The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man is best described with borrowed words from The Dark Knight. Specifically: he isn't the hero that we need right now. But he's the hero that we deserve.

After all, audiences were not exactly crying out for a Spider-Man reboot. The Sam Raimi trilogy only concluded five years ago and many still remember it fondly. 

And why not? Back in 2001, the reverse of the above statement was true: Raimi's Spider-Man was the hero that audiences needed. In the wake of 9/11, a dispirited country needed a film where an all-America hero saved New York from a maniacal terrorist. Peter Parker embodies the American dream as he journeys from zero to hero and his suit matches the colours of the American flag. The world needed Spidey and they also needed something to raise their spirits after the recent horrors inflicted on America and the resulting War on Terror. 

All of this was dutifully provided by Raimi. His Spider-Man trilogy is light-hearted, straight-forward entertainment: often fun, sometimes silly and always uncomplicated. Spidey gets the girl, beats the baddy and everyone goes home happy with a belly full of popcorn.

And so we didn't necessarily need a Spider-Man do-over. 

However, we certainly deserved one. There are numerous flaws with Raimi's Spider-Man films. The performances are forgettable, the script is bland and the action scenes look surprisingly dated. It's shocking how much CGI has evolved in the past decade. Plus, Raimi sat in the director's chair. It goes without saying that Raimi was a popular choice - this is the guy that directed Evil Dead 2! - but, on the other hand, this is the guy that directed Evil Dead 2, a horror renowned for being ridiculously entertaining but also completely ridiculous. 

As such, for every iconic upside-down Spidey kiss or Doc Ock splitscreen tentacle melee, we also have to endure a corny exchange with Aunt May or Spider-Man turning emo or an improvised jazz dance or an exposition-heavy British reporter. There is also far too much flag-waving patriotism, as seen when the citizens of New York start bombarding the Green Goblin with junk: "You mess with Spidey, you mess with New York!" My gag reflex is tingling.

As such, we deserved a reboot - whether we realised that we needed it or not - and thankfully Sony and director Marc Webb (most appropriate name ever) obliged.

Enter The Amazing Spider-Man: a sexier, cooler interpretation of Peter Parker's origin story, bursting with charisma and personality thanks to its talented cast members. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker and Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy slip effortlessly into their lead roles and their natural likeability means they instantly outshine Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst from the Raimi trilogy, both of who were bland, whiny and uninspiring.

James Vanderbilt's script helps the performances. Every character is handled with care (even the school bully has a story arc) and the one-liners are generously shared out. Michael Sheen's Uncle Ben and Denis Leary's Captain Stacy raise the odd smile in their supporting roles, although the biggest laugh is courtesy of Peter Parker toying with a car-thief: "You discovered my weakness! Small knives! Achoo!" 

Vanderbilt's script is also a more modern take on the characters. He recognises that the leads are high-school kids and approaches the characters as such. We therefore get a Spider-Man who skateboards and shows-off and gets awkward around cute girls and plays games on his SmartPhone whilst waiting for the villain to arrive. We also get a 21st century Gwen Stacy who is smart and heroic, as opposed to Dunst's Mary Jane whose prime function was to dangle helplessly from various buildings.

The Amazing Spider-Man will also win favours amongst comic book purists. This Peter Parker designs his own web-slingers as depicted in the comics so the fans can finally stop complaining about Parker naturally spawning webs from his wrists as seen in the Raimi trilogy. Fans will equally be happy to see the Lizard on-screen, played by an oddly-cast Rhys Ifans, after teasing cameos in the earlier films of a pre-transformation Dr Curt Connors. And the traditional Stan Lee cameo is a particular treat.

As director, Marc Webb has assembled an immersive and engaging film. It would be tempting to say this is a darker and grittier Spider-Man but this is still a long way from the Dark Knight Nolanverse. But it does feel more real than the colourful Raimi offerings. Webb's attention-to-detail ensures that each location is true-to-life and more documentary than studio set. Webb is also an actor's director and naturally he gets some very believable performances from his cast, especially when utilising the chemistry between Garfield and Stone. No less than you would expect from the director of 500 Days of Summer.

The Amazing Spider-Man is not without problems, most caused from a horrible sense of deja vu. After all, we have seen the Peter Parker origin story before (getting bit, learning to swing, Uncle Ben's death) no matter how differently it is packaged. And how many times have we seen superheroes face-off on top of a skyscraper? Also, the Lizard is new to the bigscreen but hardly a villain to rave about. Presumably, the Lizard was chosen as the equivalent of Batman Begins' Scarecrow: a minor villain designed to test the hero without overshadowing him. Which begs the question, who will be Spider-Man's Joker?

But the reboot series is just getting started. Sony are clearly franchise-building and happy to take it slow. The film ends with both leads still in high-school so the Daily Bugle days could be entire films away. The opening intrigue surrounding Peter Parker's parents looks set to continue in a multi-film arc, as does the anonymous villain who cameos during the closing credits (blatantly Norman Osborne AKA The Green Goblin). They also made the smart move of keeping the Lizard alive so he can reappear throughout the sequels, again like Nolan's Scarecrow in his Bat trilogy. 

In any case, the release date for Spider-Man 2 has been set for 2 May 2014 and now that the origin has been dutifully revamped, the Sony team can start exploring some new (more amazing) territory in the sequel.

In the meantime, audiences have finally been given the Spider-Man film that they deserve.

★★★★

Ice Age 4

Unlike Pixar films, the Ice Age films have never been essential viewing but they have always been consistently fun, funny and well-designed, with plenty of heart and character.

After the breakout hit of the first Ice Age in 2002 (which single-handedly saved 20th Century Fox's animation wing), the sequels have wisely blended the familiar with the new. The much-loved characters have remained - Sid the annoying Sloth, Manny the grumpy Mammoth, Diego the cynical sabre-toothed tiger and the acorn-addicted Scrat - whilst their adventures and companions evolve with every film.

No two Ice Age films are the same: the first was the animation equivalent of Three Men and a Baby, the second was a race against time and the third was a rescue mission with dinosaurs. Now, we have a pirate adventure with icebergs instead of ships, whereby Manny, Diego and Sid have to get back to Manny's family after Scrat single-handedly splits the continents apart. This variation is an admirable attempt to stop the formula getting stale.

Manny's story arc as a family man has served as an emotional anchor throughout the franchise and also helps keep things fresh. Over the four films, we have seen him develop from a lonely bachelor to leader of his herd to husband to expectant father. In Ice Age 4, he is now the father of a headstrong teenage daughter and naturally he does not approve of her friends because he wants the best of her. It is an old story, as is often the case with child-friendly animations, but at least it has been given the Ice Age twist. Maybe the next film will be the Ice Age interpretation of Father of the Bride?

The comedy set pieces are typically top-notch. An encounter with enticing sirens is particularly hilarious, not to mention a Braveheart-style moment with gung-ho hyraxes (possibly, an attempt to rival the penguins of Madagascar?) but the true stand-out is the ever-reliable Scrat. Scrat has long been the franchise's ace and he appears for some slapstick humour whenever the audience is getting a bit fidgety. His escalating addiction to acorns and his self-sacrificing attempts to retrieve them remains an instant crowd-pleaser, often framing the movie to ensure it starts and ends with a belly-laugh. The opening of Ice Age 4  is possibly the best (and most bizarre) Scrat-astrophe to date.

There are flaws with Ice Age 4. The franchise certainly has suffered from serious bouts of stunt-casting over the years. The original Ice Age, as with many Pixar films, utilised the talents of numerous lesser-known actors, prioritising great voices over big names. Whereas, three films later, we now have Jennifer Lopez as a sabre-tooth cat, Nicki Minaj and rapper Drake as sassy mammoths and anyone else who happens to be popular at the moment is given two lines to say as an extra. The film unashamedly showboats its big names over the closing credits where we get shots of everyone recording their lines. It feels a little cheap.

That said, not all new additions feel forced. The casting of Peter Dinklage (Tyrion from Game of Thrones) as villainous captain, Gut, is a welcome addition to the cast. His deep voice is perfect for an animated film and he injects his prehistoric ape with plenty of snarling charisma. Furthermore, Sid's grandmother (voiced by Wanda Sykes), another new addition, has her own share of scene-stealing moments, particularly when her pet Precious shows up. Let's hope they return for Ice Age 5.

In a nutshell, Ice Age 4 is another solid instalment in the franchise. Unlike Pixar, the Ice Age films will never be heralded as an Oscar-winning masterpiece. But provided they keep mixing up the formula whilst retaining the same four core characters, the series will continue to sell tickets and provide entertaining, highly-visual escapism for audiences around the world. 

And based on this evidence, it could be another four films before this series is extinct.

★★★★

Prometheus

Prometheus, Ridley Scott's much-hyped prequel to Alien, is cinematic marmite. 

One quick peek at your Facebook news feed will confirm this. Cinema-goers are split into two camps: the hardcore cinephiles screaming their disappointment and everyone else who thought it was a perfectly harmless way to spend two hours. But whether you are Pro-metheus or Anti-metheus is irrelevant. The simple fact that there is any debate at all is proof that Ridley Scott has seriously dropped the ball.

Ridley Scott has a lot to answer for. 

The once-visionary director has lost his mojo in recent years so it is not surprising to find him revisiting his 1979 masterpiece for inspiration. But an Alien prequel was hardly in demand. Instead, the whole project stinks of franchise-milking. It also shows Scott's desperation to boost his popularity in a blockbuster market dominated by young contenders: Christopher Nolan, Matthew Vaughn, JJ Abrams and the rest. And so Scott has abandoned all integrity by skulking back to his former glories. Alas, Scott's next film is a sequel to Blade Runner. What next? A Thelma and Louise reboot? It is shameful.

That said, none of the above would have mattered if Prometheus was a first-class film. All would have been forgiven if we were rewarded with a kindred spirit to the original Alien, a revival of the claustrophobic space thriller and a reminder of how directors did things thirty years ago. But Prometheus is none of those things.

Arguably, it is unfair to compare Prometheus to Alien. Maybe it should be reviewed as a standalone film. But Scott is more than happy to use the Alien brand (and his own name as returning director) to sell tickets so he has invited the comparisons himself. 

So, what was so good about Alien? Why was the mere mention of a prequel enough to cause us to pre-book those IMAX tickets? As stated, Alien is a masterpiece: a genuinely terrifying sci-fi horror set aboard an isolated and run-down spaceship, where a crew of seven unarmed characters are hunted down by the titular predatory Alien. It boasts stunning design work by H R Giger, superbly-atmospheric direction from Scott and a convincing cast of well-utilised actors (with a career-defining performance from Sigourney Weaver). Quite simply, it is one of the greatest films of all time. 

Prometheus could not be more different. By contrast, Scott's prequel is a CGI-polluted, action-heavy sprint, both riddled with plot-holes and overpopulated with forgettable two-dimensional characters.


Where to start?


Scott uses far too much CGI. Not something we would expect from an Alien spin-off. Creating universes is an understandable use of CGI but do we really need a CGI close-up of evolving DNA? Do we need CGI holograms and CGI worm creatures and the rest? And do the CGI worm creatures really need to shove themselves into the characters mouths in a comical fellatio imitation? Naturally, this is all in 3-D. It is distracting and detracts from the tension and the characters. Then again, maybe that is not such a bad thing...


The characters are weak. The ship has a crew of seventeen (ten more than in Alien) and writer Damon Lindelof struggles to develop any of them. Leading the cast is Noomi Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw, a pale imitation of Weaver's Ripley and painfully boring. Shaw is given two sub-plots in an attempt to make her interesting - wavering faith and fertility problems - both of which fail to inspire. In an attempt to establish back story, Lindelof wedges in a childhood flashback scene about five minutes into the film, which is too early and too bizarre (the android can watch dreams like YouTube videos!) to be taken seriously.


The other characters are little more than cardboard cut-outs, most given one line of dialogue and a silly haircut to affirm their roles. There is the Silly One and the Grumpy One and the Scottish One, not to mention the Cool Pilot, the Gung-Ho Hero, the Hard-Nosed Bitch and the Entrepreneurial Billionaire (note to Hollywood: why do you insist on casting young actors to play old characters? The prosthetic skin looks awful. Are there no OAPs in the Screen Actor's Guild?). We also get two Loyal Co-Pilots whose entire character arc consists of them bantering with each other over a bet. There is a particularly corny exchange about this bet shortly before they kamikaze their ship, which is laugh-out-loud cheese. And naturally, there is an entire stock of nameless, voiceless shipmates who might as well be wearing red-shirts because they only exist so they can be killed off in some of the forced action scenes.


The story is as paper-thin as the characters. Jettisoning off into space to meet our makers sounds like an intriguing concept for a film but, as Star Trek V discovered to its dismay, it has to be handled with sophistication or it comes across as ridiculous. Prometheus begins by asking all of the big questions: why are we here? Who created us? Where are our creators now? But it only makes half-assed attempts to answer any of them. Whenever Lindelof is faced with an opportunity in the script to answer one of these questions, he shirks the responsibility and writes in a derailing action scene instead. For instance, they finally wake up one of the buff Engineers who supposedly created the human race... and it goes on a killing spree like a scene from The Thing. No answers for the characters. No answers for us.


The plot-holes abound and the inconsistencies in logic are baffling, as you might expect from the co-creator of Lost. The encounters with alien lifeforms all have completely different repercussions: one bloke is killed, another is turned into a homicidal maniac, another has a tentacle briefly grow out of his eye and then impregnates Noomi Rapace's Shaw with an alien life-form. Yes, this is science-fiction but that isn't a blank cheque to do whatever you like and introduce cool or exciting things for the sake of it. And motivation is an equally questionable area. Why would anyone bend down to pet an alien worm creature? Why is Sean Harris' geologist such a douche? Would a woman desperate to have children really administer her own abortion just because her fetus is alien (where was the internal debate that Ripley faced when encountering her own alien-human offspring in Alien Resurrection)? And what exactly is the ulterior motive of Michael Fassbender's admittedly film-saving android David? 


Despite this hodge-podge of flaws there are two reasons that audiences will stay seated throughout Prometheus' 124 minutes. Firstly, we are waiting for a twist ending, a hallmark of science-fiction. Sadly, this never arrives. Anyone waiting for a big revelation about Charlize Theron's Vickers secretly being an android or Michael Fassbender's David secretly being a human (he wears a spacesuit after all) will be disappointed. Secondly, audiences are waiting for a glimpse of the iconic alien. This is an Alien prequel after all. On this score, our wish is granted but not fulfilled. We get ten seconds of the alien tacked onto the end of the film which is too little, too late. It doesn't play a role in the story, it doesn't even meet any of the characters, it just pops up and hisses in a cameo appearance shortly before the credits role. This may have been Scott and Lindelof's attempt to leave the audience on a crowd-pleasing note but instead it makes us nostalgic for the original Alien film and serves as a reminder that this is a pale imitation of the franchise it hopes to revive.


Ultimately, Prometheus feels like Scott's answer to James Cameron's Avatar. Maybe Scott is still bitter that Cameron stole his thunder by directing Aliens, often-cited as a superior sequel to Alien. As such, this could be Scott's attempt at overshadowing Avatar: another world, lots of action, plenty of CGI and cutting-edge 3D. If that was Scott's motive, then he has failed. You cannot force a classic space thriller into the Hollywood blockbuster mould without losing a lot of fans and credibility.


Scott and Lindelof promised audiences that Prometheus would tackle the big theological question: why are we here? Unfortunately, by the end of the film, you will be left wondering the same thing.


★★

Note to reader: for a comprehensive list of Prometheus' plot-holes, you can turn to page 114 of the August issue of Empire magazine. A great read.

The Raid

The Raid is the martial arts film of 2012 and Indonesia's answer to Die Hard.

Or should that be Die Hardcore? Because this is on another level. The Raid provides 90-minutes of brutal, up-close-and-personal, lightning-fast, ass-kickery. Expect an abundance of machete-wielding henchman, relentless fisticuffs, a SWAT team massacre and even an exploding refrigerator.

Director Gareth Evans (a Welsh guy directing an Indonesian cast, go figure) keeps the action old-school. No bullet-time, no wires, no revolving corridors and absolutely no CGI. Just a bunch of highly-trained stuntmen beating the living hell out of each other, documented by some nifty camera work courtesy of Evans. And pay attention Michael Bay because nothing is lost through haphazard editing or an over-reliance on shaky-cam. Instead, Evans captures every single punch on film. His style provides an incredibly immersive experience and, as an audience member, you will feel like you are taking a beating yourself.

Evans makes great use of his Iko Uwais, leading man, choreographer and all-round secret weapon. Evans discovered Uwais whilst making a documentary about the Indonesian martial art, Pencak Silat, and knew he had found an action superstar in the making. In many ways, The Raid (and their 2009 collaboration Merantau) is just an excuse to showcase Uwais' mastery of Pencak Silat. Martial arts buffs will be reminded of Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee's earlier star vehicles where a paper-thin plot is thrown-together to allow the hero endless hordes of henchman to dispatch in a cool, crowd-pleasing way. And Evans achieves this goal because Uwais will be a big name after this.

At this point, it is important to slow down and take stock because it would be easy to give The Raid five-stars on impulse. But whilst there hasn't been a martial arts film this raw and hard-hitting for a long time, this is not the essential piece of film-making that some magazines will lead you to believe.

As stated, very little effort has gone into story, script or characterisation. The Raid has the plot of video game: advance through the levels, encountering more difficult bosses as you go until you reach the end (the same plot as Bruce Lee's The Game of Death). There are a few welcome twists but even they fall a little flat because we have no attachment to the characters. Most are there to be cannon-fodder, whilst the supporting players are types: the good cop, the corrupt cop, the villain, the henchman. Even Uwais' heroic rookie is a little vanilla when he isn't kicking ass (he has a pregnant wife at home!) although at least there is some intrigue surrounding his motives once inside the apartment block.

And another huge problem is the absence of humour. Die Hard has achieved immortality because of the sardonic smirks and one-liners of Bruce Willis. But Uwais and the cast play this completely straight. Admittedly, that might jar with the gritty, R-rated tone of the film. But to have no comic relief? It makes the 90 minutes seem a bit of a drag at times, especially after sitting through another five-minute brawl.

But it's early days for Evans and Uwais. Future collaborations are very likely. Evans has been smart enough to leave enough characters alive at the end (on both sides of the law) to allow for a sequel. Maybe they could invert the plot and have the bad guys storm a cop building? 

Then again, it is not the plot that will cause the audiences to return. Evans and Uwais are the draw here. With one behind the camera and the other in front of it, audiences will be rewarded with a kick-ass combination.

★★★

Marvel Avengers Assemble

There is no shortage of highly-anticipated films due for release this year but only Marvel Avengers Assemble has seen a studio put this level of investment into its production. 

After all, Marvel Studios have been planning this for years. Ever since they became an independent studio in 2008, Marvel began to envisage an ensemble movie and it was always going to be the Avengers. And Marvel dived head-first into pursuing that goal. Entire multi-million pound films were green-lit (Thor, Captain America) solely to pave the way for this Marvel all-star mash-up, whilst numerous big-name actors were signed onto multiple-film contracts, including the famous Samuel L Jackson nine-film deal as Nick Fury. It is a level of commitment not seen by a studio since New Line decided to shoot three Lord of the Rings films at the same time. But would Marvel's faith in the Avengers project pay off?

Thankfully, the answer is a resounding yes. Avengers is a perfect blockbuster: insanely action-packed, ludicrously fun and with lovable characters you want to endlessly quote on the drive home.

It could easily have gone wrong. Numerous superhero movies have failed to juggle multiple characters before now (Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3) and Avengers attempts to unite four characters fresh from headlining their own titular adventures, as well as an ever-growing cast of S.H.I.E.L.D agents. It seemed an impossible task.

Enter director and screenwriter Joss Whedon: the true hero of this movie. Whedon was certainly a left-field choice considering his sketchy track record. Admittedly, he has always produced high-quality television work - Buffy, Alias, Firefly, Dollhouse - but the latter two were cancelled and the Firefly spin-off movie, Serenity, bombed at the box office. Nevertheless, Marvel knew what they were doing.

Marvel realised this is not just Avengers Assemble but Avengers Ensemble and no-one can handle an ensemble cast like Joss Whedon. Just look at Firefly, where he crafted weekly scripts balancing nine memorable but very different characters all living on the same ship. And Whedon brings that expertise to the superheroes.


Whedon also makes the smart move of drip-feeding the arrival of the Avengers. We don't even see one of the principal four heroes until twenty minutes into the film, by which time we have already met the S.H.I.E.L.D team and the villain, a returning Tom Hiddleston as Thor's brother Loki. This stops the audience from being over-whelmed by capes and green things, whilst also giving us time to warm to the less-iconic but no less-interesting government agents.


Each character is handled with care, as you would expect from a lifetime fan-boy such as Whedon, and all have their fair share of heroic moments, story development and crowd-pleasing one-liners. The concern that Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark would steal the show with his trademark dry humour has proven unfounded. Remember, this is a Whedon script so everyone gets good material, even the more straight-laced characters like Thor and Captain America. 


It is also satisfying to finally see Samuel L Jackson's Nick Fury and Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye get something to do after their cameos in previous films, the former tasked with protecting the world at whatever cost and the latter putting Legolas to shame in the kick-ass bow action department.  Newcomer Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner is also given ample screentime to establish himself as Edward Norton's replacement and succeeds in making the role his own, full of personality, subtlety and touches of The Other Guy hidden underneath. Although, if anyone is in danger of stealing the show, it might just be Clark Gregg's Agent Phil Coulson with his nonchalant responses to gods and super-soldiers, plus his awkward admiration of Captain America. Agent Coulson is proof that some heroes 'suit-up' by putting on a tie.


Naturally, with Whedon's involvement, a razor-sharp script was a given. The laughs are in abundance, back stories are flesh-outed and great dialogue is in no short supply. With a lesser director or screenwriter, this might have turned into a rushed action film. But Whedon's best work is the interaction of mismatched characters and he brings that experience to Avengers. It would have been such a missed opportunity to sign these actors onto the same film and waste them in front of a greenscreen for two hours of CGI-bashing. Instead, the film balances the action with plenty of debate, clashing egos and sob-story telling which makes for more rewarding viewing.


But when the story does require action, Whedon (Hulk) smashes it. Serenity may not have done particularly well at the box office but now Whedon is back with a bigger budget and a set of super abilities to play with. The action is superb: creative, fun and with a sense of purpose to it. Above all else, the action is clear. Unlike Transformers 1 and 3, which similarly end with a city being trashed, the audience will be able to tell what is happening when the Avengers kick ass. There is sparing use of shaky-cam, frenetic editing and rock music. Instead, every action scene is given as much story and care as the dialogue scenes. If anything, Michael Bay should be taking notes from Whedon.


The climatic action scene also has a secret weapon in the form of the Hulk, who only makes one brief appearance before the final showdown. Whedon makes good use of the not-so-jolly green giant, including an unfortunate showdown for Loki and cinema's greatest sucker-punch, both of which were met with a round of applause by my audience on opening night. Hulk is such a lovable anti-hero: simple, feral and unstoppable but with the grunting petulance of a toddler. And there is a lot more personality to this Hulk due to Ruffalo playing him via motion-capture. Let's hope we don't have to wait until Avengers 2 before we see Ruffalo's Hulk again.


Critics may comment on certain plot-points. Firstly, everyone is chasing a cube of energy (another unfortunate Transformers parallel) but the Macguffin is a tradition of cinema history. And if it worked for Hitchcock, it can work for the Avengers. Secondly, the alien army are admittedly bland: humanoid, identical and silent. But who cares? The Avengers need some cannon-fodder to smash in order to keep our adrenaline pumping. And at least those giant metal eel things are pretty original.


The last point to debate is whether this is strictly for superhero fans or any cinema-goer. Without doubt, Avengers is best-suited for loyal fans who have seen the relevant preceding films: Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and so on. After all, Whedon is a fan and so Avengers is full of references to the preceding films that attentive fans will appreciate. But you don't have to be a comic book geek to enjoy this film. And even newcomers will not struggle particularly. Whedon has effectively introduced each character (their abilities, their back stories) to ensure all cinema-goers will be inducted before the shields and hammers start flying.


To reiterate, Marvel Avengers Assemble is a perfect blockbuster. Whedon has arguably assembled (ahem) the greatest superhero film to date and certainly the most fun. But this is not just five-star, super-slick, laugh-out-loud, dream-come-true Friday night entertainment. Avengers is also something new. It is proof that Joss Whedon is a major player in Hollywood and will hopefully be given free rein to pick his projects from now on. And most importantly, it is proof that crossover comic book franchises can work on the big screen and should not just be restricted to the comics. Marvel's faith has paid off, both in the Avengers and in Whedon. 


So maybe it is Marvel who are the true heroes of this story.

The Cabin in the Woods

The Cabin in the Woods poses a problem for any film critic. When a ridiculously-enjoyable horror flick such as Cabin comes along, we naturally want to babble about its inventiveness, witty one-liners and genre-busting originality. But at the same time, we don't want to give the game away because Cabin's greatest strength is its rug-pulling twists and turns. It's a tricky one. 

But that's why critics invented the SPOILER ALERT. If you have faith in The Big Fairbanski gospel then stop reading now, watch the film raw and thank us later. However, if you need a little persuasion then read on. But don't say we didn't warn you...

SPOILER ALERT

Assuming by now that you have seen the poster, you would already have some idea that this is no ordinary hack-and-slash entry in the 'cabin in the woods' horror sub-genre. If the tongue-in-cheek title didn't give that away, then surely the Rubik's cube cabin and the tagline 'You think you know the story...' gave you this impression. And the poster is right. This is no ordinary 'cabin in the woods' film.

None of this is surprising when you look at the team putting this together. Drew Goddard is director and screenwriter, a man who previously wrote for Lost, Alias, Buffy and Cloverfield. Meanwhile, man-of-the-moment Joss Whedon is co-screenwriter and producer. Not only does this give you a script full of great characters, dark humour and fan-pleasing horror references but you also get the endless WTF moments that you have to come to expect from their earlier work.

As with Lost and Alias, a lot of the fun for the audience is spent trying to work out what is going on. Anyone who has seen the trailer, would have seen the eagle fly into the invisible forcefield and has no doubt figured out that there are puppet-masters behind the scenes. Is this some sort of Big Brother government experiment? Or a reality TV show like The Truman Show? Or are people paying to watch the violence like in Hostel? Then, just as you find yourself feeling confident in your theory - bam! - the film cuts to Japan. Goddard and Whedon keep you guessing until the end and, like Lost, this provides refreshing and addictive viewing.  But, unlike Lost, Cabin knows exactly where it is going. And rest assured, Cabin's destination is every bit as good as its journey.

In many ways, Cabin is a kindred spirit to that other five-star 2012 release, The Artist. After all, The Artist was a piece of silent cinema about silent cinema and equally Cabin is more than just a horror film: it is about horror films. Indeed, whilst all the horror motifs are present - the ominous redneck, the creepy basement, the horny fumble in the woods, the stupid decision-making ("Let's split up!") and the inevitable bloodshed - the film actually scrutinises the genre because each motif is purposefully engineered by the puppet-masters who knowingly manufacture the clichéd set-up. As with the Scream films, this self-awareness makes for clever, meta but ultimately fun viewing.

Also like Scream, there is a delicate but well-crafted balance between the parody and the horror. This is crucial considering there are essentially two stories running alongside each other: the bloodshed in the cabin and the matter-of-fact office mentality of the puppet-masters. However, both are given due consideration. You could easily expect the dry humour of the puppet-masters (Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, both superb) to steal the show. After all, we should relate to them the most because, like us, they are essentially the audience watching the events unfold. But when Goddard cuts back to the cabin, you are immediately invested back in the horror - gory, claustrophobic, creepy - and sympathise with the teenagers. It is an incredible balancing act and a testament to both director and script that the butchery in the cabin is not trivial to the audience, in the same way that it is trivial for the puppet-masters.

Best of all, Goddard and Whedon's fan-boy geekiness is ever-present and their influence makes for a showcase of deliriously-entertaining moments both cabin-side and behind-the-scenes. On the cabin front, we have plenty of original ideas: the blonde snogs a stuffed wolf's-head, a one-way mirror leads to some awkward humour, an extendable bong is used as a last defence and cinema has a new iconic murder weapon in the form of a swinging bear-trap. Meanwhile, there is lots of fun cliché-inversion occurring with the puppet-masters who are simply spending another day at the office: pranking colleagues with speaker phone gags, collecting bets for the office sweepstake and drinking tequila at the office party. But all of this is done with a twist.

And then, when the two sides of the story collide... Well. Not even a SPOILER ALERT would give me enough jurisdiction to ruin that for you. 

Put it this way, the final twenty minutes might just be the most gloriously-rewarding climax to a film since The Matrix lobby scene. It is a horror fan's wet dream. It begins with a zooming-out shot so epic and full of visual treats that they could have ended the movie right there. But the film goes on and, boy, does it get messy. There is one particular oh-no-they-didn't moment which will stay with you long after you have left the multiplex. To say any more would ruin the surprise. But it is no coincidence that I mentioned the Matrix lobby scene.

The Cabin in the Woods is a five-star meta-horror experience. It is a love letter to the horror genre - part-parody, part-homage - written by a pair of fanboys with endless creativity and enough budget to craft one of the best cinema experiences of 2012. The marketing campaign has been understandably underwhelming, lest any major plot points are given away, so word-of-mouth is essential. And these are the words coming out of my mouth:

Go down to the woods today. You're sure of a big surprise.

★★★★★

Headhunters

Author Jo Nesbo is often dubbed the new Stieg Larsson and so naturally this adaptation of his novel Headhunters has been hailed as the new The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

To some extent, this comparison is justified. Like Dragon Tattoo, this is another superior 'Scandi Crime' thriller based on a work by a best-selling Scandinavian author. Expect murder, deception, gore, nudity and plenty of revelations along the way.

But Headhunters is a very different experience to Dragon Tattoo.

Most notably, Headhunters is no detective novel (although interestingly, Nesbo has written a series of detective novels narrating the adventures of Inspector Harry Hole. Presumably, the studios wanted to test Nesbo's appeal with his standalone Headhunters before launching the potential Hole franchise). Instead, this is a race-against-time thriller, sharing more in common with The Fugitive than the slow mystery-unravelling escapades of Dragon Tattoo.

Headhunters tells the story of Roger Brown (Aksel Hennie), corporate headhunter and part-time art thief. He has a beautiful wife (Synnove Macody Lund) but is afraid he will lose her to a new acquaintance, Clas Greve (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau). Roger therefore refuses to assist Greve with an upcoming job opportunity. Unfortunately, Greve is a headhunter of a different kind and he takes Roger's rebuttal personally. And so begins a cross-country pursuit with the murderous Greve hunting out the increasingly-desperate Roger. 

Roger's desperate attempts to evade his pursuer highlight the other way in which this differs from Dragon Tattoo: comedy. Whereas, Steig Larsson's novels and their film adaptations are devoid of comic relief, this has never been the case with Jo Nesbo's novels which are filled with pitch-black humour. We therefore get numerous laugh-out-loud dark moments: hiding in a pile of faeces whilst breathing through a toilet roll, sinking a body with rocks only to then discover the man wasn't actually dead, escaping in a tractor with a dead dog skewered on the front, surviving a car crash off a cliff by being wedged in-between two identical fat police officers. The outrageous and increasingly-surreal set-pieces are very welcome in what could have been a formulaic on-the-run story.

The story also feels fresh due to the numerous twists and turns - this is a Nesbo adaptation after all - but also because of Mortem Tyldum's kinetic directing. Headhunters largely whips along at a fast pace (only 100 minutes), with quick-cutting and the time-saving benefits of a first-person narrative. Tyldum even fits in some gritty action scenes, including a barn brawl with a savage dog and a claustrophobic Bourne-style kitchen knife fight. All of this keeps the audience entertained amidst the complex plot.

The two leads of brilliant. Game of Throne's Coster-Waldau is perfectly cast as the charming but deadly Greve. Meanwhile, Hennie carries the film as Roger. Incredibly, Hennie manages to humanise a character who begins the movie stealing, cheating and acting smug. This is mostly done through his downfall (it's hard not to sympathise with a guy submerged in faeces) but also through some touching scenes with his wife towards the latter half of the film. There are not many films where the main character's story arc involves him overcoming small man's syndrome but Hennie handles this well.

Arguably, the wrapping-up of the plot is a little too convenient - a trait common in all Nesbo novels - and the tidy conclusion is reminiscent of an episode of Hustle. But this is necessary for the surprisingly feel-good ending and audiences deserve to leave with a smile after sitting through 100 minutes of suspense.

Headhunters is a hugely-enjoyable thriller, with plenty of original ideas and dark humour. It is a short, sharp slice of Norwegian entertainment that doesn't outstay its welcome. Best of all, it is good to see a Jo Nesbo novel finally arrive on the big screen. Based on Headhunters' success, expect adaptations of his Harry Hole detective novels to follow.

After all, Headhunters has given us a slice. Now we want the Hole.

★★★★