Flaming Bears

In a recent GQ article (Found here) Ben Affleck said - I think Michael is actually an auteur in the true sense of the word. Every movie he makes reflects his personal creative vision. You may like it, you may not—but those movies are him without compromise. There’s something to be said for sticking to your guns.

I agree with that statement. I think Michael Bay is TECHNICALLY one of the most talented filmmakers on the planet. Nobody can deny that he has a strong visual eye and that he has created some insanely well executed action scenes in his lifetime (Bad Boys II car chase, Pearl Harbor bombing). He has so many trademarks now (Sunsets, sports cars, beautiful women, cheesy humour, explosions, military) and he shoots them in a way that you instantly know it’s Michael Bay (he seems to have made his D.Ps obsolete somehow since his visual stamp is so strong). Everything is bright and shiny, strong and excessive. Both in framing,lighting, editing and production design. Michael Bay tries to make every shot as good looking as it can possibly be. He shoots scenes like they are commercials or music videos - like a 14 year olds wet dream. I have seen all of Michael Bay’s film and have constantly been impressed by how pretty they are. Having seen the latest Transformers film it was clear to me that Michael Bay is a director who does exploitation films on the highest level. He is the master of excess. The man just doesn’t know when to stop, and looking at his back catalogue I think he has become a sort of parody of himself now. I chuckle when I see him shoot a sunset, a woman or a car because it’s so exploitative. He tries to make every shot look as cool and as sexy as possible and I just laugh at it (while enjoying it most of the times). When Bay is about to shoot a scene I doubt that he thinks – How can I shoot this scene in a way the most effectively tells the story? I believe he goes – How can I make this scene looks as good as humanly possible? Pearl Harbor is a great example of how and why Michael Bay never should do a serious drama. Then again it is sort of an unintentionally funny classic (Please ma’m don’t take my wings away:). The drama is pushed to the extreme by camera,sound and editing to the point that it gets incredibly cheesy and you just constantly laugh at how over the top and in your face everything is. Michael Bay is not a director of subtlety. He comes from a commercial background and it truly shows. The other director who reminds me most of Bay’s style  is Tony Scott (watch Domino if you want a visual mindfuck). For me the problem with a very strong visual style is that it can be distracting and thus damage the storytelling. Strong visual styles works best when the film takes place in a very stylized worlds (Sin City, 300,). Can you imagine Michael Bay directing No Country For Old Men? It would have looked differently that’s for sure. I admire the fact that he pushes things to the absolute extreme and constantly goes bigger and bigger, but it comes with a price (which Tranfomers 2 and 3 pays).

There are many Bay haters and many Bay lovers out there. I sort of stand in the middle. Personally, I love The Rock and think it’s one of the best action films of all time, and therefore will always defend Michael Bay to some degree. I think the first Bad Boys and first Transformers are very entertaining films. Bad Boys II, The Island and Armageddon all have good elements but lack overall. I think Pear Harbor is a cult classic in awfulness and a truly shit-fun film. I loathe Transformers 2. So, what are my opinions on Transformers 3? Or Transformers: Dark of the Moon as it is called outside Sweden.

Frankly, Transformers 3 is s a piece of shit. At 157 minutes it’s way too long. The fact that a Transfomers film is this long is ridiculous. The silly humor from the previos films is still there and while it’s not as stupid as the last one it’s still pretty bad, around ten percent of the humour works while the rest falls flat. Rosie Huntington Whiteley replaces Megan Fox as the love interest and she aint much of an actress, nor is it much of a part. Classic hot chick getting in trouble with no substance. She is in the film to add sex appeal, at least Megan Fox’s character had purpose and a sort of arch (and she was prettier in my opinion). For me nothing really works in this film. There are some great action scenes and great 3D but when this goes on for over 45 minutes you just don’t care.

The goal with summer blockbusters is to be fun and entertaining. The concept usually lures you in (Big robots fighting each other! Pirates! Cowboys and Aliens). But we remember these films because of their characters (Indiana Jones) and set pieces (The T-Rex’s first appearance in Jurassic Park). We all know that the plot wont be much to remember but we are not looking for substance, we are looking to have fun and to be entertained. So you grade these type of films on how fun they are to watch. You don’t need a great story but you still need (at least) decently written scenes that flow organically and logically into a complete and coherent narrative. You need characters that are fun to watch and set pieces that are exciting. You need pace and rhytym so the film is entertaining throughout it’s running time – Transformers 3D has some exciting set pieces, but otherwise none of the above. The man to blame for this is not just Michael Bay, but Screenwriter Ehren Kruger. While the film is an improvement on the last instalment (also written by Kruger) it’s not much of an improvement. The story is a mess and it’s terribly told. Scenes feel contrived and stupid and there is no flow to the film. Weird and out of place characters played by Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong are just too stupid for words – One way to vastly improve the film would have been to just take out one hour. The last 45 minutes of the film is pretty much just one long action sequence and while it does have some truly amazing stuff in it  I never once got truly excited. I found that to be because of three things: 1. The lack of score. A score builds excitement just as much as the visuals, and I cant remember the score at all (a first for a Bay film). 2. The structure of the action scenes. They are too long and there is not enough of a build to create true excitement. 3. I don’t think Transformers bashing each other is fun anymore, it felt fresh and exciting in the first instalment but now it’s dated and boring. We have seen it before, just like the Pirates franchise the concept is no longer very intriguing. So… last decade.

I think Ehren Kruger should take 60 percent of the blame for this turd cause the screenplay is bollocks.

Transformers 3D is shit and despite some amazing action scenes and good 3D I can’t recommend you go see this in the cinema. It is just too much.

I hope Bay’s next film gets him back to R-Rated fare with a decent screenwriter behind it. If there are robots in it I might die from boredom.

2 flaming bears

Super 8 is the only blockbuster this summer that aint a remake, an adaptation or a sequel. Yet, it sort of feels like a remake of a Steven Spielberg film we have never seen. Super 8 starts with a few kids gearing up to do a zombie film over the summer.  Our protagonist is Joe Lamb. He recently lost his mother and has a strained relationship with his father. He’s a geeky kid who loves monsters and make-up but in a very earnest non geeky way. His task on this low budget film is to do the make-up on Alice Dainard, the older girl who plays the love interest in the zombie film. Joel has a big crush on her, but it’s complicated, she’s the daughter of a man who is connected to the death of Joel’s mother, so both Joel and Alice parent’s have forbidden them to spend time with each other. Needless to say they do it anyway. The rest of the kids are mostly there for comedic relief and are strongly reminiscent of the kids in Stand By Me or Goonies. They serve their purpose plot wise but they never get much of an arch. Twenty minutes in the kids witness a train crash and suddenly an Alien is unleashed over their small town. The less you know about this going in the better. J.J loves secrecy so I’m gonna honor that.

Super 8 is a charming nostalgic film. Joel Courtney and Dakota Fanning turn in very convincing performances and their relationship is sweet, believable and well executed. The film looks and sounds great, it’s like watching an 80′s classic. Very well crafted just like J.J’s previous films – except for one thing; the excessive amount of lensflares. Just like Star Trek it’s getting a bit extreme. I don’t mind a lens flare but throwing them into every 3rd or 4th scene is too much. What is the purpose of this? What does it add to the film? In this film they are blue – Hey, it’s a new color folks! Then again, if it wasn’t for the lens flares you would have thought Steven Spielberg directed the film. As it stands he’s actually a producer on the film, which carries the Amblin trademark.

This films screams Spielberg on every level and therein lies the problem. From the father/son relationship to the setting to the ending – this is 80′s Spielberg through and through. I don’t mind an homage, or films that are love letters to previous films but you have to come up with something new, a twist or a fresh take on the subject – lensflares, and having Spielberg involved aint enough.

J.J plays it too safe, he needs to let loose a bit, find his own way. The ending is so extremely sentimental (borderline ridiculous even) and resolves the father/son/alice relationship in quite a cheesy way, which is a shame because it was very well developed.

Abrams breaded new life into the franchises of  Mission Impossible and Star Trek. I liked those films but felt they both had structure and pacing issues. Yet, they had identity and you could feel there was a new voice behind them. With this film he’s almost mimicking other people’s work, and it’s too such a degree that it let’s the film down. Super 8 has moments where it almost reaches the magic of those old films, but it never quite gets there.

Super 8 is a charming, entertaining nostalgic film. In a summer filled with superheroes it’s a refreshing film that brings back memories of childhood. There are some really strong moments with good acting and that’s why you should see it. Sadly there is nothing we haven’t seen before and it’s not funny enough to become a re-watchable film.

The next time Abrams directs an original story of his I hope it’s just that… Original.

3 flaming bears

I had sky high expectations for the new X-Men flick. A superhero ensemble film in the 60′s with Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy as the lead characters, with Matthew Vaughn at the helm – they had me at hello. But Kick-Ass is a hard act to follow and while First class is a good film, I believe it could have been better. Let’s start with what’s good about it.

Amazing cast. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy owns these parts. They’re both playing different aspects of James Bond to some degree. They are fun to watch and they are truly fascinating characters. The end scene at the beach is just as powerful as it should be. The supporting cast is also solid, with January Jones and Jennifer Lawrence being particularly good.

What I love most about the film is the look and style. This film takes place in the 60′s and it’s so much better for it. The production design screams Bond and the great score by Henry Jackman enhances this feeling even more. The film is sexy, stylish and uber cool without ever going into parody mode. The cinematography is very straightforward and luckily there is no shaky-cam to be seen, you don’t notice that Vaughn went through five different D.Ps on the shoot. Vaughn also embraces the kitch element of the era and I love him for that. We get two groovy old school montages where Charles and Erik assemble and train the team – And Shaw has his own submarine which he obviously lent from Blofeld. All this makes the film very fresh and original. We havent seen this type of stuff in a modern superhero film before, and it gives the film it’s own wacky throwback feel. The film is a must see for these elements and the great performances by Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy.

But, First Class has plenty of flaws. A lot of characters are underdeveloped. Riptide, Azazel and Havok especially. Rose Byrne’s character “Mactaggert” proves vital to the story in the beginning but basically vanishes halfway through the film, only to show up for the finale. The theme of  ”Mutant and Proud” is also repeated a bit too many times, they’re basically waving it in your face. The cuban missile crisis backdrop could have been used more effectively and Shaw’s plan feels a bit whimsical. But these are all nitpicks and the real problem is that the film moves way to fast. I totally agree with Dan Jolin’s review over at Empire Online,  here’s a quote  ”Nothing really lasts that long in X-Men: First Class, and that is its biggest weakness. It is so single-mindedly plot-driven that it whips along at too brisk a pace, rushing through scenes to an end point which feels too neat, too wrapped up, too contrived for a story which still has at least 40 years to go before we get to X-Men. It’s here that you really catch the scent of compromise, feel the pressures on the film-makers to meet their release-date deadline”.

Vaughn did the whole film is eleven months from start to finish. He wrote a script with Jane Goldman based on an outline by Bryan Singer. Other screewriters are credited but that’s because the WGA are crazy. Vaughn and Goldman did a page one rewrite and it’s their story. Vaughn has made a good solid film and that’s impressive considering the insanely short window but having seen Kick-Ass I can’t help but being a bit disappointed. I love so many things in this film (Fassbender hunting nazis and McAvoy flirting with women especially) but it’s over so quickly, and I felt that almost every scene in the film could have been longer. The story Vaughn tells in this film should have been divided over two films, better yet it should have been a tv series. It’s almost like he knew this was his one shot to do a proper 150 million dollar superhero film and he threw everything he wanted to tell into this one film. I literally wanted the film to be an hour longer which is very unusual since I usually complain about film’s being too long – You also feel the time pressure in the action scenes. They are all ok but never once do the reach the heights of the action scenes in Kick-Ass, which I found to be some of the best in years, or in Bryan Singer’s  X2 for that matter (check out the Wolverine/Lady Deathstrike fight, it’s epic).

First Class is a film I’m gonna rewatch soon, just to get it all in. I hope this film becomes a hit and that Vaughn get’s to do the sequel (with more time to do it). I’m sure he can deliver something with a more steady pace. Ideally next one takes place in the 70′s so he can play in a new era.

First Class is very entertaining and it does have more brain and heart than most big films. It’s not just full on action, you care about Charles and Erik and that is one of it’s strengths. I do share some of Mark Kermode’s concerns and agree that it doesn’t completely gel together. Yet, I think he fails to mention the many good things about it, and I don’t agree on the length issue at all.

Go and watch it, but don’t expect it to be one of the best blockbusters of all time.

Still the best blockbuster of the year so far. Don’t miss.

Link to Empire Onlines Review

Link to Mark Kemode Review

The grade stands on the edge between three and four but in the end it’s a weak

4 flaming bears.

I saw Your Highness about six weeks ago and for some reason I just haven’t gotten around to writing a review of it until now, and that’s not because it’s a bad film. I loved the r-rated trailer for the film and put Your Highness at place number ten on my upcoming films list. Three other film’s on that list; Battle L.A, Thor and Sucker Punch were all disappointments, and neither of them will end up on my top ten 2011 list. Your Highness wont end up on this list either but I’m more impressed and had more fun with Your Highness than either of the films above, despite it’s numerous flaws. Weirdly enough this is also the third film I’m reviewing that stars Natalie Portman, she certainly seems to have become somewhat of a workaholic lately.

In the leads we have Danny Mcbride and James Franco as Thadeous and Fabious. They are sons to King Tallious, ruler of the land. Franco plays a swashbuckling knight, Mcbride plays a stoner who chases women. When Franco’s bride to be gets kidnapped by an evil wizard the brothers go on a journey to get her back. Mcbride doesn’t want to go but faces banishment from the Kingdom if he doesn’t. So he goes on a journey that will change him forever… Yadda Yadda, we have seen it all before… but, not with stoner humor! Therein lies the simple trick. This is a fantasy comedy riddled with dick and fart jokes. And gay jokes. But what’s up with Franco? He plays the role so over the top that it’s not even funny. As great as he can be (127 hours, Pineapple Express) he really went down the wrong path with this character (try Flyboys and Spider-Man for some other bad performances). But the film has a certain charm, it looks great and the action scenes have a nice old school feel to them. Comedies are a well treaded genre and it’s nice to see it mashed together with the fantasy genre. Sadly nobody wanted to see it. Your Highness flopped big time at the box office, pulling in only 23 million dollars worldwide (the budget was 50 million). A disastrous number, especially considering the marketing was fairly huge. The critics weren’t nice either. It’s a shame cause it means we wont see comedies mixed into these typ of genres for a while now. Seems like audiences don’t like mixing of genres (horror comedies tend to flop as well).

Your Highness drags in the middle and the jokes have a 50/50 hit and miss ratio. But it’s a fun matinee flick with enough in it to make it worth a watch. The film could have been way better if they improved the dialog and shafted Franco but at least somebody tried to do something new with a well treaded genre – In my book that’s always worth something. Besides, they have a sexually deviant Yoda character. Who doesn’t want to see that?

3 Flaming Bears

This agitates (and depresses me). Two good scripts, both with a fairly original approach to well treaded genres, that Hollywood rewrites with cliches. It’s a shame, a damn shame. As a screenwriter myself it’s depressing to see a film which completely ruins a scripts potential, and in these particular cases their edge. Let’s start with Ivan Reitman’s latest depressing directing effort, No Strings Attached.

The film stars Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher  as Emma and Adam. Emma is a hardworking doctor who sucks at relationships. Adam is a production assistant at a sort of Glee tv show with an aspiration to write. Emma and Adam first met when they were fourteen, then again in college, and then later on in their late twenties in L.A (where most of the film take place). They decide to become fuckbuddies, and make ground rules to make sure they don’t become a couple. But Adam falls for Emma and so a romantic comedy begins. The script by Elisabeth Wethers had it’s flaws but it had very sharp dialog and a quirky dark humor. The script played with the conventions of the genre and managed to be a very edgy and entertaining read. The film has pretty much kept the structure intact but shortened it and rewritten a bit of act three. The sad thing is that all the odd jokes, most of the great lines, sex scenes etc are gone, as well as some great character beats (the funeral scene in particular). Ivan Reitman directed it with a pg 13 feel one did not get when reading the script. Portman is perfect casting but Kutcher brings his annoying goofiness and misses the character by a mile. When I read the script I knew he was playing the part and even then it was impossible to see him in it. Not to mention, considering the subject matter, that there is a strong lack of sex and nudity. All the funny sex scenes in the script are gone and this film gets worse because of it. Here is an example of some of their dialog in a sex scene.

Adam and Emma are having sex.

E – You have a weird sex face. A – What’s my sex face?. E – I’ts like Richard Nixon and Dan Rather, and someone having an asthma attack.

As Adam is about to climax he has his hands out in the iconic Nixon pose and make weird sounds like Nixon having an orgasm.

E- Let’s not do the Nixon thing again. A – No. E – It feels wrong.

That is just one example of a sex scene. They also have a back to the future themed scene and one where Emma discusses the taste of his penis. None of this is present in the film and you can see how Hollywood thought it was all too much and ordered it down to a much more friendly level. But this destroyed everything good about the script in the process. My advice, read the script and never see the film. It’s a watered down boring rom com. Ivan Reitman has fallen mighty far since Ghostbusters, lucklily he passed on his former talents to his son.

Battle L.A was written by Chris Bertoloni. Make no mistake, this is and always was, Black Hawk Down with Aliens. The script knew this, and so does the film but to a much lesser extent. In Battle L.A (the film) we get thrown into an alien invasion. We then follow a couple of marines as they battle the threat of insect like Aliens invading Los Angeles. But just as the film is about to get going they cut back to the day before, and we see twenty minutes of worthless cliche ridden backstory of the people involved. Aaron Eckhart (the lead of the film) has given his resignation and is training a new platoon while waiting for the paperwork. One of his guys is married and loves his wife, another misses his brother who was killed in Afghanistan (on a mission led by Eckharts character). It’s all bollocks to create some conflict within the group (Nobody trust Eckhart’s decisions after the rumour that he got his squad killed in Afghanistan) but it just ends up making it more cliche with american flag waving to boot. The end scene of the film is ridiculous (Americans never stop fighting!) and we barely get to see the aliens, then again they offer nothing new since we have seen the designs a thousand times before. The film also loves shaky cam to an extent where you wish somebody just forced the director to use a tripod for a week of shooting. Battle L.A is sort of entertaining in that braindead way and it has some decent moments but it becomes more dull and patriotic for each minute that passes.

Now, in the screenplay there is no backstory. The action starts at page five and never lets up. It’s not Eckharts last day on the job. In fact the script explains why he joined the army instead. There is no conflict within the group of marines, these guys are pro’s who love each other and we get to know them through the action. There is no big speech moments and no flag waving. The screenplay is a full on war film without the cliches. Granted, it’s a little bit thin on the character development side but the pace is so high that you forgive it. The other big difference is that the the boy they rescue, Hector, can feel alien movement. The script touches on the aliens much more thanks to Hector. He develops a bond with Eckhart and the end scene is the two of them alone in a sewer, fighting the alien queen. No group coming together stuff (most of the marines are dead at this point in the script) and no patriotism. Just a full on, well paced war film. But I can imagine Hollywood executives felt it was thin on character devolpment and heroic moments, so let’s add the cliche stuff.

In both these cases, the films kept the ideas and the concept of the screenplays. But they changed the details, the dialog and the characters, losing their edge in the process. And for what? Would these films not get the same commercial appeal? I honestly think that they would. No strings attached had the potential to become a cult film within it’s genre, and Battle L.A could have been a straight up awesome war film. I even recon they would have become bigger hits at the box office. The sad thing is we will never know because most people in Hollywood likes to play it safe. It’s time for Hollywood to take some risks again.

Sucker Punch is an epic disaster – Putting it on my top ten upcoming list was a big mistake. Zack Snyder should NEVER write a screenplay again, this is solid proof of that. I’m a huge fan of Snyder’s previous work, and just like Michael Bay I think he’s a true visual artist. To visually pull off what these guys do is something I truly admire. Michael Bay made the worst film of his career with Transformers 2 and now Snyder has done it with Sucker Punch. The film looks great, the cinematography, editing, visual effects and production design are all top notch, but when there is nothing to hang on to you just don’t care. I can barely be bothered to explain the story because it’s so messy, but I’ll will try. This young girl, Baby-Doll, is sent to a mental institution by her evil step dad. He’s paid off one of the doctors to have her lobotomized (this all takes place in the 50’s) but just before the procedure Baby Doll escapes into this dream world. In here she and the other patients are dancers in a burlesque club. Things get even more complicated when Baby-Doll escapes into ANOTHER dream world every time she dances (sort of like the dream within a dream in Inception). She does this to distract the people she’s dancing for, while her fellow patients can get items that will help them escape from the club. In the new dream world the girls are a a group of badass soldiers (who has to find the same item as in the burlesque world) who has to fight dragons, robots and steam punk nazis to reach their goal. Are you confused? So was I. The last ten minutes of the film Snyder tries to explain it all in this weird pretentious sequence that is just pure bollocks. It’s all a mess and he never explains why a young girl in the 50’s would dream of stuff that hasn’t been invented yet (not to mention why she clearly has boy fantasies) because there is no reason for any element in Sucker Punch. Everything in this film is just in there because it looks cool. My brother in law told me that the film would make a perfect video game and he’s absolutely right. The video game could be epic (not in storyline but gameplay). Hot scantily clad women killing stuff in cool environments – I’d play that. I thought I wanted to watch it too but apparently not.

I love big blockbusters. The purpose of these films are solely to entertain and they don’t necessarily need a good or memorable storyline to work, but they must have a clear narrative with characters that you enjoy watching. That combined with good pacing, design, audio and visuals creates an entertaining blockbuster. In Sucker Punch the narrative is terribly told and extremely confusing, the characters are nothing more than cardboard cut outs. The biggest problem with this film? It’s bloody boring! It’s not even funny bad, it’s just bad. Considering what’s on display here that’s a true crime.

I still have faith in Snyder and I think he can deliver a really cool Superman film. The box office receipts for Sucker Punch (it’s a massive flop) probably means Warner’s wont let him have free reign again – Thank god for that.

Dear Zack Snyder,

Please never write a screenplay again… Please.

2 flaming bears (one star there is purely for the visual craftsmanship)

I grew up around comics. X-Men, Spider-Man, Batman, Punisher and Wolverine were some of my favorites. Yet I never cared much for Thor, I thought he looked silly, and it was not until fourteen months ago that I read an issue (a very good Straczynsky one). Thor is the first film I’ve seen where I have a small personal connection to the project. I worked with both Kenneth Branagh and Tom Hiddleston on Wallander, and I was lucky enough to visit the set in Los Angeles. Seeing the massive sets definitely gave me a level of excitement and anticipation for the film that I wouldn’t have had otherwise. When the trailers were released I wasn’t particularly impressed, it just didn’t look that exciting. Then the reviews rolled out and the film was met with almost universal acclaim (94 percent at rotten tomatoes). I found this a huge relief since there was always the worry that the film could fail enormously. When you translate this sort of material you have to be careful. If it’s too serious it becomes unintentionally funny, and if there is too much comedy then there is no weight to the drama. It’s always a balance act with any superhero film but Thor is so much harder to translate to the screen than Batman or Iron Man. The tone, the design, the worlds, it’s all a much bigger challenge than almost any other mainstream comic book. So did Kenneth Branagh pull it off ?

I walked into the cinema screen being very excited, and while Thor is a fun and entertaining film it’s not the film I was hoping to see. Thor begins with our hero landing on earth (New Mexico to be exact). He’s immediately found by three scientists. The annoying intern/comic relief played by Kat Dennings, the wiser old man (Stellan Skarsgård) and the beautiful young leader (Natalie Portman). Portman’s character asks where he comes from and we are then thrown into Asgard for the answer to that question. We get a prologue sequence narrated by Odin (Anthony Hopkins) about how there has been a long time feud between the gods of Asgard and the frost giants of Jotunheim. After a few minutes of Hopkins voice over we arrive at a ceremony where Thor is about to be crowned king, but frost giants crashes the party and tries to steal an item of importance. Thor, against his fathers orders, goes to Jotunheim to confront the frost giants. This makes matters worse and his temper leads to the frost giants declaring war on Asgard  (Though we never really see them take action on this promise). Odin realizes his son is a spoiled brat and he banishes him to exile on earth for his recklessness. During this we also discover that Thor’s brother, Loki, has secrets of his own. For the main part of the film we follow Thor on his journey of self redemption down at earth. One of my problems it that I like all the Asgard stuff, and I think it’s vastly superior over the sequences that take place on earth. I just never found Thor being on earth as very exciting. All the action takes place in a desert, around a clearly Hollywood built town. Could they have picked a more boring setting? And where are the citizens? I want to see Thor surrounded by woods, lakes and mountains, not sand.

Obviously Thor falls in love with Portman’s character, but it’s never very interesting. Then there is the humor of the film, which is all over the place. Some of it’s good (I demand a horse!) but the fish out of water aspect is taken a bit too far. I don’t want a film about Gods to reference facebook or ipods. But, my main problem with the film is that I never really bought Thor’s transformation into a true hero, I see it but I just don’t feel it. This extends to the whole film, I’m not sure that I’m entirely convinced. It doesn’t help that the 3D is pointless (adds absolutely nothing) and that some of the CGI is a bit dodgy.

On Asgard we never really see the people that the gods rule over. Who worships these Gods? How does this planet function? All we get are these four underdeveloped silly warriors (Sif, Hogun, Volstagg and Fandral) who are only in the film to satisfy fans (ok, they also serve one plot movement in act II). Rene Russo who plays Thor’s mother Frigga has maybe three lines of dialog in the whole film and is completely wasted. The always great Idris Elba doesn’t get much to do either but at least he adds much needed gravitas to the film. I just want to know more about Asgard. Branagh throws us into the action, which is fine, but the world needs much more setting up. The film tries to be epic, but only in brief moments does it actually feel epic.

Kenneth Branagh was faced with one hell of a task. I can’t think of a harder comic book to adapt than Thor. Not only that but he had to make sure it works in the same world as Iron Man, Hulk and Captain America. In this aspect he has succeeded. Thor blends in well with the whole Shield universe, and he should work fine in The Avengers since Chris Hemsworth both looks and feels the part. But where is Thor’s helmet? He had it for the opening scene (for maybe 10 seconds) but then it’s never seen again. Clearly Marvel couldn’t get it to work visually and only threw in a glimpse to satisfy the fans. Just like they had Jeremy Renner show up for a pointless cameo as Hawkeye. I’m a fan of this stuff but just as the second half of Iron Man 2 ended up being more of a showcase for the Avengers, so does Renner’s cameo. It’s adds nothing to the film and ends up being distracting from the story.

Chris Hemsworths’s performance is good, but it’s overshadowed by Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His character is easily the best thing about the film and Hiddleston does a great job portraying him. Loki has a proper arch and he’s great fun to watch. His journey to the dark side is well played and he’s a better baddie than any of the guys in the Iron Man films. Antagonists usually get’s short changed in films these days so it’s comforting that Ken and Marvel gives us a proper, and interesting, villain.

Besides my complaints Thor is a well paced film that never gets boring. It’s a bit too silly and while it’s not the film I was hoping for its an entertaining watch, and far from the failure that it could have been.

3 flaming bears

After a series of depressing articles about the state of Hollywood cinema its time that I write something positive – I’m in London at the moment.  I’m spending April here, working on a project with my friends. I realized that when I’m here I get to see four of the ten  films I most look forward to watching this year. Battle L.A, Sucker Punch, Your Highness and Thor. With the exception of Thor the other three has been smashed critically (all have less the 30 percent rating at rotten tomatoes). This substantially damaged the hype for me, and now it looks like Hanna will be the spring gem. I have already seen Battle L.A and Sucker Punch, and I will post a review of those soon (they are not very good), but first I wanted to make brief reviews of two films that came out last month – The Adjustment Bureau and Rango.

Matt Damon and Emily Blunt has amazing chemistry, that is the greatest strength of George Nolfi’s adaptation of the Philip K. Dick short story; The Adjustment bureau. The film revolves around a U.S Senator, played by Matt Damon, who meets the love of his life, a ballerina dancer played by Emily Blunt. But they are not supposed to be together, the adjustment bureau has a plan for all of us and a relationship between Damon and Blunt is not part of the plan. This is a film about free will vs fate, and it does raise some interesting questions in a very sweet manner. The Adjustment bureau is not a dark science fiction film, this is a romantic, light and lovely sci fi film, and it deserves credit for trying something unusual. There are no big action setpieces and Nolfi instead puts the focus on Blunt and Damon. A wise move since the screen sizzles when they are onscreen together, you root for these two character to be together and that helps the film a huge amount. Not to mention that you have great actors like John Slattery and Terence Stamp as members of the bureau – The adjustment bureau is a bit long and it gets a bit silly towards the end, but it’s also unusual, interesting and quite charming. Go see it.

4 flaming bears

I’m surprised that Rango hasn’t gotten more attention in the press (though its made more than 200 million dollars worldwide at the box office) since this is the first big budget American animated film that is aimed almost entirely at adults. That needs to be celebrated in itself. Rango is quirky, fun and very odd – and it also has some of the best animation I have ever seen. As great as Pixar is, they do films for families, not adults. When I saw Rango, the kids were quiet and confused, they didn’t get the story or the jokes. Why would they? Rango is an homage to Leone films and Chinatown, it’s about a chameleon with an identity crisis. Johnny Depp voices Rango and the fact that he is such an unusual protagonist really benefits the film. But as great as Rango is it’s also quite an uneven film. Some of the jokes fall flat and the film loses a lot of it’s steam halfway through. You never get as involved in the story as you do in most Pixar films – Rango lacks their heart. But the film is just so odd, beautiful and refreshing that I can’t see this being anything other than an animated cult classic. Check out the clip below (the one titled Rango on the page), that enough should make you want to see this film.

4  flaming bears

Rango at Apple Trailers

8. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World

Edgar Wright’s American debut Scott Pilgrim, an adaptation of Bryan O Malley’s comic book, explodes onto the screen as the most geek heavy film in years. Audiences didn’t flock to see it, but it was an instant cult film on the day of it’s release. Flawlessly shot and edited with original fight sequences and great music. In fact, if one can fault this for film for anything it’s that it’s almost overload, and could easily stand to lose fifteen minutes. But make no mistake about it, this is craftsmanship at the highest level.

7. 127 hours

Danny Boyle’s telling of when hiker Aron Ralston was stuck between a rock and a hard place is the most aurally and visually impressive film of the year. Just like Scott Pilgrim this is superb craftsmanship. 127 hours is like an action film where the protagonist can’t move. James Franco might be amazing but the real star of the film is Danny Boyle. This is proof to all indie filmmakers that you can make a tense and exciting film with one location and one actor. Very impressive and Boyle’s best film since Trainspotting.

6. Never Let Me Go

The most overlooked film of the year when it came to the awards and Never let me go should have been nominated in every category. Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley both put in great performances but it’s the genius Andrew Garfield that steals the show. Never have I seen a younger actor get so good so fast. He will be truly amazing as Spider-Man. Never Let Me Go is heartbreaking stuff and beautifully put together by Mark Romanek. It’s like watching a poem come to life with gorgeous cinematography and perfect music. Never does it feel pretentious or over the top, every aspect of the film is beautifully understated in an odd way. It’s a crime that this wasn’t nominated for any awards… A true crime.

5. Inception

Never have such a complex and unusual story gotten 150 million dollars in the studio system. A testament to Chris Nolan and the success of his Batman franchise. Inception is smart, original and extremely well made. A sci fi heist movie with a very interesting mythology. We need more blockbusters like this that treat audiences with respect. But it’s not without it’s flaws, the cinematography looks almost exactly like The Dark Knight and the assault on the snowbase wasn’t as exciting as it should have been. But my biggest problem is the Juno girl, I just don’t buy her as a credible character. A Paris student would just go along on a heist into someones mind with no moral objections? And Cobb would confide in a total stranger? And why doesn’t Arthur react more after seeing Mal botch a mission? I love Inception, and luckily the pure greatness of the concept overshadows most of it’s flaws.

4. True Grit

The Coen’s have done it again. Perfect performances all around (Ok, maybe Josh Brolin took it too far). Matt Damon is hilarious as LaBeuof and he’s up there as one of the best Coen characters of all time. Hailee Steinfeld is one hell of a find, and she should have been nominated for best actress, not supporting because of oscar politics. The Coen brothers sense for time, place, dialog, editing and casting is astounding. Like Pixar they constantly deliver high quality work. I haven’t even mentioned Jeff Bridges yet, but rest assured this is another great performance by one of the worlds favorite actors – The ending packs an unusual punch and lingers in one’s mind, so bleak and unsentimental. Reminds me of No Country For Old Men…The Western is back once more.

3. Toy Story 3

Pixar has done it again. The third, and probably final, installment of the Toy Story saga is the best. Funny, sad, smart, beautiful… This is art at the highest level and Toy Story 3 is one of the best animated films of all time. The breakout scene is fantastic and the end where you think they are about to meet their doom is more real and involving that most live action dramas. Amazing work, words can’t express how brilliant this is.

2. The Social Network

This is easily the best film of last year. An unusual and original drama about the founders of the social revolution tool that is Facebook. When I heard that my favorite writer, Aaron Sorkin, would collaborate with the brilliant David Fincher on a film I was ecstatic. The fact that it involved Facebook  made me curious more than anything. I joined Sorkin’s facebook group and then forget about the film. Then the teaser showed up, and what a teaser that was. I read the script about two months before the film opened and it’s still the best and most enjoyable screenplay I’ve ever read. I have never read anything that riveting or fast in my entire life. Sorkin is the master of dialog and I highly recommend that people read the screenplay – David Fincher brought his dark aesthetic to the piece and casted it perfectly. Jesse Eisenberg should easily have won the Oscar for his amazing performance. His Zuckerberg  is one of the most fascinating protagonists of all time – The Social Network is fresh, dark, fast and highly original. A film that deals with the classic themes of love, betrayal and greed within the very modern backdrop of inventors and entrepreneurs. The Social Network is a milestone for cinema, the Citizen Kane of our generation, and one of the most important films of the last decade. A true masterpiece. If you’re reading this then watch it again… You know I’m right about this.

1. Kick-Ass

Kick-Ass is definitely not the best film of last year but it is certainly the most entertaining. It’s like Matthew Vaughn tailor made this film especially for me. Every aspect of it appeals to me on core geek level; snappy dialog, bizarre characters, great score, R-rated violence and superheroes, all in one big juicy mix. To juggle all this elements and not make it too silly or too serious is one hell of an achievement on Vaughn’s part, and he deserves more credit for it than he’s been given.  The action scenes are some of the best in years,  all differently shot with many memorable moments. When Hit Girl tries to rescue our heroes and Cage yells out ” Switch to kryptoniteeeeee!” with that manic voice of his, that was my favorite moment in the cinema last year. Kick-Ass is an utterly badass film. Bauer, Bourne or Bond has never had a momet as cool as when Hit Girl enters the lobby to Morricone music. I sat in the cinema with a big stupid grin from beginning to end, I absolutely love this film.

And below is some gems and disasters that 2010 had to offer;

Most underrated films

Cemetery Junction – Extremely underrated and very charming film by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant.
Machete – Had it’s flaws but still tons of fun, and a crazy cast to boot.
Easy A - Best High School film in years.
Rec 2 – Scariest film of the year, an intense and awesome rollercoaster ride.
The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc Sec – A french female Indy by Luc Besson, dont’ miss this gem.

Most overrated

The Town – Disappointing Heat rip-off.

Biggest disappointment

The Expendables – Couldn’t even be a silly and stupid action film, just a boring one.

Worst film of 2010

Somewhere – Don’t get me started on this pretentious pile of steaming shit.

This is depressing, and validates my previous article even more… For years Guillermo Del Toro has been wanting to adapt H.P Lovecrafts novella At the Mountains of Madness into a feature film. Story revolves around an arctic expedition where the team encounters an ancient civilization of monsters, ready to reclaim earth once more. Del Toro wanted to stay true to the novella and make a dark, period-set, R-rated, tentpole movie with a tough ending and no love story. Together with another writer, Matthew Robinson, he wrote several drafts of the script over the years, one which leaked online. When The Hobbit slipped away from Del Toro last summer he revealed that he had returned to At the Mountains of Madness, this time at Universal with his good friend James Cameron attached as producer. For the last six months they have been working on the script and designs for the film, hoping for a start date of June this year. The film carried a hefty price tag of 150 million dollars and would be shot in 3D. Not only was James Cameron involved but Tom Cruise signed on as the lead, and producer Don Murphy (Transformers 1-3, Shoot Em Up) also joined the party. Rumor is that Universal was extremely impressed with the recent presentation that Del Toro gave, and that he showed off an insane amount of artwork and designs for the film, done by ILM. But Universal decided not to give the project the go ahead, and Del Toro has now confirmed that the project is dead – This is a sad day for horror cinema, and a big blow for original blockbuster film-making. I was really rooting for this project. When a film has this sort of talent and can’t greenlit because it’s a big budget R-rated horror film, then when will it ever happen? God knows the horror genre needs better films. But why doesn’t Hollywood have any balls anymore? Can’t they take any risks? Don’t they dare to bet on talent? Don’t they understand that we want to see new things? Apparently not. Then again, it’s complicated. Drew Mcweeny over at Hitfix explains it better than I do. I just hope things will change, because certain stories need Hollywood and their money behind them to see the light of day. This is the most sad death of a blockbuster project since Peter Jackson and Neil Bloomkamps adaptation of Halo fell though.

This is sad, really sad…

Drew McWeeny’s take on the At The Mountains of Madness shut-down