just aren't the same without a Will Smith rap over the top.