Ted

After a decade of Family Guy and American Dad, Seth McFarlane finally makes his directorial debut on the big screen. However, as with any episode of Family Guy, the reality is a mixed bag of gags, with equal measures of hits and misses.

This is a shame because, on paper, Ted should be an instant hit.

The concept driving the film is a truly original idea: young John's wish is granted and his teddy bear comes to life. But then John grows up (Mark Wahlberg) and he still has his walking, talking teddy bear as a best friend. McFarlane's writing explores the consequences of this scenario, both the dramatic and the comedic: what affect would this have on John's relationship with Lori (Mila Kunis)? How can John act his age with his teddy bear in tow? What would happen when the teddy bear reaches the legal drinking age? Unfortunately, the drama is often handled better than the comedy.

Much of the comedy is hoped to be generated by Ted himself. Sticking with the Family Guy formula, McFarlane aims to produce laughs by having a human partnered with a sidekick that shouldn't do adult things... but does. We have seen this with Family Guy's Brian and Stewie: a dog and a baby that drink, smoke, swear, fight, crack wise and have sex. Ted follows suit. Admittedly, seeing a teddy bear raise its middle-finger, say the F-word and smoke a bong in the trailer was hilarious. But with a feature length film, the joke soon gets old.

The comedy is stop-start. Some jokes land but many fall flat. 

Highlights include Ted's failed attempts to get fired, Mila Kunis picking up poo, McFarlane's trademark pop culture references, Ted squaring off with a chicken and Mark Wahlberg in general, who needs to be given more comedy roles. We also get Sam Jones (the original Flash Gordon) playing himself at a house party, necking shots, snorting cocaine, tripping out, fighting a disgruntled Chinese neighbour ("Miiing!") and overall just being an ageing Hollywood bad-ass.

But the lowlights include Patrick Stewart's opening voiceover which fails to get the film started, a wasted Joel McHale as Mila Kunis' sleazy boss and crude, loud moments such as when John farts in a restaurant. Chaotic, see-what-sticks comedy is fine in a long-running TV show like Family Guy. But with a film, when you only get 110 minutes, you need to have all killer and less filler.

That said, chaotic comedy can work on the bigscreen, as seen with Anchorman and 21 Jump Street (which retains the crown of Comedy of the Year), but only if the gag rate is high. However, McFarlane chooses to give equal weight to the dramatic scenes exploring John and Lori's turbulent relationship. This is not necessarily a bad thing because these scenes are well-written and well-acted. But it does put extra pressure on the comedy, which, as noted, does not always deliver.

Nevertheless, maybe this is being unfair. 

In many ways, Ted is the Avengers of comedy films: highly-anticipated and never going to please everyone. After all, this is Seth McFarlane's first feature film and it was never going to live up to the astronomically high standards demanded by Family Guy fans. As such, it is important to be clear: Ted is a superior comedy. It is certainly funnier than the tiresome rom-coms and formulaic Ben Stiller comedies that are churned out every year. It is just testament to McFarlane's reputation as a TV comedy don that we expected some more belly-laughs.

But McFarlane can walk away from this proudly. And based on the potential on offer here, both McFarlane and Ted deserve another outing on the big screen.

★★★

The Dark Knight Rises

How do you top The Dark Knight? Simple. You don't.

For better or for worse, Christopher Nolan has concluded his epic Batman re-imagining with a very different type of film. The Dark Knight was the superhero version of Heat, a fast and frenetic face-off between Batman and the Joker. It was a cinematic tour-de-force and smashed $1 billion dollars at the worldwide box office. As such, you may have expected TDKR to follow the same formula. And maybe it would have done if this was just another sequel or the franchise had been handed to a lesser director, as occurred with the X-Men films. It would have made money but it wouldn't have reaped the five-star gold medals.

But, no, if Christopher Nolan, one of the greatest film-makers of our generation, has decided to return to the director's chair then it won't be to simply rehash familiar territory. Instead, Nolan means business. Because this isn't a mere sequel. This is the concluding part of a trilogy. And that changes everything.

The concluding part of a trilogy must do exactly that: conclude. Story strands established in the opening instalment must be revisited and resolved, long-forgotten villains will suddenly make a reappearance and much-loved characters must meet their end (whether it be happy or sad). And before all of that can happen, things have to reach an all-time low for our heroes: Frodo ditches Sam, Andy goes to college, the DeLorean runs out of gas and Ewoks die. As Harvey Dent once said: "The night is darkest before the dawn."

As you would expect, Nolan is a pro and observes trilogy protocol dutifully. This means we get crowd-pleasing reminders of the first two films, ranging from flashbacks to familiar faces, and the stakes are raised higher than ever. Bruce Wayne has seen better days: he is eight years older, walks with a cane and his company is on the verge of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Batman is villified in order to protect the legacy of Harvey Dent and he is held responsible several murders committed by Dent after he became Two-Face. Both ego and alter-ego have taken a beating. And all of that is before Bane arrives with an army of terrorists and holds the city to ransom. As such, TDKR is the darkest and least fun of Nolan's Batman films: allies turn, backs break and Gotham crumbles. This means that the re-watch value is arguably low but at least it delivers in shocking the audience and upping the tension. For the first time in the Nolanverse, we feel genuine concern for Bruce.

Most of this concern arises from Tom Hardy's Bane: a buff, brutal strategist who mercilessly holds Gotham hostage. He is a villain so dangerous than even the League of Shadows kicked him out. Hardy is perfect casting for such a nemesis. Few actors can rival his physical presence, as seen in Bronson, and Hardy makes good use of his bulk. It could have stopped there. Bane could have been reduced to a glorified henchman, as was the case in the awful Batman and Robin. 

But Nolan's treatment of the character is more faithful to the comics and the script favours Bane's fierce intelligence as well. Hardy obliges by taking the frankly ingenious decision to give Bane a well-spoken voice. This voice is a bizarre blend of David Attenborough and Gandalf but it is more memorable and more chilling than Bane's fists. The voice exudes wisdom and cynicism (indeed, his first line is a quip outsmarting Aidan Gillen's CIA agent) and serves to make Bane even more intimidating and fearsome than if he was just a heavyweight terrorist. Quite simply: Bane is Batman's physical and mental superior.

Admittedly, in terms of performance, Bane is no Joker. His mask severely limits the range of Hardy's acting expressions and, aside from a few lines, he will never charm the audience by cracking jokes and jerking around. But let's not forget that the Joker is Batman's most iconic, charismatic and crowd-pleasing villain. Hell, he is the Batman villain. And in the case of TDK, Heath Ledger's interpretation of the Joker was an Oscar-winning, career-best performance. Bane was never going to live up to that. A less imaginative director might have tried. If Nolan wanted another Joker, then he would have introduced the Riddler (Johnny Depp!) and had some fun. But this wasn't about testing the Bat once again, this was about breaking the Bat. And, as comic book zens will tell you, it was Bane who famously broke the Bat. 

Incidentally, the closest thing to a Joker performance in TDKR comes courtesy of Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman. Hathaway exudes sexiness and ass-kickery in her most controlled performance to date. The goofy days of The Princess Diaries and her emotive, hysterical role in Rachel Getting Married are long forgotten. Instead, this is a Hathaway more akin to Scarlett Johanson's Black Widow: cool, cunning, deadly and looking for redemption at any cost. Her Catwoman will keep you guessing until the end - villain, ally, love interest? - and will deliver some applaud-worthy moments along the way. Indeed, Hathaway's is the performance you will be reliving and quoting on the drive home.

...which is a shame because Nolan has assembled another superb A-list cast and none deserve to be overshadowed, least of all Christian Bale, who is often underrated for his three-film humanising portrayal of Bruce Wayne. And let's not forget Michael Caine's tear-jerking Alfred or Gary Oldman's dependable commissioner or Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox (or should that be Q?) whose gadgets always steal the show. Also, new to this film is Joseph Gordon-Levitt's cop John Blake, who gets as much screen-time as Bruce Wayne and further cements his status as a Hollywood leading man. And that is without drawing upon the huge supporting cast of familiar faces that have arisen throughout the trilogy, many taken from popular TV shows (Band of Brothers, Prison Break, Lost, The Wire, 24, Game of Thrones, Torchwood and more). You can have a lot of fun trying to spot them all.

But despite Nolan's reputation as King of the Ensemble, the Batman films have never been solely about the acting talent. Nolan has two further strengths, arguably more essential to his films' popularity.

The first is his ease with negotiating increasingly-elaborate action scenes and TDKR has the challenge of topping Inception's revolving corridor brawls. Nolan, never one to rest on his morels, ups the ante. So we get a motorbike chase with stockbrokers strapped to the back of the villains, we get a new flying Bat-vehicle for airborne assaults, we get a plane hijacking another plane and we get the much-publicised football game assault (although, this was the money-shot from the trailer and so it feels like old news). We also get the most brutal and prolonged fist-fight yet with Batman and Bane squaring off. Nolan crafts expert action-scenes: less Michael-Bay-frenzied-shaky-cam and more a James-Cameron-clear-and-controlled approach. And Hans Zimmer's score keeps the adrenaline pumping throughout.

Nolan's second unsurpassed strength is his ability to tell a story. Nolan has always been able to assemble a complex story structure without alienating his audience (Memento, Inception) and TDKR is no exception. Flashbacks and sub-plots and memories are all intricately interwoven into the main story, some lasting no more than a couple of seconds, but all serving their purpose to reveal more about Nolan's enigmatic characters. The impact of some of Nolan's twists would not be so great without the foreshadowing of these little snippets of back-story and it is testament to Nolan's subtlety that these snippets never feel forced, nor do they distract too much from the events occurring in Gotham. It would be nice to see Nolan put aside the big budget for his next film and craft another Prestige or Following.

So, having read all of that, surely TDKR is close to perfection? Well, no. 

Ten days after its release, there are some common criticisms arising. They range from the bizarre ('I can't understand what Bane is saying!') to the petty ('It takes itself too seriously!'). Several have noted that the start was fairly slow-paced and failed to live up to the opening of TDK. But considering TDK has possibly the best opening to any movie ever, it would be fair to cut Nolan some slack on this count.

And, yes, the re-watch value is possibly the lowest of the series. Of the three films, TDKR is the least standalone film and knowledge of the previous instalments is essential for maximum enjoyment. A newcomer to the series would be baffled by the footage of Two-Face ('What the hell was that thing?!') and the reappearance of Ras Al Ghal ('Hey, look, Liam Neeson!'). But you would expect a certain amount of foreknowledge when delivering the concluding part of a trilogy.

There is valid criticism about the length of the film. 165 minutes is a long time to be sat in the cinema. Not that it feels particularly long but a trim would have made it leaner and meaner. As Stephen King once said: the second draft should be the first draft minus 10%. Nolan could have severed several of the sub-plots, such as the three soldiers who show up and get hung almost immediately, Gordon-Levitt's bus-load of children, Matthew Modine's police chief and whatever was happening with that lispy rival businessman. And, as ever, Nolan puts in one action scene too many. Did we really need a climatic chase scene after the Talia Al Ghul twist?

It could also be argued that Nolan wavers slightly into cliché territory at times, which is a shame because Nolan usually reinvents the wheel. But TDKR features a romantic encounter by a roaring fire and the Jedi-like return of Ras Al Ghul and a ticking time bomb diverted at the last second and the aforementioned bus-load of children (not just children, orphans!) that need bravely rescuing. Most of this is harmless but it is very clichéd for the gritty Nolan-verse.

But even five-star films have their flaws and be under no doubt, TDKR is a five-star film. It is unlikely to be the Film of the Year (Skyfall vs. Hobbit) but it is superior, well-crafted, masterful story-telling and a worthy swansong to Nolan's trilogy. 

Like Bruce Wayne, the Nolan Bat films leave their own legacy. Their serious handling of the Batman legend breathed new life into the caped crusader, bridging the gap between escapism and realism. The films united cinema-goers, pleasing regular crowds with mainstream thrills whilst retaining enough integrity to earn the respect of film critics. And Nolan delivered a superhero trilogy with the scale of an epic: a seemingly-endless cast, a story that spans decades and action that sprawls across city-wide, world-wide locations.

Above all else, it is a complete, consistent and concluded trilogy, the vision of one director and one of our best directors: Christopher Nolan. As such, it will sit alongside Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Back to the Future and Toy Story as one of cinema's few great trilogies.

Maybe it's about time that we made Christopher Nolan a knight? #sirchristophernolan

★★★★★

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.