NEWS: First Look At New Spider-Man

Sony have released the first picture of Andrew Garfield in the new Spiderman movie. What do you think?

I still think it rather strange to reboot the franchise seeing as, although Spiderman 3 was crap, it still had legs and was leading on to other things. However, I imagine that since Raimi didn't want to do it anymore and Maguire was over it, they had to do something - so why not start again?

As you can see they've tried to give it a darker edge, a far cry from Raimi's initial Spiderman which was very bright and colourful. Instead, taking lessons from the hugely popular Batman reboot, it looks as if this will be a much more sinister affair. I'm just a bit worried that the original film is still too fresh, and it still stands up, and do people want to see time and time again how Peter Parker gets his powers? It's been done to death.

I'm also a bit worried about Rhys Ifans as Dr Curt Connors, but Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May are a good choice. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Irrfan Khan as Proto Goblin (a big red beast that is a kind of experiment for Green Goblin), Denis Leary as Captain Stacy and Chris Zylka as Flash Thompson. Seeing as there is no talk of a Mary Jane then we're hoping that his less romantic, and more passionate, affair with Gwen can only be a good thing. Right? What does everyone think?

NEWS: Bond Is Back ... Again

Daniel Craig returns as Bond - this time with Oscar winner Sam Mendes behind the camera.

Finally after a rather disappointing Quantum Of Solace, Bond has been taken off the shelf while MGM sort out their finances and is going to be released on November 9th 2012.

So far that's all that has really been announced but it's good to see that they haven't just left it behind. Anyone else slightly excited?

NEWS: Marion Cotillard won't be in new Batman film

Marion Cotillard won't be in new Batman film.

It's been announced today that Marion Cotillard, from Nolan's Inception, is up the duff courtesy of partner Guillaume Canet. This potentially rules her out for the May shoot of the third Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises". However, Tom Hardy has been confirmed.

Other contenders are Rachel Weisz, Tanit Phoenix, Blake Lively, Keira Knightley, Piper Perabo and Naomi Watts. Natalie Portman has since denied she will be in the new Batman film but it is still up in the air what female character will be unveiled.

The King's Speech

Tipped for Oscar-a-plenty, is this Royal prequel to The Queen more than just an ITV Sunday drama?

For me, this film wasn’t even on my radar until I heard the States were going mad for it a couple of months back. What was this British film doing sneaking up on the world? Perhaps I hadn’t been paying attention? Even the director, The Damned United’s Tom Hooper is surprised that it’s taken off how it has. But what makes it so special? The answer is nothing really, and that’s the point. It’s a very safe, very mainstream, very appealable film. Films on the British monarchy always do well in the States, and therefore globally due to their interest in historical figures that they don’t have. I would probably hazard more Americans have set foot inside Buckingham Palace than British people – they just love our monarchy. It is a well-written, perfectly middle-class, middle-brow film that the average cinema-goer and the more upper class families who never really go to the cinema, can all go to and enjoy. But is it really any good?

Surprisingly yes. I’m a bit sick of this recent need to adapt our British monarchy but The King’s Speech dealt with a story I was completely unaware of and was more about the man than the monarch, which made it a lot more interesting. You can’t fault the acting either, Colin Firth, someone I’m not exactly a huge fan of, is extremely impressive as the King with the speech defect but that doesn’t mean he steals the show. In fact, Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen Mother is astoundingly convincing now that she’s stepped back a bit from her Burton charm and Geoffrey Rush as Australian Lionel is as compelling as ever.

The scenes, pace and dialogue are written exquisitely for a writer who has quite a rich TV background but nothing that will particularly ring any bells but the real stand-out achievement, and what will probably be overshadowed by the acting when it comes to the awards, is the directing. Hooper will use certain techniques you might not even realise – such as having the camera on a slight angle, his use of depth and frame, especially the King’s awkward static position on the left hand side of the screen with large spaces to his right and then, as his speech is reeled off, the framing is more dynamic, it moves and swirls around the words and becomes as animated as the speech. It’s these little touches, that will surely be overlooked that is what made the film for me. Had it been a simple point-and-shoot affair, I definitely would not have enjoyed this as much as I did. Instead, Hooper has shown a clear passion in his work and what with all the sets, costumes, props and incredible location work, you can see the results of a film where every detail was cared for and so should it be, it’s about the King after all.

This might be better than The Queen, but it still invites a certain audience that I hate – the old, middle class people. It’s quite strange how similar they are to annoying teenagers, they will laugh out loud, talk during the performance, eat loudly and their love of foul language onscreen (though said by Firth instead of a young ghetto kid is fine) is remarkable. It’s quite strange and worth a visit to the cinema to watch, maybe take your parents? They might be one of them? Obviously for people who think they are more intelligent than people younger than them they miss the subtleties the film has to offer and they will no doubt love the film. It’s catered completely for them, full of cheekiness, faux-intelligentsia content and got some famous faces in it. Perfect. It's quaint. However, as much as I enjoyed the film, there are more deserving films out there for people’s attentions. It didn’t affect me really and is instantly forgettable – but apparently not for some.

Rating: 7/10

Yes I enjoyed Tron Legacy more

Catfish

What happens when you add someone you don't know as a 'friend'? A world where internet dating is the norm? Where faceless social networking can allow anything to happen? Well you probably get a bunch of guys with hard-on's pissing about, a bit like this ...


Before I begin, I heard about this film months and months ago when it was making a ripple in the festival circuit - that isn't bragging, it's because unfortunately researching the film, I uncovered the ending by accident. Which means that I already knew what was going to happen coming into the film, which probably ruins it from the start.

I also heard a lot of stuff about it being fake, that the guys knew way before they 'find out' but Metro kept going on about how amazing it is and a few friends have said it's incredible. Unfortunately, I'd disagree and I actually think it was quite horrible to watch, for reasons that might not be apparent.

In case you don't already know, Nev is starting to flirt with a girl on Facebook called Meghan and his brother is filming it as it goes along. It starts off quite strange anyway, Nev has been sent a painting of his photo by Abi, an eight year old girl, he starts chatting to her and they become pen pals. I found this a bit strange in the first place, a 24 year old man shouldn't have an 8 year old female pen pal but, whatever, I'll let it slide. Soon he starts talking to the mother, who looks hot and he fancies her too, but then the 19 year sister of Abi called Meghan pops into the picture. He starts texting her and flirting as well. It's all quite disgusting really but portrayed in a sweet fashion. The art Abi paints is also shit, the phone calls feel awkward and it's not until the music comes into play that they start realising something is wrong.

The problem is, I can see why people think it's fake. For the rest of the film, Nev has a knowing smile on his face and in the last half hour or so, as awkward as it is, they are clearly revelling in the boyish nature of knowing they've found a story. Nev isn't gutted, he's not embarrassed, he's enjoying the results and as sad as it is, it's exploiting this sadness. It's looking down on someone, almost mocking them by even releasing the film and yet patronises the audience by trying to make it sympathetic and sweet. Nev is your everyday middle-class male, he has his Macbook, he photographs dancers, he's mixed race in a central city, he's good looking and he's pretty much like every person who goes to a film festival. This will probably upset people but it's true. When they enter the suburbs, a farm, when they see the kind of people, the lives they lead, it has no real effect on them, they can up and leave it and look back and laugh, but the others can't. The way it is dealt with in the trailer is as a horror, the city folks fear of suburbia (see Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Deliverance, The Hills Have Eyes etc.) and it's not very fair.

I felt that even though, as a basic story, it worked by being quite tense and enjoyable and that it's subject matter is very modern but it becomes less about social networking and more about society. At one point, without trying to ruin it, the subject says "You gave me access to a life I could only dream of" - or something or other - and as scary as it might first appear, it's mainly just sad. Sometimes they have to just imagine living the lives people are luckily handed, that through this faceless media they can be someone else, they can live the lives they want and it's a question of who is taking advantage of who. In a strange way, they needed each other. Even if the Nev's one was more base perhaps.

Once the truth is found out, they stay there for a bit too long, they ask questions and pry into their lives. It's embarrassing to watch, especially since the subject in question is clearly a bit mental and it's almost poking fun under the guise of being serious. Whether or not people think it's fake, they can't deny that the guys knew that they had a film on their hands.

Overall, it's a good film to watch the once and if you've ever had a strange Friend Request on Facebook or if you've ever done online dating you'll probably enjoy it more, but really I felt it was strange from the beginning and got stranger as it continued. There's lying, but then there's another level of lying where it becomes a mental health problem and to exploit it, in the cleverest way of not exploiting it by making it a 'twist', then it becomes sensationalist. It's just cashing in on the whole Facebook popularity thing anyway whether it means to or not. I didn't like the guys involved, I didn't like the way the film was handled and I think underneath the façade of it being a film about the dangers of Facebook, it's a horrible, selfish, mocking way of doing so. But saying that, I can't help but admit I enjoyed watching it, and clearly a lot of other people do as well, but I'm a bit worried that people are taking a bit too much pleasure in watching it and it's most certainly not particularly well made. It's a story - that's all, and they got lucky. They don't make the film what it is, the subject does. The idea of the catfish is also interesting, I think it leaves you with the thought of who the real 'catfish' is and, to some extent, it does inspire a lot of questions, but really I felt like this was three guys having a laugh and the tone displeased me. A decent watch and will make some interesting water cooler moments, but essentially nothing more than that. Go watch Black Swan.

Rating: 6/10

Caprica Season 1

One of my favourite TV series of all time - Battlestar Galactica - sadly finished a while ago but the makers came back with prequel spin-off Caprica, or in other words - CRAPrica.


If anyone is thinking about starting to watch this then let me begin by telling you not to. Read this review and save yourself the chore of putting yourself through watching every episode. I mean it. There's a reason why it's cancelled.

Let's start by saying what it's about. It follows Joe Adama (Bill's father) who has lost his wife and daughter in a terrorist explosion, set off by a friend of Zoe Graystone. Zoe is the daughter of Daniel Graystone who is basically the guy responsible for creating cylons. At the same time, there's a religion going on with extremist leader Clarice getting people to blow stuff up and all that. It's this religion of the One God that we know through Battlestar and, well, that's about it.

There's different storylines going on with stuff like a virtual world, the Adamas finding their Tauron roots, Zoe as a weird Neo in The Matrix, Zoe's friend Lacy joining the terrorists and Daniel trying to keep it all together. The problem is a lot of things, firstly the acting is average at best, Eric Stoltz does reasonably well but by the end you feel like he's running on empty and I'd argue he's the best there, even Esai as Joe Adama is tough to watch at times, often giving hammy performances at crucial times.

That's the least of their problems - which is really saying something. The real trouble here are the stories - they are so so so boring and worthy that it's often cringe-worthy. They string things out for ages, there's a lot of talking, not much action or indeed Sci-Fi (for something that is supposed to be a staple Sy-Fy show) and you spend the whole time waiting for something to kick off, which it doesn't. It's a disappointment after another disappointment. Each episode was slow, convoluted, poorly executed and completely soulless. I heard some backlash about it getting cancelled but, seriously, who is watching this? What are they getting out of it?

Another huge issue is the characters - they are so wet, so pathetic and even when they try to be strong, it feels so fake and awkward that you just want to turn over. Zoe is shit, Lacy is shit, Joe is shit, they're all shit. Everything is so serious all the time, about boring stuff, it tries to be pseudo-political, pseudo-religious and it makes me think that Battlestar Galatica might have been just a fortunate series of events that turned into a good series. The story, in theory, doesn't really even make sense. Fortunately, it's been announced that Bill Adama will be back for another spin-off series about the Cylon Wars which at least will have some action in it. Caprica however was a complete disgrace, it might have been a good idea in theory but in practise it was an abomination.

Not only this, but it shatters some illusions people would have thought about where Battlestar's roots come from. Everything about the Cylons, the One God, Joe Adama - it's all shit and I wish I hadn't watched any of it. It doesn't know if it's a sci-fi show, a drama, a teen cult favourite or what, it was too big a project to handle and with such awful writing, it deserves to be a lesson learnt that sometimes stretching storylines out, not giving your audience anything and having such an egotistical self-belief that your characters are strong enough to hold a show together just doesn't always work.

Craprica.

Rating: 2/10

True Grit

The Coen brothers return with their most successful movie ever - a remake of the John Wayne classic True Grit. Tipped for the Oscars, is this modern Western going to sweep up in 2011?


I'm going to be honest, I've never seen the original True Grit - all I know about it is that it was John Wayne's sole Oscar winning performance and his last. Jeff Bridges takes on the one eyed Rooster who is employed by a young girl to find her father's killer - it's a simple chase movie that we know the Coens can do well, but is it their best yet? To be honest, I don't think so.

There's nothing I like more than a good Western but I just couldn't get into this story that much, it's great don't get me wrong but I don't love it as much as I loved No Country For Old Men for instance. That's not to say the performances here aren't incredible, because they are, and I'm sure that there might be an Oscar nomination nod here. Bridges is perfect for the dissatisfied, nihilistic Marshall and his gravel-tinged voice is full of the spite that he has for criminals - he truly doesn't care about killing another man. This is in contrast to the rather conservative Texas Ranger Matt Damon who has been chasing this notorious criminal for a while and his journey crosses theirs more regularly than they might like. Brolin as Chaney is again a small but perfect performance but it is Steinfeld as young Mattie that really stands out. For such a young actress her bold, brave and startlingly convincing performance sometimes completely outshines the others and I would not be surprised if she is nominated, or perhaps might even win an Oscar this year.

Not only is it just the acting, but the writing is also remarkable and every character in this movie will make you love and yet hate them. The girl is clever, sweet-natured but yet bloodthirsty and often annoying, Brolin is clearly evil but naive and subservient, Damon is brave yet stubborn and Bridges is the classic anti-hero. The dialogue and pacing is perfect, keeping you on your toes one minute but then lets you embrace the exchanges around the campfire the next, all without losing interest. A big issue here was that there's a lot of grumbling, murmuring and often I couldn't understand what was being said, an issue I'm finding cropping up more and more often - either that or I'm getting older.

I guess there are some deeper themes here, some more apparent than others such as feminism, sexism, existentialism and generally the idea of killing a man. However, there is also the idea of following your dream, coming-of-age, family and it's all generally very macho. It was an enjoyable film and I highly recommend it, but I can't justify giving it top marks because I immediately forgot about it as soon as it was over. It might get the same score as Tron: Legacy, which people might see as blasphemous, but I really did enjoy it the same amount. Coen brothers are generally considered 'cool' and 'indie', but have they ever been truly indie? They are usually the first names people go to when they try to suggest they know something about film, the amount of times I hear 'I think the Coen brothers are amazing', I agree that they are amazing but people often gush over them way too much then they should - A Simple Man? Burn After Reading? They got rave reviews but I didn't think they were much cop. Shock!

Overall, this is a good film that I would enjoy watching again, but not unless I had to. Great performances and I'm sure the Oscars will love it but if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the film. I don't really care if it's got Coen's all over it, it's a great film but it's not amazing and I'm sure they will release something similar in a couple of years. Quantity doesn't mean quality.

Rating: 8/10