My Top 10 films of 2011 so far.......

It's that time of the year to look back on the last 6 months of cinema and what it as given us. Now, just so you're aware, all the films I have chosen I enjoyed thoroughly and respectfully understand if you were to disagree. Its been a fascinating 6 months where a great deal of films have been wrongfully subjected to criticism, undermined or even just written off. Thsi time last year, I had already found my favourite film of 2010 in the form of Christopher Nolan's Inception. Can we repeat that I wonder? Without any further ado, here we go.....

1. The Tree Of Life

Terrence Malik's return to the screen for his fifth film in a 40-year career is an inspiring tale chronicling the origins and meaning of life by the way of a middle-aged man's childhood memories of living in 1950s Texas. Featuring a stunning 30 minute sequence of imagery detailing the birth of life and the Earth (in which 5 people walked out of my screening), the film's ambition and epic scale is thrown into practice via the non-linear narrative and existential messages. Very similar to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Tree Of Life emobdies a life and soul that too few films wish to seize. Whilst it may be passed off as pretentious and boring, disappointing and enthralling people in equal measure, there's no doubt in my mind that this is a work of supreme art and Malik's ultimate masterpiece. Those who were uncomfortable when confronted with the film's messages are probably scared at the film's ability to do just that. Whatever your thoughts, The Tree Of Life is much more than your average cinema experience. It transcends anything you've ever seen before.

2. Blue Valentine

Dismissing all those soppy rom-coms and instead detailing the tragic and brutal breakdown of a marraige, Blue Valentine's honesty is what makes a sure-fire contender for a Top 5 finish come the end of the year. Sat in the Showroom, Sheffield's independant cinema, I was mesmerized by the raw power being generated on-screen. The constant switch between the past and present narratives demonstrate there is still something original about the technique, contrasting the once happy couple with the unhappy one. Director Derek Cianfrance's script works on one level as a stand-alone love story but it is propelled to something entirely different by Ryan Gosling & Michelle Williams as the main characters. The film's touch of genius is Cianfrance's decision to film the pre-marriage sequences in Super 16mm to give it a grainy quality; a distant memory whilst the post-marraige sequences are filmed in Red One to give it a crisp, sharp intensity. Never before have I been so overwhelmed by such a film.

3. Black Swan

Darren Aronofsky's ballet drama is a technically brilliant descent into madness and obsession that are stripped down to the very core. Natalie Portman's troubled young ballerina longs to play the role of the White Swan but upon receiving the role must battle the demons inside her as she begins to channel the Black Swan. A metaphor for good and evil, the film's play on sexuality, evny and jealousy result in a deliciously destructive story going deep into the human psyche.

4. True Grit

The Coen Brothers reimagining of the original 1969 film is an entirely different altogether, combining gorgeous cinematography, stand-out performances from all involved (notably Hailee Steinfeld and Jeff Bridges) and the first straight up genre exercise by the Coens, True Grit genuinely feels like the first proper Western in years. The bleak story and bursts of violence only serve to excite the audience's love of what a Western is and it will be interesting to see how Mr. Tarantino tackles his own Western in 2013, Django Unchained.

5. 127 Hours

Based on the true story of Aron Ralston's climbing accident in 2003, where he became trapped by a boulder in Utah. Danny Boyle's surrealist take on the events prove to be a traumatising and somewhat darkly humourous exercise in survival as well as the ability to make a film based around one actor, in the form of one James Franco. Sure, everyone was waiting with baited breath for THAT moment, and when it arrives it is indeed uncomfortable viewing, but ultimately Ralston's hallucinations of family and his life re-inforce the film with a big heart. Life-affirming stuff.

6. Source Code

Director Duncan Jones, son of legendary rock star David Bowie, burst onto our cinema screens with his sci-fi debut Moon in 2009, easily being one of the best films of that particular year. In 2011, he returned for his second feature, Source Code; a sci-fi actioner set in the contemporary world as Jake Gyllenhal discovers a government project allows him to live the last 8 minutes of a man's life in order to stop a bomb detonating on a train. Proposterous and over-the-top but so much fun in the long run, you lose yourself in the film's gripping story and forget the abusrdity. Top performances with a even more brilliant script, Jones is one for the future and Source Code showcases his ever-increasing ability to direct a great film.

7. X-Men: First Class

One of the many superhero blockbusters due out in 2011, many desired a straight-up Magneto origin story. Granted, that would have made for excellent viewing especially if Michael Fassbender was still on-board. Instead though, we are given the origins of the X-Men. With the action taking a backseat and focusing on the fractured relationship between calm and collected Charles Xavier and hot-headed Erik Lensherr, X-Men: First Class proves to be a delightful treat. Not just a superhero film, it takes on a far grander scale. Like the previous installments, the mutants powers are used as metaphors for many real-world issues but First Class pushes them so much further as well as giving the fanboys something to be excited for in the near-future.

8. Thor

Slightly basking in the shadow of First Class but nonetheless a quality example of how to make a superhero movie, Kenneth Brannagh's Thor grips the audience with Shakespearean tragedy and a lead actor in Chris Hemsworth to create more bang for your buck. Like First Class, Brannagh prefers story over action, only using set-pieces when neccessary instead concentrating on the broken relationships between Thor and his father Odin and evil brother Loki as well as his banishment to Earth. A great piece of storytelling; the film is scattered with genuine natural humour that reminded me greatly of 2009's Star Trek and performances by Natalie Portman and Anythony Hopkins that help trascend Thor into something far more than a superhero movie. I look forward greatly to The Avengers in 2012, to see how my new favourite hero stands up against the like of Captain America and Iron Man.

9. The Adjustment Bureau

I must say, George Nolfi's take on Philip K. Dick's Adjustment Team had me divided at first. On first viewing, whilst enjoying it, I wasn't sure what to take from it. Letting the film simmer in my mind helped greatly to my overall perception. The Adjustment Bureau is a fantastic take on the concepts of free will and predestination as well as the idea of an omniscient/omnipotent God. Personally, I have never believed in a higher power but like The Tree Of Life (though not in the same way), the film made me question the idea of what's supposed and in what particular way. Fitted into a real-world context, the film is part love story, part theological exposition. Though not universally loved by critics but nonetheless enjoyed, I find The Adjustment Bureau to be the dark horse of 2011.

10. Paul

As a huge fan of the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost team, I was eager to see their take on the alien invasion story. Whilst it lacks Edgar Wright's kinectic energy showcased in their prior collaborations and last year's Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, on individual merits, Paul is a very funny film. Even though a prior knowledge of sci-fi cinema may be needed to enjoy the film to the ultimate maximum (the film is full of references to Star Wars), there is still a great deal to enjoy. Seth Rogen's titular character being a source of humour, with his apparent love of marmite, pot-smoking ways and love of a good swear word being highlights. More interestingly, Paul has many tender moments too with Kristen Wiig's character's religion being questioned by Paul's knowledge of the world's creation and the love story between Pegg and Wiig's character is very sentimental. As a stand-alone film outside of the Pegg/Frost/Wright team though, Paul was an incredibly enjoyable film and delivered the goods.

So there you have it! That's my Top 10 films of 2011 thus far. let me know what yours! Follow me on Twitter at @IngloriousTward or leave message in the comments box. I'm eager to know!

Dollar signs change everything: Transformers: Dark of the Moon review

We come to that time of year yet again, known simply as the 'Blockbuster' season, where franchises and sequels are unleashed into the public domain with some cheesy acting, more bang for your buck and a hefty price tag to retrieve to guarantee the next installment. And occassionally, but rarely, the audience is treated to a blockbuster with real substance like last year's standout Inception which excelled many expectations to deliver us a film with geniune emotion and some quality acting, with an unbelievably complex yet intricate narrative that pleased all. Sadly, this is not one of those films. Oh no, not at all. If you know me well, you will know that from here on out, this will not be a pretty review. Michael Bay has long been a director whom I despise to the very core for crimes against cinema and Transformers is no exception. Prepare yourself people; its gonna be a bumpy ride.

The problem that has always plagued the Transformers franchise is its origins. Based on the popular Hasbro toyline, it was always designed as nothing more than a money making tool. What's that, Dreamworks? You're seeing dollar signs? Hmmm....I thought so. In the world of franchising, Transformers fits the perfect business model for any power hungry studio. Give Michael Bay a $250million budget and you know you're gonna have a loud, obnoxious, overblown, overlong yet critic-proof juggernaut on your hands. Michael Bay's "What can I blow up next?" philosphy will always ring true to the majority of the public, who see the Transformers franchise as escapism cinema. It's really anything but that.

The story involves a government conspiracy that goes back all the way to the Apollo 11 Moon landings, where Neil Armstrong & co. were actually sent to investigate the crash site of a Cybertronian spacecraft following the war on Cybertron, mentioned in the previous films by Optimus Prime. In the present, we are thrown back into the life of Sam Witwicky, played by Shia LaBeouf the Charisma Vaccum, who now has a new girlfriend Carly (there is no mention of why Megan Fox in the film) who is played by newcomer, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, a Victoria Secret model hand picked by Bay himself. I won't spend too long on this but this is one of the many things that displays Bay's lack of sense towards cinema. He supposedly loves creating his 'art' but he hires a model as the new love interest. We get it; she's attractive. So how else to introduce her other than a shot panning up her naked legs to slowly focus on her bottom? The man baffles me. I will say that she makes Megan Fox look like a masterstorke of casting genius but I digress. The Autobots now work for the government, participating in missions around the globe whilst Sam struggles to find a job and longs to work with the robots again. Their paths meet and once again, we are thrown into a miltary warzone where the Autobots and Decepticons engage in battle (again).

I deeply wish I could say there was more of a narrative to go on but there just isn't much to say. The third act of the film, roughly the last 60 minutes, is dedicated to one enormous fight between the duelling parties. Granted, the CGI is wonderfully executed and it does genuinely look good in the 3D format but for a full 60 minutes, there is only so much an audience can engage with. I found myself struggling greatly to keep up; the frantic editing leaves you wondering who's fighting now, the explosions are constant and its one set-piece after another. The first Transformers movie resembled what a summer blockbuster should be; silly, fun and OTT. But not in the way Dark of the Moon is. Whilst the original leant heavily on a story with a few battle sequences, the second film Revenge of the Fallen destroyed any notion of that story and spent 150 minutes blowing stuff up. Bay promised the third would be a massive improvement and actually, many critics reckon it is. Not this one I'm afraid. Its 155 minutes of bad acting, stuff blowing and the general sense that this franchise should have ended when the original (and superior) film was released.


Thankfully, Mr. Bay and Charisma Vaccum have stated they won't be returning to the franchise after the release of Dark of the Moon, considering the story finished. Thank goodness for this. Revenge of the Fallen is in my Top 5 worst films ever and Dark of the Moon has swiftly followed suite. I beg of you not to waste your time on this but with over a half billion in the bank after 10 days on release; its really no use. No will listen......like I said before, dollar signs change everything.

1 out of 5 stars. (Yes, THAT bad)

P.S. check out this link featuring the review by BBC Five Live's Mark Kermode, my favourite critic. He sums up in his own way what he feels about the Transformers franchise without saying a word.

Game of Thrones draws to a conclusion on a fantastic opening season and alot has happened in that time: Review of Game of Thrones Season 1 (SPOILERS!)

"When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground" explains Lena Headey's Queen Cersei Lannister to Sean Bean's Ned Stark in the 7th episode of the HBO series. The catchphrase sums up perfectly the plot of A Song of Ice and Fire series and this television adaptation.

Based on author George A. Martin's best-selling medieval fantasty series, Games of Thrones takes place in the fictional location of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros and chronicles the violent struggle between the Kingdom's noble families as they fight for control of the Iron Throne.The opening episode closely follows Lord Eddard 'Ned' Stark, played by Sean Bean, of Winterfell and his family are drawn into the court politics of King Robert, who wishes for Ned to replace his recently deceased Hand (right-hand man). With him, King Robert brings his family which includes his wife Queen Cersei Lannister and their son, Prince Joffrey; next in line to the throne. Also in tow is Cersei's brothers Jaime, twin of Cersei with whom he pursues a incestual relationship seceretly fathering her children and nicknamed "Kingslayer" for his murder of the previous King and Tyrion, a womanising, highly intelligent dwarf mockingly named "Imp" or "Halfman" for his deformity. From the first interaction between these characters, there is instant tension; a tension that is matched by the other Kingdoms as the series progresses. The rivalry between Houses Stark and Lannister proves to be the main plotline of Season 1 and as the series draws to its conclusion, horrific events take place (but more on that later!)

The second storyline is set in the Northern border of Westeros, where the winter is constant and harsh. A huge wall of ice and gravel stands tall, created by both magic and labour thousands of years prior to the start of the series, to defend Westeros from the White Walkers; a now-mythical tribe of creatures living further north. The Wall is defended by the Sworn Brotherhood of the Night's Watch, which includes Ned Stark's bastard son Jon Snow, whose duty is to guard the Kingdom from the White Walkers. The White Walkers are present at the very start of Episode 1, where they are discovered by three travellers subsequently murdering two of them and letting the other one go. The lone wanderer comes across Winterfell and this is how the series introduces Ned Stark, who swiftly beheads him; believing his story to be lies and deceit since the Walkers have not been seen for thousands of years. Told through Snow's POV, the Brotherhood that maintain the Wall are primarily made up of criminals and refugees with very few honourable knights in its ranks, since the Night's Watch disolved slowly over a number of years. Therefore, it is under-strengthed and vulnerable against attack, creating much of the conflict that appears in this storyline of Season 1.


The third storyline is set in the Eastern continent of Essos, across the Narrow Sea, and follows Daenerys Targaryen, an exile of House Targaryen and one of the claimants to the Iron Throne. The storyline showcases her evolution from a scared, vulnerable young girl into a confident, powerful ruler in her own right once she enters into a dynastic marraige to the Barbarian warlord, Khal Drago. Season 1 presents her rise to power slowly, as she overcomes the brutality of her older brother Viserys, who had hoped to command Drago's armies against the other Kingdoms after marrying his sister away to him. Viserys plan's backfire, resulting a very very painful death at the hands of Drago and Daenerys leaves his control, establishing herself as a rightful and powerful ruler who vows to take back the Iron Throne.


Now that is indeed alot of story detail to compress into such short paragraphs. It took me a while but I think I managed it (just about!). If I missed anything out, its through no fault of my own. Its as best as I could do. But it proves to you that Game of Thrones is no show lacking in story. If anything, it has too much. However, in the hands of HBO, this show was always going to succeed on a story-telling level. Described as 'The Sopranos in Middle-Earth', what the writers have been able to do is create a significant balance between action and story whilst allowing for major screentime for ALL of the cast. As a non-reader of the series before I watched the TV show, I was amazed by the amount of characters introduced in the opening episode and struggled to remember much of their backstory and how they were to alter the plot further down the line. I soon realised that each character has a significant effect on the plot and that no-one is seemingly the protagonist of the story. Everyone has equal screentime. Everyone affects the story in different ways. And that's what makes Game of Thrones so damn delicious! The conflicting storylines of these incredible characters just make for some damn good TV and I can see where the comparisons with The Sopranos came from. They are very much justified.

HBO have not shyed away from the source material either. They are not afraid to include major plot events early on in the season (this is a spoiler people so look away now if you haven't read/watched the series), for example; there has been much controversy surrounding the death of Sean Bean's character, Ned. Many believed he was the protagonist of the series since he was in all the promotional ads and so on. Frankly, his death scene was the most beautiful, heart-wrenching, unnerving and emotional death I've ever had the pleasure of seeing on-screen. The geography of the scene, Ned noticing his younger daughter watching whilst his elder daughter is screaming for Joffrey to take back his command to execute Ned. There was so much to that scene that I've never been more shocked by a TV show in my life. But come on guys! Can't you see the bigger picture here?! How can this NOT make for more juicy TV? Ned's death (which occured very early in the book series! I'm reading them now) only serves to prove the point that no-one is safe. By pulling a 'Psycho' on the audience (watch it to get what I mean), your alliance to the character is shattered and you have to see who you truly align with. Its brilliant storytelling and honestly, I like that HBO take risks. Nay. I absolutely love it. Killing Ned was the best thing to do, especially in the first season because the plot possibilities for Season 2 are vast. It can go, quite literally, anywhere.


You may be wondering what about all the other characters and plot details. Well, I have left them out simply because there is alot of them and you should discover the wonder of them yourselves. Without divulging to deep into the mythology of the show, I'm hoping people will raise their heads and give Game of Thrones a chance if they already haven't. HBO have commissioned a second sesason based on the first two episodes ratings so give it a shot. There's lots more story to be told and once you start, believe me, you will not turn back. Its immersive, deep and fundamentally its fun to watch. HBO have added yet another gem to their already sterling line-up of past anbd present shows and their reputation will continue to reach new heights if they produce TV as good as Game of Thrones.

X-Men goes old school: My review of First Class

In the current climate of movie franchises, the reboot is becoming ever more popular. Chris Nolan proved Batman was not a dormant character, Marc Webb looks set to prove Spider-Man still has the chops to be a worthy hero after a dismal third outing and now Matthew Vaughn, originally slated for X3, is showing (and proving) to us that Kick-Ass was not a one-time deal. No, not at all. X-Men: First Class, despite its origins as a prequel and reboot, proves to be one of the better installments in the franchise, if not the top dog.

So to begin: we are thrown into the action almost immediately. Like the original X-Men, we start at a Nazi concentration camp where young Erik Lensherr (the soon-to-be Magneto) showcases his ability to bend metal with his mind. Through his anger, he is able to manifest an unstoppable force that catches the eye of Sebastian Shaw, head of the Hellfire Club (under the guise of Dr. Schmidt). Schmidt, in order to allow these powers to manifest, murders Lensherr's mother in front of him creating great anger within the young Magneto. This sets up one strand of the storyline where an adult Erik, played fantastically by Michael Fassbender, searches out the Nazis responsible in the hope he finds Shaw and exacts revenge.


Cut to the next storyline: we are introduced to a young Charles Xavier who stumbles upon a young shapeshifter Raven (soon-to-be Mystique) stealing from his kitchen. They form a friendship that lasts into their adult lives where Xavier, played by James McAvoy with a full head of hair and no wheelchair, has been made a Professor and has the ability to read the minds of others. But we know all this already. So what's different?! Well, straight away the context is shifted to the 1960s; a distinctly and vastly different setting to that of the original trilogy. These characters are emerging amidst political turmoil, like the Civil Rights Movement, The Cold War and the Bay of Pigs. These specific moments in history are worked into the film's story and are used as a motive for Shaw's evil plan to take over the world. He plans to use the Cuban Missle Crisis as a means to dominate the world of mutants, riding the world of humans and replacing them as the dominant species. 


With such a serious undertone to the story, much of the action is put on the backseat until the finale so there is a lot of dialogue to listen to. Its not a typical X-Men movie. It could easily be another story in its place; it just so happens the mutants are used as metaphors for outcasts and danger. There is a fantastic scene between Fassbender and McAvoy which questions Erik's anger and how to confront that successfully without giving into the temptation of revenge. Xavier tries throughout the movie to get Lensherr to confront his demons without killing. As we already know, they are destined to be arch-enemies and with this knowledge, the tension is unbearable. Lensherr is such a confused, distraught and angry individual. He is tortured by the memory of his mother but also his powers, which he eventually learns to embrace. Its great storytelling and Vaughn makes sure that these lengthy dialogue scenes never at all seem dull.


But its not all about Xavier and Lensherr. We are treated to the likes of Hank McCoy, who will eventually become the big blue furball Beast and is played surprisingly well by Nicholas Hoult of Skins fame. There is also an introduction for Havoc, the younger brother of X-Men regular Cyclops and Banshee, another X-Men original. There all given decent screentime as well which made me happy since the original trilogy often brushed aside these characters in favour of the Wolverine plotline. Not that wasn't amazing, it just focused on his character rather the X-Men as a whole unit whereas First Class does this and succeeds in giving the audience an introduction for what is sure to be an definate suquel.


The likes of telepath Emma Frost, played by January Jones and Azazel, future father of Nightcrawler, both make an appearance siding with Sebastian Shaw's Hellfire Club. These will all be future players in the next installment and I look forward to seeing how their characters advance. They all have a big role to play in the big world of X-Men.


To conclude, there is lots of fun to be had with this latest installment in the X-Men franchise. It is a necessary move to make because we shed some light on the origins of the team and who they were before Xavier and Lensherr went their seperate ways. The dialogue scenes offer references for the fanboys but enough to satisfy the average cinema-goer and once the action begins, the set pieces showcase what can be done with a relatively low budget. And watch out for a sneaky cameo from a series regular.......it's a good 'un! 


4/5 stars

In brightest day, In blackest night.....Sadly, the light doesn't shine bright. My review of Green Lantern.

What do you get when you put a B-list superhero in his own $200million movie? Forgive me for the lame joke, but that's all I could come up with. With the exception of Iron Man, B-list superheroes have rarely worked effectively on the big screen and Green Lantern is no exception. One of DC's prized assets (their words!), the thought of bringing him to the big screen seemed intriguing and the production, after many stops and starts, was given a huge budget that rivals many of the current blockbusters such as the Pirates franchise. What you see, however, is really not what you'd want to get.

Ryan Reynolds stars as the titular hero in question, Green Lantern or better know as Hal Jordan, a test pilot who has a cocky side to his personality that causes great friction in his work and personal life. He witnessed his pilot father blow up mid-flight and this has left deep emotional scars in Hal, who wishes to follow in his father's footsteps. Then we have the love interest, Carol Ferris played (if you want to call it that) by Blake Lively of Gossip Girl fame, who is also a test pilot and the daughter of the company they both work for. This is about as much as I could fathom from the plot. Its very thinly written so its hard to keep track the majority of the time. Whenever Hal and Carol's relationship is on-screen, its tedious and never furthers the plot. Then again, come to think about it, their relationship WAS the plot. But more on that later!

In deep space, the Green Lantern Corp is under attack from a sinister force that is known as Parallax (the stupidest name for a villain and who resembles an Octupus in space) who wishes to destroy them once and for all. Sinestro, played by Mark Strong, plots to destroy Parallax as well. So you have your standard superhero storyline at play here, it never deviates much from this. A purple alien by the name of Abin Sur comes under attack from Parallax, landing on the nearest sector which happens to be Earth, in order to find a successor for his ring in his dying hours. Of course, the ring chooses Hal and he becomes the new Green Lantern, sworn to protect 'in brightest day, in blackest night' and so on. Now so far, you may notice this review is very circumstantial and I'm just writing things down. If I had had a decent plot to follow, I would have made a more structured response. The biggest trouble with Green Lantern is that things JUST HAPPEN. There is no explanation or any cause-and-effect to the narrative. I mean this is Film School 101. Scenes and sequences have to effect each other logically and carry the plot through to its conclusion. Sadly, this never ever happens. An example of this is a scene where Sinestro is talking to a Citadel of aliens concering Parallax and all of a sudden, Hal appears. Now this may sound fine to you, but in the previous scene, he was having trouble (on Earth) accepting his new responsibility and could barely use his abilities. In one cut to a different sequence, he's learned to FLY and not only that but through SPACE and find the ALIEN PLANET in ALL of the UNIVERSE where the Green Lanterns are. I know the story is that if the Corp is in trouble, the rings of the Lanterns glow. This was never shown to happen and the scene JUST HAPPENED. Imagine a good 2/3rds of the film doing that. There's no structure, no coherence. Its so frustrating!

 This trend seems to continue with the pointless inclusion of Hector Hammond, played by Peter Sarsgard (the film's other villain) who is a brilliant scientist and becomes infected with another alien lifeform whilst examining the dead body of Abin Sur. He subsequently grows a giant head (no reason! It just happens), plots against the Green Lantern (for some reason thats never really explained) and laughs manically. A lot. He's too eccentric for my liking. The one redeeming feature is the powers he inherits which are pretty cool; the usual telepathic powers you normally see. But for me, this is all just lazy filmmaking. In simple terms, the film is all over the place.

Onto some technical points. The film's budget, as said earlier, was $200million. Firstly, whatever that got spent on does not show at all. This is the cheapest looking $200mil movie you will ever see in your life. It really is shocking how bad some of the CGI is. It looks grainy and just totally unreal, even for a superhero movie. This was never helped by the $100million marketing campaign that was (never) set up to promote the film. Its only been the last 2/3 months where we've ever seen any real promotion for the film and because of Green Lantern's stature as a B-list hero, thats way too late. No one knew who he was and I'm sure they still don't. Iron Man was Marvel's B-list hero and the success that film achieved is something that Warners Bros. was clearly trying to emulate. But the bigger problem was that the trailer never really explained the issues going on in the movie. There may as well not have been a marketing campaign. This resulted in about 3 different trailers being shown to try and force the issue to the audience about the film's plot. You can tell they were running scared. A $300million investment into a film that is doomed to fail. Iron Man was made for $140mil, looks superior in effects and set design, has a story, a great lead actor etc. There is no doubt in my mind that Green Lantern was made as a way for DC to work their way towards the Justice League movie, the equal of Marvel's Avengers. This is all well and good but I think looking the bad publicity surrounding Green Lantern as well as the loss they are guaranteed to make will make them rethink. 


Whilst a sequel is supposedly being written, I don't think an investment for that second installment will ever see the light of day. Expect a reboot in a few years time. Until then, we can only hope the Superman reboot is far superior to Green Lantern.


Overall, the film fails to tie together a plotline already written thin, a set of characters that you fail to relate from the get-go and CGI that looks like it was produced for a Doctor Who movie. I was expecting to have fun in the sense the film would have been so bad it was good. There's lots of stuff like that. Sadly, the film is just bad. Please don't waste your time with this. Stick with the far superior Marvel, whose recent films Thor and X-Men: First Class are more worthy of your precious time.


1/5 stars

Pirates 4 goes back to basics. My review of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Back in 2007, just before the release of 'At World's End', there was a great deal of hype surrounding the final of the Pirates trilogy. The second installment, 'Dead Man's Chest', whilst disappointing delivered us with thrills and some good ol' pirate action that left us gagging for more. Since they were filmed back-to-back throughout 2006/07, this was a sure sign the production team knew exactly what they were doing. How VERY wrong we were? 'At World's End' proved to be a shambles; an abysmal mess of a movie. Why? It was too damn complicated. It wasn't fun anymore. The characters were shells of their former selves. Dare I say it was too farfetch'd even for Pirates standard? I mean, this was the franchise that brought us mythical creatures in the form of the Kraken, seamen aboard the Flying Dutchman run by a demented squid in the form of Davy Jones and skeletal pirates on the Black Pearl with Captain Barbossa. Before AWE, we all had fun. It wasn't too silly but just the right amount to keep us entertained. So forgive me when I say I expected yet another mess of a film. I'm happy to report, however; this is definately not the case. Here goes nothing.....

The film sees our wonderful hero, Captain Jack Sparrow (once again Johnny Depp doing a great performance) in search of the Fountain of Youth whilst obstacles fall in his path. These come in the form of former love interest Angelica, played by Penelope Cruz, who just happens to be the daughter of the much feared pirate Blackbeard, played magnificently by Ian McShane, who is also in search of the Fountain. Also in search is series regular Barbossa, now working for her Majesty's Government. You hear that AWE producers?!?! A simple storyline would have done OK?! Anyhoo, that is the story pretty much. A nice simple narrative that EVERYONE can follow. We are officially back to basics. Rant Over.

With the characters in place, we sail off to sea, encountering gorgeous yet demonic mermaids (scared the shit out of me!), zombified pirates and a rather funny depiction of the Spanish Army. Nonetheless, that's the point. We are having fun once again. The series has been brought back to its roots; way back in 2003, the original film was released and we all can remember how that summer we wanted to be Captain Jack. Whilst the original will always remain the superior film, there are moments in OST that remind us just how good these films can actually be. For example, upon discussing the idea of a mutiny aboard Blackbeard's ship, Stephen Graham's Scrum runs individually to dispatch the crew to which Sparrow replies to the rest of the gang; "Well, go on then!" It's a subtle moment of humour and you have to watch it to laugh, but it harks back to familiar territory. 

The inclusion of the new characters like Blackbeard and Angelica work and hinder in equal measure. Whilst she is a focus point, Angelica never seems to be a necessary character. Cruz rarely makes use of her time, instead coming across as flat and just playing a sassy Spanish hottie (she was pretty hot I'll give her that). However, McShane's Blackbeard is the best character in the movie when he's on-screen. He's the villain the series has needed all this time in all honesty. He's evil, brutal, malicious, scary and most importantly, believable. And he gets decent screentime too, unlike the previous efforts where there were far too many characters to keep up with and the plot was lost. We have two major additions that don't upset the balance/pace of the movie and actually enhance the plot. 

Now, I understand people are complaining about the lack of Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley. As far as I'm concerned, they should have been left out of the last two. They were good for the purpose of the first film but didn't work at all with the next two. A fresh start was needed and thank God the producers listened.

Therefore, overall, this is definately worth seeing. The back to basics look, the fresh batch of actors, the familiar setting and some fantastic set pieces make it worth your while. 3 out of 5 stars for me!

With great power comes great responsibility..... Woops, wrong movie! My review of Thor.

That motto rings very true. Then again, its Spiderman's motto. But Spiderman this is not. No my friends, this is Thor; a whole new beast altogether.

This film adaptation of 'Thor', by Kenneth Brannagh, itself seems to very inspired by its predecessors as Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth quite brilliantly, is portrayed as naive, arrogant and very full of himself unfortunately inheriting a banishment to Earth from his home of Asagard by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and the loss of his treasured hammer, Mjolnir which happens to be the source of his power. Its all very cause-and-effect sure, but it works a charm. Brannagh chooses wisely to place most of the beginning action away from Earth, to give the audience a real feel for where Thor hails from and the context behind the ensuing battle with the Frost Giants and his evil brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston). The setting is one of beauty and if there was ever a useful inclusion of 3D, its for this. The city of Asgard looks crisp and well-detailed bringing it truly to life. Brannagh's experience in theatre and plays comes through too, with many of the characteres displaying moments of Shakespearean tragedy that allow to fully engage with their personalities, especially Thor himself.

If you weren't already aware and have been living elsewhere, Thor is the Norse God of Thunder; an already well-established character in Greek mythology therefore you may wonder how he fits into the world of Marvel and a modern context. Frankly, he doesn't but that's ironically why 'Thor' works so well. Thor is the fish out of water, not accustomed to the rules of Earth and Brannagh chooses to use this as the source of the film's humour. Hemsworth at first seems incredibly flat and wooden (Hayden Christensen, take note) only to shine in the latter parts of the film when he's on Earth. Believe me, I laughed a great deal as Thor approaches a pet shop asking for a horse and smashing a coffee mug whilst exclaiming how much he enjoys it. The humour is very natural and doesn't feel out of place at all, leaving the film space to breath from all the hectic chaos that does eventually ensue. Another moment when Thor's friends arrive on Earth dressed head to toe in Viking attire generated much laughter from the audience for the fact it was so over the top. It didn't make sense but it does all the same. Its silly and ridiculous; as is Thor's position as a superhero. The film never really feels on par with Spiderman, the Incredible Hulk or Iron Man because they are definately designed as superhero movies. Thor was always going to be tricky since he is the outcast. He doesn't fit with the superhero genre and making Brannagh the director was a great addition to the production because he understands the character. His interpretation of Thor makes him both the outcast and the hero we all want to see. He MAKES Thor fit into the world of the superhero; if anything, he should BE the typical superhero. Striking armour, mythical powers and a cracking British accent to suit. Seriously, what's not to like?!?!

Now you may question his role in the Avengers all you like; the ending of Thor suggests they need a reason to bring him back. But surely I'm not the only one who looks forward to his role in the Avengers adaptation? To see him playing off of Tony Stark and Steve Rogers will be brilliant (that's Iron Man and Captain America to anyone of you who is clueless) Chris Hemsworth is a star in the making. The role is his and I couldn't imagine anyone in his shoes. Expect a sequel post-Avengers. Don't forget to watch out for Jeremy Renner's cameo as Hawkeye. Most importantly, as per usual, watch the post-credits scene. Always nice to see Sam Jackson.

I for one have a new favourite hero and his name is THE MIGHTY THOR!! RAWR!

4 out of 5 stars! Excellent film! :D

How to sort your life out in a few easy steps.

Holy crap, has it really been this long? I mean, seriously, I've been gone for just over two months. TWO MONTHS. I must be ill. This feels awesome to writing random sentences about ridiculous topics that will most likely have no impact whatsoever on the person reading this but hey, we all love random shiz.


To the point people! Lots of stuff has happened in the two months I have neglected this blog. First and most imporantly, I'm moving out. I know right, things move fast. Its closer to Uni and it will mean lots of independance but I really can't wait. I know I'm still young but I feel its time to experience the world on my own than with my mum. Wonder what my dad would say......Oh too soon. Lol, just kidding; he's a twat but I would be intrigued by his thoughts. So, bitches, as of 1st August 2011, I will blogging from the spacial surroundings of my own house with three others. I am mentally preparing myself for the lack of sleep, copious amounts of alcohol, monster hangovers and the lack of any general awareness to reality whatsoever. I will look after myself well. I know I will. Something triggers when I have to look out for myself despite my mother's thoughts. I'm just lazy at heart. But aren't we all?


NEXT!


As a first year student, its important I tried my hardest this year since its only going to be more difficult in the two years ahead. When I passed my English exam, I was thrilled but then we got presented with a topic called Critical Theory for Semester 2. Safe to say, its bollocks. It means nothing. Absolutely nothing. I wish it upon no one. It doesn't even have relevance to English per se and I genuinely don't remember picking it as a module. Being the cool cat I am, I didn't play the blame game and attempted to press on. 5 weeks of CT seminars and lectures later, I could take no more. I just didn't go for the remaining weeks like the majority of my Uni friends cause it simply meant nothing to the stuff we studied elsewhere. We hit what we all thought was to prove a stumbling block. A 2500 word essay on a critical assignment of your choice. I chose 'Death of an Author' by Roland Barthes, a French critical theorist who believe me is rather boring. He looks at the aesthetic of language, the value of language and how language is generally meaningless unless given a meaning. Therefore, a word like 'cat' wouldn't have a value if it didn't have the mental image of a cat attached to it. Yeah, I know. You're bored already. Imagine writing 2500 words on this shit. Anyhoo, we all got scared by the impending feedback session. Out of 100, I got 65. I apparently showed my lecturer there was a brain at work, with a decent argument and I did what many others didn't which was to write what the essay was about in the introduction. Surprised is an understatement. I was over the moon.


NEXT!


So, with a house in my name and a somewhat largely successful first attempt at an assignment for a subject that means fuck all to me, I pursued the next venture. My main passion of film and gaming. Too many films have been released in the last two months to talk about but some favourites have emerged. The Aujustment Bureau was a pleasant surprise, Your Highness was generally retarded but good fun, Scream 4 was simply incredible (watch the others to agree with this point of view otherwise you will hate it) and Thor is becoming the film for me to look forward to the most! Bring it Brannagh! I can't wait for the summer as too much stuff is out which brings me to gaming. L.A. Noire is by far the most anticipated game of the year for me. In fact, of the last two years. The moment I heard Rockstar we're producing a game based on the genre of film noir (my favourite film style), I was hooked. I've followed the game's progress for a long time and the new technology that is being made for it is phenomenal. It is literally the future of gaming. Bioware should use it for Mass Effect 3. That would be something. But I got my pre-order in at GAME for L.A. Noire and all the gameplay videos I see only make me want it more. 20th May, midnight opening, I will be there.


NEXT!


An interesting event occured last week involving a music festival and lots of alcohol. This year, since I'm moving out, I'm only going to the Download festival cause I couldn't afford anything else. Imagine my amazement when I get a weekend ticket bought for me to go to Leeds Festival and look after my cousin. Third year in a row for me and all I gotta do is look after my cousin, who by the way, is hardly a year younger and definately taller than me. He can chill with my mates and its honestly always the best time at Braham Park. But DL 2011 will be my highlight since I've never been for the weekend before and its a change of scenary. All my proper best mates are going and I know there will be a) no drama b) lots of general shennanigans involving fun rides c) a zombie ball on the Friday night d) a great line-up of music and e) the most important; the 5 day chill out session I get with my favourite people in the world. They all inspire me, my friends are the greatest. Thinking of life without them is a big ask, so don't do it. Appreciate what you got and live it to its potential.


NEXT!


Last but not least, my band is starting to get good. That's not a boastful comment in the slightest. We needed a great deal of practise at first but now the songs are gelling very well and a setlist is emerging from the sessions we have. We have a gig at the end of May which I can't wait for. I love writing music and its insane amounts of fun. Theraputic as well. Do you know the satisfaction you get from literally smashing your guitar around and playing nothing but noise. Its the best form of anger management. I wrote a song for the band and was very scared about it at first cause it seemed angry, emotionless and generally bitchy. Our vocalist made it his own and I'm proud of what we've made of it. Its kick ass.


ON THAT NOTE PEOPLE!


I'm signing out. That was a long one. But I said everything I could have. For now. I'll not neglect for as long as I did last time. That was bad of me.


BUHBAH!

Why, in recent years, the Road to the Oscars has been so flawed and tainted.

Its the moment that the film industry awaits with eagerness and suspense. Its what all the other award ceremonies lead up to. What happens there, surely will happen at the Oscars. Its often set in stone, especially when it comes to the Golden Globes. But in recent times, hasn't the Academy Awards become somewhat of a gimmick? Maybe you think its harsh words but no more so than the nominations for the 83rd Academy Awards.

This year's ceremony will take place on the 27th February and will be hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway respectively. It has been described as the event that will honour the best and greatest films of 2010 which is exactly the purpose of these awards. But unless you're idle and the nominations fell on deaf ears, there is a slight uproar about this year's list of potential winners. And where do I start?

One of the crucial decisions for the Academy was when they decided to increase the Best Picture category from 5 films to 10 films, giving their verdict that it would broaden the ability of specialist films to enter the category. Big decision since this means there is more competition. And no surprise that this year hosts some of the biggest films of the last decade; Toy Story 3, Inception, The Social Network and the Kings Speech to name a few. Yet here's my issue: by increasing the chances of Best Picture, you're left with literally no competition. If you were to think about it, when there were 5 films to be chosen, there was roughly 10 stellar films out that year that could have made the cut and therefore 5 missed out. The 5 that were in the category were made to fight it out in a good old-fashioned fight. The problem now? The category accomodates everyone of 2010's best films which means even a nomination gains the film more attention and therefore more money. The Academy is supposed to pick on the genuinely great films of that year. Winter's Bone is not one of them. Hate to break the news but it just isn't worthy. I watched this last week; great performance from Jennifer Lawrence which didn't deserve a Best Actress nomination and the film as a whole doesn't retain a great quality nor are its filmic methods outstanding compared to that of Black Swan or Inception. This is where the politics enter....

Take the Best Director category. This is the category that has infuriated myself, and many others, the most. Christopher Nolan, quite frankly, is the shining light of contemporary cinema. His films are thought-provoking, dark, viscerally enchanting and his writing skills are phenomenal. He takes pre-existing products like the Batman franchise and creates a beautifully dark and brutal world for the character to inhabit. He creates worlds literally beyond your imagination in Inception but never EVER treats you like you're an idiot, despite the great amount of narrative layers the film has. He is, like Tarantino, a master of cinema. And what does he get.......nothing. Inception has a very respectable 8 Oscars nominations for many great categories but the gaping hole is that of Best Director. Knock knock Academy; his film made over $800million at the box office, be conceived from an entirely original idea that took ten years to put into words, walk away easily with the best film of 2010 by a country mile and still not get a nomination. It worries me greatly because I really don't know what more he has to do to have his work acknowledged. The man who clearly stole his nomination is David O. Russell, a director so pretentious and self-loving that he thinks I Heart Huckabees was a masterpiece. Don't get me wrong; I'm yet to see the Fighter and from what I've heard its fantastic. I'm not doubting that. But guys, seriously, like the Kings Speech before it; its an actor driven film if I've ever seen one. For Russell to say Aronofsky got nominated because his film has sex, girls and ballet and Fincher got nominated because he made the 'Facebook movie' is both ridiculous and possibly the stupidest thing he could have said. Nolan's film is arguably the most directed film of 2010. For those that don't know, Nolan doesn't have a 2nd camera unit and observes/takes ALL SHOTS of his films himself along with his longtime collaborator Wally Pfister. Its things like this that win you awards, not 'sex, girls and ballet'. Russell can say these things but it still doesn't change the fact he isn't a very inspired director. David O. Russell, count yourself lucky.

Whilst that was a big rant about one category, it still symbolises what the Academy now seems to be about. I like to call it 'jumping on the band wagon'. By this I mean they feel the need to nominate films in certain categories where they don't belong when, say, Colin Firth gets all the critics thumbs up in the Kings Speech. Firth whole-heartedly deserves the Best Actor cause he was amazing but his film holds the most nominations for this year and yet I ask simply why? There isn't anything technically fantastic about it. Its actor driven and pretty straight forward. The same goes with the Fighter from what I've heard. Straight forward boxing biopic which is held together (made better) by the great performances of Bale, Wahlberg, Adams and Leo. The Academy needs to give space for the so-called 'specialist' films that wish to give a better chance to. Two major exclusions, along with Nolan, was Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine and Andrew Garfield in the Social Network. Michelle Williams: Brilliant and haunting but without Ryan Gosling support, literally nothing. And he was better, in my opinion. Andrew Garfield, if you ask me, was the emotional core of the Social Network. Sure, Jesse Eisenberg was great as Zuckerberg and served his nomination. But without Garfield's betrayed and tortured character, we wouldn't hate Zuckerberg as much as we did. And in simpler terms, it was an amazing performance. Academy members, you will pay dearly for these exclusions. 

The Academy needs to seriously consider their stance on what is good and bad. They need to only nominate films that are a) deserving of these awards b) are of superior quality to anything else and c) not what just the public wants. They need to shake it up a bit and not vote for what they think others want. That's why its a good competition because upsets are truly amazing things. I'm personally voting for Inception and The Social Network to overshadow the Kings Speech. If they can win most of their categories, the Kings Speech only needs the Best Actor. Sorry but its true. And Academy members, please stop giving the Coen Bros the attention they already have........

Tom Ward