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.

★★★★

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

It is a testament to the quality of 21st century animation when you find yourself walking out of an Aardman film feeling short-changed. But sadly, that is the case with Pirates.

In many ways, this comes as a surprise because Aardman appear to be sticking to their formula: lovingly-crafted claymation, an eccentric bunch of characters, cute animals, a voice cast of big-name British actors, lots of good clean humour and chaotic slapstick action.


If anything, the only complaint about Pirates should be that director Peter Lord is sticking a little too closely to the Aardman formula that gave him such a winning result with Chicken Run.


Aside from the ships and cutlasses, we have seen all of this before in previous Aardman films: we have Mr Bobo the monkey, a mute but clever animal breaking the fourth wall (Gromit); a bewildered hero (Wallace); a psychotic female villain who wields blades and likes eating cute animals (Chicken Run's Mrs Tweedy); a chaotic chase scene (every Aardman creation to date); a hero dangling from a rope at the film's climax (Chicken Run); machinery over-filling and then exploding (Chicken Run again); and a plot involving the pursuit of a Macguffin (here a Dodo but a giant marrow in the case of The Curse of the Were-Rabbit).


A generous review would accuse Aardman of lacking originality, resting on their morels but creating an enjoyable piece of British animation nonetheless. And due to the popularity of Aardman and the loyalty critics feels to Wallace and Gromit, expect to see plenty of four or five star reviews for Pirates.


However, as an Oscar-winning animation studio, Aardman deserve to hear some some criticism.


The chief flaw with Pirates is that it lacks the belly-laughs of Chicken Run or Were-Rabbit. In fact, the adult gag-rate seems to be the only thing that they haven't taken from previous Aardman films. Young viewers will enjoy themselves but - aside from the monkey and some inventive map jokes - adults will do little more than smile appreciatively.


The characters also fail to inspire. For starters, very few of them have anything to do accept utter idiotic one-liners, such as Russell Tovey's Albino Pirate and Brendan Gleeson's Pirate with Gout. Meanwhile, Selma Hayek's beautiful but deadly Cutlass Liz and Ashley Jensen's Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate are wasted entirely. The audience will be waiting for their stories to go somewhere (look how prominently they feature on the poster!) but they only have two or three lines each. Admittedly, Pirates is based on a series of books by Gideon Defoe so maybe their stories will be explored in a sequel. But don't expect a Chicken Run-style love story. This is strictly a bromance on a boat, like The Boat That Rocked but without the laughs.


All of this is a shame because the Aardman visuals have never been better. This is Aardman's first claymation venture in 3D so expect cutlasses pointing into the camera and a Jolly Roger with springy googly-eyes. Also, this is their most epic adventure to date. The sheer size of some of the scenes is unlike any previous Aardman film, notably when one pirate makes his entrance via a whale and again later as Queen Victoria's QV1 is overflowing with baking soda. Furthermore, the detail packed into every shot is impressive and Blu-Ray owners will spend hours freeze-framing so they can read every joke written on the signs in the background of each scene. Technically, Aardman have come a long way since 1989's A Grand Day Out.


But the technical side is the least important in any film. If only they had spent less time with the clay and more time on the story and character and script. 


Unlike Pixar, those unbeatable leaders of world-famous animation, Aardman prefer to play it safe and stick to what they know. This is particularly frustrating because Aardman should have hit their stride following the Oscar-winning Were-Rabbit. It is high time they tackled something a little more challenging. They need to make a WALL.E or an Up or a Ratatouille, all of which tackled adult themes in a sophisticated but entertaining way. If not, Aardman films will keep falling off the radar into pleasant-but-hardly-essential territory (does anybody even remember Flushed Away?) and it will be Pixar films that we will continue to watch twenty years from now.


Until then, Aardman will keep sticking to their formula. Their reputation alone will guarantee that Pirates will be a box office success and many Wallace and Gromit loyalists will treasure an Aardman adventure on the open seas. 


But don't expect any gold.


★★

The Hunger Games

Do you know what they call The Hunger Games in Paris? Battle Royale with Cheese!

Great joke. Also, a very concise and accurate review.

Because, put simply: The Hunger Games takes the plot of Koshun Takami's novel Battle Royale and tailors it for the Twilight generation. 

For anyone not in the know, The Hunger Games is a trilogy by Suzanne Collins which has captured the interest of teenage girls looking for life after Edward Cullen. Their popularity is hardly surprising. The books have a strong female protagonist, Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence in the film), and a three-book love story between Katniss and sweetheart, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). 

Admittedly, the plot is pretty cool too. It fits the mould of the Dystopian Death Games genre - particularly Battle Royale - whereby a group of randomly-selected teenagers are told to kill each other by the government for their viewing pleasure. Cue lots of hunting and killing and alliances and betrayals. It's a great concept and has ensured the enduring popularity of Battle Royale and its five-star film adaptation by director Kinji Fukasaku.

The Hunger Games has a promising start. Director Gary Ross makes use of his indie roots and takes time to introduce Lawrence's Katniss, the setting and the idea of the Games. Rather than feeling fantastical, which is always a risk in futuristic films with ridiculous costumes, Ross gives the films a gritty feel with plenty of hand-held cameras, extreme close-ups and different lenses. Like many reputable big-budget films of late, it is fashionable (and respectable) to tackle them with tricks from the indie playbook.

The momentum builds as Katniss and Peeta are both selected for the Games and taken to the capital where they begin their training. This is where the film really hits its stride, as the celebrity culture surrounding the training acts as a brilliant parody of reality TV culture. The unveiling of the contestants is reminiscent of a Big Brother launch whilst Katniss' performance with her bow parallels an X-Factor audition. This is also where the motley supporting cast get their screen time, ranging from memorable (Stanley Tucci's blue-haired host, Woody Harrelson's over-the-hill trainer) to underused (Lenny Kravitz's image consultant, Donald Sutherland's evil President Snow). 

The scenes focussing on the culture surrounding the games are the most original and engaging. Similar films often skirt over these scenes - The Running Man, Rollerball, Death Race - because an 18-certificate audience just wants to fast-track to the violent game itself. Meanwhile, unsurprisingly, a teen audience are much more interested in the costumes and the make-overs and the judges' scores and so naturally Ross directs much of the film's running time to the build-up.

Unfortunately, so much time is directed to the build-up that the audience will be fidgeting in their seats by the time the actual Game starts. And the Game is where the film falters and your interest will wane.

There are numerous problems with the Game, which comprises the second half of the film... 

Firstly, this is a 12-certificate film. Anyone expecting the hyper-violence promised by such a great concept as The Hunger Games will be sorely disappointed. Ross is clearly struggling to hold onto that 12-certificate and manages to negotiate around the gore through huge amounts of shaky-cam (so we never actually see the machete blows land) and far too many off-screen deaths.

Secondly, this is a one-girl show. The entire film is told through Katniss' eyes and, aside from Peeta, the other characters barely get a look in. We know nothing about the other twenty-two kids running around the island getting butchered. A handful of them are lucky enough to bag a line but the rest are just nameless, faceless, character-less fodder to make up numbers. Considering the greatest strength of Battle Royale was the diverse character-list and interconnecting stories, it is a terrible shame that The Hunger Games missed this opportunity. Admittedly, the film-makers were limited by Collins' source material (and she is credited as co-screenwriter) but liberties should have been taken.

Thirdly, the pacing is awful. Ross left himself very little time to deliver the actual Game itself and so you would expect a fast-paced, kinetic Game. Instead, Ross quite happily spends ages filming Katniss tying herself to a tree or staring into the distance or enjoying an extended dream sequence. Plus, with a teen love story at its centre, chunks of the Game time is spent showing Katniss and Peeta getting cosy in a cave. Yawn.

Fourthly, the film regularly borders on nonsensical. Magical ointments are flown in to help Katniss heal (twice!), random fireballs are used to stop Katniss leaving the Game arena and CGI dogs mysteriously pop up from the ground. Are they real or digital? If they are digital, how exactly are they going to harm anyone? Presumably, all of this is explained in more detail throughout the books but, like the Harry Potter films, The Hunger Games demands a lot of foreknowledge from its audience and risks alienating those who don't have the source material of their bookshelf. And those CGI dogs are far too reminiscent of Twilight's wolf pack.

Fifthly, sixthly, seventhly... The list goes on. If only the Game lived up to the build-up, this would have been a very superior blockbuster indeed.

Nevertheless, Lawrence's performance ensures this stays a cut above the Twilight saga. Unlike dreary Bella Swan, Lawrence's Katniss can be added to the canon of great sci-fi feminists, joining the ranks of Alien's Ripley and Battlestar's Starbuck. She is cold but with a big heart, beautiful but deadly, tough but not afraid to cry. Lawrence juggles all of this brilliantly, as you would expect from an Oscar-nominated actress. 

In fact, Katniss shares much with Lawrence's Oscar-nominated Ree Dolly from Winter's Bone. Both are over-protective elder siblings, both live in the wild, both are accustomed to skinning furry animals and both suffer a string of mental and physical abuse to keep their families safe. In many ways, this is Lawrence's definitive performance. It draws on her experience with both blockbusters (X-Men: First Class) and indie flicks (Like Crazy) but also reminds us that Lawrence can carry a film, as we saw in Winter's Bone. With two more The Hunger Games films planned, Lawrence has plenty of opportunity to develop the role into something career-defining. Katniss could be her Wolverine or her Jack Sparrow or her Bond.

With The Hunger Games' box office rising and rising, it is clear that audiences are hungry for more. And provided Lawrence is back and the Game scenes are given an adrenaline boost, we'll be game for more.

Only next time, we'd prefer our Battle Royale without the Cheese. We're not that hungry.

★★★