The Dark Knight

There is a tendancy for superhero movies to arrive cloaked in so much hype and anticipation that there is an almost inevitable sense of anti-climax watching them. Even the best of them can sometimes seem disappointing. Batman Begins was a very good film, but for me at least, never quite as good as it was made out to be. It does mean that, however, The Dark Knight arrives with a huge weight of expectation.

Added to that, of course, is the huge burden of Heath Ledger's legacy. There has been talk of a posthumous oscar - is that merely a sentimental nod to a lost talent or is his performance really that good.

It is a great pleasure, therefore, to be able to report that The Dark Knight doesn't disappoint in any respect. It is possibly the best superhero movie ever made , certainly putting into the shade any recent efforts. Director Christopher Nolan is perhaps slightly more comfortable with the quieter character moments than the action sequences, but the later will certainly not produce any complaints - from the great opening bank robbery sequence to the car chase and flipping of an articulated lorry, there are some superb moments here.

Its also among the more intelligent action movies you'll see. The themes of hero as flipside of villain may not be new, but they're very well handled and there are some fascinating psychological games and choices set up by the Joker. Above all there's a psychological and emotional depth that rings true across the board.

Then there's the cast to die for - Bale is reliable as ever in the lead, Gary Oldman likewise in support, Maggie Gyllenhaal an impovement on Katie Holmes as Rachel, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman add a touch of wry humour to proceedings. The undersung Aaron Eckhart makes a very convincing Harvey Dent, the crusading DA whose fate has been well signposted.

Then there's Ledger - no hype in talk of Oscar's, he's superb, brilliant, amazing. He puts Jack Nicholson's scene-munching caricature into the shade. Its more a tribute to the strength of the rest of the cast that he doesn't unbalance or steal the whole movie, so compelling is his turn. Much darker than previous incarnations, the decision not to give him a backstory (in fact, he plays games with cliched ideas of origins) or explain too much his motivation, work well and make him all the more chilling.

There are weaknesses here - its possibly slightly too long (although it does hold the attention). Caine and Freeman in particular are underused, and Harvey Dent's transformation feels a bit rushed and the Two-Face effects are not the best and seem slightly out of place in the film. From an action point of view it also ends with one of weaker sequences, although it works well from a psychological viewpoint. But these are really minor quibbles, given the quality of the whole.

Overall - 5/5. Possibly the best superhero movie ever and a poignant reminder to just what a talent we lost with Ledger's death. See it and be blown away.

WALL-E

It's a strange pitch for an animated movie aimed at a family audience - we'll set it on a futurstic earth that has been totally trashed, we'll have no cute furry animals or even humans for the first half of the movie and the lead characters will be practically incapable of speech. It's a bold movie for Pixar and one which does them credit as a studio never content to rest on the laurels or do the reliably successful. It may turn out not to be one of their most successful commercially, but its certainly among their best.

WALL-E is the last remaining robot left with the task of cleaning up the earth after humanity fled to their refuge in the stars. For a creation with no words and minimal facial features he's endowed with a remarkable amount of personality, especially a childlike curiosity and deep loneliness. In what would be an excessive amount of time if it weren't so well done, we are shown him going about his business, cleaning up our junk and investigating it at the same time. Its full of wonderfully amusing little touches and beautiful flourishes.

Then WALL-E's world is turned upside down by the arrival of EVE - another robot sent to scout for signs of life. There is something both highly comic and simultaneously heartbreaking about WAll-E's attempts to get EVE's attention, especially when she has entered shut-down mode.

The film then blasts off into space, a sequence which includes some of the most beautiful animation in the film (or in many other films) and we meet what remains of humanity, whose desire for instant gratification has reduced them to a toddler like state of existence. It's telling that the robots seem so much more human than the humans. There are some lovely moments where WALL-E disturbs their cushioned existence and enables them to start seeing things again, to develop a curiosity and appreciation of life.

Like Pixar's best, this is beautifully animated - look at the space dance sequence, for example , - full of humour, but also genuinely moving. It references other sci-fi giants, especially Star Trek and 2001 (watch out for the clever use of music from Kubrick's film at key moments), is just bursting with clever little touches.

Overall - 5/5 It's a wonderful film from the masters in the field that easily stands up to their very best. Plenty for children and adults alike. WALL-E may be one of the most unlikely heroes of the year, but he's one of the most engaging.

The Forbidden Kingdom

As the first time that Jet Li and Jackie Chan (probably the two greatest living exponents of on screen kung fu) had ever shared the screen, The Forbidden Kingdom was bound to be greeted with a fair deal of excitement. It was almost as inevitable that it would, in some ways, fail to live up to expectations.

For the first 40 minutes or so, you'll wonder quite what you're watching. The look of the film resembles Hero or Crouching Tiger without really approaching the poetic beauty of those films. The tone is light without ever reaching the humour of Kung Fu Hustle or Shaolin Soccer. The script gets caught between the two, throwing a good deal of 70s Karate movies into the mix and has moments of inspiration, but is borderline dreadful despite Chan's best effort. It also borrows liberally from Karate Kid, Monkey and bizarrely Lord of the Rings. Sky High's Michael Angarano looks as lost in proceedings as his character. Admittedly there's some stunning scenery and a few nice fight scenes.

And then there's the moment where Chan and Li go face to face and fight each other. Its a sequence worthy of its stars and from that moment on the film lifts itself in the action sequences at least into something far more entertaining. There's also some nice interplay between the two after they join forces and make quite a good double act. The final showdown with the evil Jade Warlord and henchman is wonderfully inventive and entertaining. So much so that its almost a shame that we have to return to the States for the final coda which adds little except tying up loose ends.

Overall - 3/5 Its not the classic that was hoped for by any means, its a bit of a confused mess, but it looks good and when Chan and Li get together the action really kicks ass.

Journey to the Centre of the Earth 3-D

This is a film that is really only worth seeing if you catch it in one of the 3-D showings. The whole film seems to have been pretty well built around ideas for effects shots which get the audience jumping as different objects come hurtling towards them.

Less a re-make of the 1950s version or a fresh adaptation of Jules Vernes' novel, than a loose kind of sequel about people who believe Vernes' work to be true and some who discover it is. Brendan Fraser (basically re-jigging his role from The Mummy) plays the muscular scientist who stumbles into the world below the surface whilst on a trip to Iceland with his nephew (Bridge to Terabithia's Josh Hutcherson) and their blonde icelandic guide (Anita Briem), who's there for the inevitable romantic subplots, but does at least get to rescue Fraser as much as she's rescued.

Fraser is on likeable form as the lead, far more convincing as action man than scientist. Briem has her moments early on, but gets reduced more and more to damsel in distress as the film progresses, whilst Hutcherson's talents are largely underused. The script has some good moments, (unfortunately, mostly in the trailer), but this is all about the action sequences and effects and on the whole, these work well. It contains the best mine cart sequence since Temple of Doom and some good use of the 3-D technology. The problem is that after having found a good 3-d shot, it will then be repeated until the impact starts to wear thin. After having Fraser spit toothpaste at the camera in the opening moments, the same idea is used at least twice more. Similarly not just one, but many flying fish are shot at the audience.

The world created is rather patchy, with parts of it definitely more convincing than others. The creatures, especially the gruesome fish and fluorescent birds are rather better realised. The plot is as full of holes as the crumbling landscape. Leaving aside the numerous instances of terribly bad science, little details like backpacks that seem to travel by themselves (always re-appearing after being left behind). And, also, if that's Fraser's brother who disappears into a lava-filled chasm in the movie's opening shot, then who's under the pile of stones on the beech later on and just who buried him?

Overall - 2.5/5 It's all rubbish, effects driven-ribbish at that, but in the hands of Fraser it's actually quite likeable, entertaining and fun rubbish.

Kung Fu Panda

Since the first Shrek movie, Dreamworks Animation have been struggling through adequate movies which fail to even get close to the quality of rivals Pixar. Kung Fu Panda, encouragingly is one of their better efforts. That said, it rarely even gets close to being good enough to be in the shadow of even lesser Pixar efforts like Cars or Ratatouille.

Once again they've attracted a truly stellar vocal cast (Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Ian McShane, Jackie Chan and Lucy Liu) for this tale of a noodle selling panda called Po (Jack Black) who dreams of being a kung fu master and has his dream come true just in time to face off against ultra-nasty bad guy snow leopard Tai Lung (McShane).

The cast are great - McShane wonderfully nasty and Black somehow seeming typecast - the opening dream sequence is so pure Jack Black your response will depend very much on how you view the actor himself. And there are somer great moments - Tai Lung's escape from an impossible prison is visually stunning and inventive. There's a training sequence involving dumplings that's very funny and some good fight scenes, especially one on a rope bridge. There's also some nice almost tongue-in-cheek stuff with the old master.

However, overall the film lacks the sharpness in either visuals or script that we would now expect from Pixar. And (curiously like The Forbidden Kingdom (to be reviewed soon)) thew film clearly comes out of love for Kung Fu movies and gets itself stuck between homage and pastiche at times, which in this case leads to the odd straying into an unnecessary sentimentality.

Overall - 3/5 A solid rather than spectacular effort with some nice flourishes and a good cast. Better than a lot of recent non-Pixar animations, but not in the same league as the leaders in the field.

Les Femmes de l'ombre (Female Agents)

Although allegedly inspired by real SOE agents from the Second World War, you come away with the definite sense that the film owes far more to the staples of the movie genre than any sense of actual events. At times it almost comes off as a female (and reduced numbers) version of The Dirty Dozen, with many aspects of the story straining credulity.

The film follows Louise Desfontaines (Sophie Marceau) and the team of agents (Julie Depardieu, Marie Gillain, Maya Sansa, Deborah Francois) she puts together to firstly rescue a British operative and then assassinate the SS colonel who now knows too much about the D-Day landings (Moritz Bleibtreu (Run, Lola, Run; The Experiment)). What follows is the usual mix of successes and blunders, heroic sacrifices, etc... There's not much here thats going to seem new at all. Its easy to shoot holes in the plot which makes much of some small difficulties but has characters disappear in the middle of a station full of Nazi soldiers and re-appear in London.

However, put that to one side, take it as a slightly silly war-based thriller and its an entertaining and well put-together film that will keep you along for the ride through some good set pieces - witness the escape from the hospital or the failed attempt on the metro. Its aided by some strong performances from the women (especially Marceau and Depardieu) and some good interplay between them.

However, the film's strongest point is perhaps Bleibtreu, who manages to humanise the SS colonel without reducing the nastiness of what he does. He manages to tread the line between cartoonish villain and sympathetc figures. If anything, the human touches and intelligence he brings to the part make his cruelty all the more chilling.

Overall - 3/5 It's nonsense, but quite gripping and well-done nonsense, aided by a strong cast on good form.

Adulthood

It takes a wee bit of a mental leap to disassociate writer/director/star Noel Clarke from Mickey from Doctor Who. Once you're past that potential stumbling block, you can begin to appreciate what an accomplished job he does in all three roles here.

Its the directing thats the new string to his bow (he was the writer for this film's predecessor Kidulthood) and is perhaps his most impressive. He handles matters with a very assured hand and isn't afraid to try things out, even if there is the odd moment where this falls into the new director's trap of being a bit too showy for the film's good. There's really only one major mis-step in the closing moments of the film.

That said, he also does a good job with the writing and the acting, turning his character Sam, the villain of the first film, into the sympathetic character - just released from prison for the events at the end of kidulthood and trying to put his life back together. The film as a whole moves slightly more into standard London gangster flick territory than the earlier movie had done, but there are some strong supporting performances and a bearable cameo from Danny Dyer.

Overall - 3/5 A solid rather than spectacular effort, but confirms Noel Clarke as a talent to watch over the next few years.

Hors de prix (Priceless)

A bit of a strange one to categorise - its not exactly a romantic comedy, but manages to be both hilarious in places and ultimately genuinely touching. In some ways the plot (and the dresses) has distant echoes of Breakfast at Tiffanys, but its both more and less cynical in its approach to human nature.

Audrey Tautou plays a young gold-digger, hooking up with a succession of rich, older men in order to support her taste for designer clothes, fancy hotels and the most expensive food. However, she mistakenly ends up in bed with a hotel waiter (Gad Elmaleh) who then pursues her to Nice. When she has exhausted his credit, he ends up adopting her lifestyle, being taken up by a rich widow (Marie-Christine Adam).

Tautou is superb - a performance that combines her usual liveliness with the subtlest glimpses of the loneliness ands fragility that drive her. Adam is also great, managing to humanise what could have been a merely comic role to show touches of loneliness and humanity in the super-rich. Opposite them, Elmaleh gives a fine comic turn.

Amidst the beautiful shots of a sun-drenched riviera, the film has many real comic scenes, but also manages to find pathos in some of the most unlikely situations. If at the end it strays into romantic comedy genre cliche - the mad dash through the hotel to get to the loved one before its too late, etc... by that time, it will have won you over enough that you will forgive.

Overall - 3.5/5 It might not be the greatest comedy or romance ever, but has enough original touches, charm, humour and surprisingly touching moments to make it one of the best of recent times.

Shut up and sing

I was recently watching a DVD documentary called Shut Up and Sing which followed American county music trio the Dixie Chicks in the wake of the controversy that surrounded remarks made by their lead singer during a concert in London. On the eve of the invasion of Iraq she made an impromptu remark that they were ashamed the president of the United States was from the same state as them. This was picked up first by the Guardian and then by sections of media until it quickly snowballed into a huge scale campaign against the group, including boycotts and, in the extreme death threats.

Several things struck me watching this. One of which was how scary it is, in this day and age, prominent figures can say on live television that women "deserve to be slapped around" and have the female anchor person nodding in agreement and this is far more acceptable than a personal view expressed about a political leader. Somewhere there are some seriously skewed values at work there.

But it also got me thinking on the differences between Britain and America. In Britain we tend to view our leaders, whether government or monarchy, as people who can do next to nothing right, whose every action is deserving of criticism and skepticism. It almost becomes a mark of British-ness to be unhappy with and critical of our leaders. Whereas, in the States, or at least in certain sections of the American population (because I'm aware that over the past few years America has become an increasingly divided country and these issues are kind of core to that divide) criticism of the president would seem to be akin to criticism of the nation and tantamount to treason. America enshrines freedom of speech within the constitution and yet the exercise of this freedom to criticise America or her leaders has become almost taboo and certainly unpatriotic.

So blind faith or cynicism - neither of them seem a particularly healthy option for a national identity or a sense of belonging. It then got me thinking that there is probably something of a parallel that happens in our attitudes towards faith and church in particular. On the one hand there are the complainers for whom nothing is ever good enough and on the other those for whom the way things are done, and especially our beliefs themselves, must never be questioned or re-evaluated as this would be tantamount to heresy. Again, neither attitude would seem to be very helpful in the formation of a healthy faith. The willingness to question and be questioned whilst maintaining a respect for what is there, to reconsider and re-evaluate without losing faith, I am increasingly coming to believe is part of healthy growth as a Christian. The more we have things set in stone, the more limits we have on our concept of and understanding of God and, perhaps, the less able we are to fully connect with him.

But that's a topic I plan to maybe return to at greater length another time.

The Edge of Love

To get one thing clear from the outset, contrary to the marketing this film is not "this year's Atonement, only better". It lacks the intelligence of Atonement, the direction and cinematography are weaker, the acting isn't as good and the score is nowhere near the same league. So beyond the superficialities of being set at the same time and featuring the same actress (Keira Knightley) its not a good comparison and does this film no favours.

The film concerns the women in the life of poet Dylan Thomas (Matthew Rhys) and the unlikely friendship that forms between his wife (Sienna Miller) and his childhood sweetheart (Knightley). The opening half of the film, set in a blitz ravaged London, is promising enough - director John Maybury gives us some good shots and some genuine jolts and an intriguing introduction to the characters.

The acting throughout is good - Knightley and Miller both manage credible Welsh accents, (although certain parts of the dialogue get lost slightly) and Miller, in particular, gives a great performance. Rhys plays Thomas as a kind of Peter Pan figure - refusing to take responsibility or grow-up or take anything seriously and whilst this might capture something of his self-centredness, it fails to account for the depth or despair of some of his writing. (In general, Thomas' poetry is handled pretty poorly by the film - muttered semi-audibly in barely comprehensible snippets rather than given room to shine, but then the focus of the film is definitely on the women). Cillian Murphy, as Knightley's suitor and later husband, has to deal with the stiffest of accents and the dodgiest of lines, but still emerges with the most credit from the second half of the film, giving a convincing portrayal of a man returned from the trauma of fighting in Greece. In fact, its the redemption of his relationship with Knightley that ultimately proves the films most redeeming feature.

It's in the second half - set in a seemingly permananently wet and misty Wales (which doubtless won't please the Welsh tourist board) - that things just start to drift as the relationships become more tangled. I found myself becoming more concerned for the baby, seemingly carelessly left here, there and everywhere, than any of the adult participants and it comes as something of a relief when Murphy finally gets out his rifle and starts shooting up the house.

Overall - 3/5. The opening section is really good viewing, but the film then gets lost somewhat in the Welsh mist. Strong performances from Murphy and Miller will just about keep you engaged till the end though.

Hancock

The story that Hancock is adapted from tells of a superhero who can't make love with a woman without killing her. Obviously that's not a movie that's going to be a summer blockbuster starring Will Smith, but vestiges of it remain in this tale of a man feeling all alone because of his powers who has become a drunken and obnoxious, rather than the stereotypical hero. After being saved from being squished by a train, hapless PR man Ray (Jason Bateman) decides to help Hancock turn his image around.

And this is where the film starts to falter and lose energy and focus. The first 20 minutes or so are amongst the funniest in a recent blockbuster, but the problem is that the unreformed Hancock is actually a far more interesting and fun character than the reformed one. After that the film gets stuck between pastiche-ing the normal superhero movie story and becoming it.

Not that its bad - Smith is his usual watchable self and there's good work too from Bateman and Charlize Theron, as Ray's wife who clearly knows more than she's telling. There's a nice turn too from Brit Eddie Marsan (the driving instructor from Happy Go Lucky) as the villain. There are some good sequences too - the bank hold-up and final hospital showdown hold their own against most superheroes movies. And there are some interesting idea - not just in the loneliness of the hero, but at the end in the idea of sacrifice and giving up a loved one in order to let them live.

It's all very watchable, but loses alot of the humour without necessarily adding believable character development or a clear focus on ideas. The section of Hancock reforming is too long without really offering sufficient motivation for him to change. Things do pick up again when the twists start, but you're left with the impression of something that's mushy rather than moving and full of cod psycho-babble rather than a proper exploration of ideas.

Overall - 3/5 A great opening and never less than entertaining watch, but definitely feels like it was close to being much better with a bit more focus.

Wanted

Wanted would be an easy film to knock – visually it borrows heavily from The Matrix amongst others, the plot makes about as much sense as Boris Johnson on a bad day (there’s some nonsense about a guild of assassins who are guided to their targets by the “loom of fate”), James McAvoy’s American accent is rather dodgy and Angelina Jolie plays the same part she played in Mr and Mrs Smith and seems to be only half-trying. Oh, and the CGi in the train sequence is rather less than convincing.

All of which is true, but rather misses the fun of it all. Director Timur Bekmambetov does borrow from The Matrix’s bullet-time, but there is just as much of his own Russian films, Nightwatch and Daywatch in the mix and he creates some genuinely impressive sequences – watch out especially for the opening rooftop shootout and the car chase.

The plot may be rather silly, but the script is lively and fun and keeps things moving on the whole at a healthy pace (although the training section is a wee-bit overlong) which prevents things getting bogged down in unnecessary explanations.

McAvoy, accent-aside, provides a charismatic lead who keeps you watching. Jolie, even at less than fully trying is far more watchable than a lot of actresses doing their best. And the rest of a talented cast do well, although Terence Stamp feels a bit out of place. It’s also refreshing to see Morgan Freeman in a less than saintly role for a change – he even gets to swear!

Overall – 3.5/5. It’s not exactly ground-breaking or especially deep, but there are some great sequences and good performances that make Wanted one of the best and most fun actioners of the summer so far.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

The recent rush, post Rings and Potter, to get any possible fantasy-themed children’s book onto the screen – for every success (The Bridge to Terabithia, Spiderwicke Chronicles) there seems to be a corresponding failure (The Dark is Rising) and lets not even think about Eragon. The first Narnia movie, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe kind of fell in the middle – it was faithful enough to the book to keep fans (and the American Bible Belt) happy enough to bring huge commercial success as a the Christmas family movie of choice, but if we’re honest, it was a wee bit of a flat adaptation.

Caspian has several obstacles to overcome – firstly the best performances in the first film came from James McAvoy’s Mr Tumnus (now long dead) and Tilda Swinton’s white witch (reduced to the briefest of appearances here, but still a highlight). Secondly, this is not such a well-known or well-loved novel.

The good news is that director Andrew Adamson has improved on the first film. You come away from Prince Caspian with a much greater sense of Narnia as a believable world with more substance. As seems inevitably the way, the sequel is “darker” – the addition of more human roles bringing with it plots and intrigues a plenty, but also making the whole more engaging and interesting. The human city and castle add a more distinctive flavour to the visuals as well.

The battle scenes are also more impressive that in movie 1, but those who have seen Lord of the Rings will both feel a sense of deja-vu and a feeling that Narnia is still an inferior copy in many respects. I stopped trying to count how many shots were directly borrowed or strongly influenced by Rings.

The films major weakness remains the older children, especially William Mosely as Peter, whose performance creaks badly. And as he is required to shoulder the main character arc and moral development in the film, that’s quite a major flaw. Of the other youngsters, newcomer Ben Barnes (in the title role) and Anna Popplewell (Susan) are reduced to exchanging moody/meaningful glances at each other. Whilst the younger children, Georgie Henley (Lucy) and especially Skandar Keynes (Edmund) are better but given far too little to do.

Instead, the real stars of the movie turn out to be Peter Dinklage as the dwarf Trumpkin and Eddie Izzard voicing Reepicheep, the swashbuckling mouse. Together they inject some much needed life and humour into proceedings. Which bodes well for the next film, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where Reepicheep should play a much larger role. Unfortunately, Liam Neeson’s Aslan remains peculiarly flat and unengaging.

Overall – 3/5. It’s an improvement, but in movie terms Narnia’s not quite there yet. Promising signs for Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where the lack of big battles might move us more away from the Rings trilogy.