Total Recall 2012 vs Dredd 2012

I've debated about whether I need to write reviews for these two remakes of popular 1990s sci-fi films, which were in turn inspired by a short story and comic series, respectively. Honestly, I have no good excuse to write this, except to get it off my chest!

I'm not a sci-fi fan - and have never been. But I have watched many of the 'essential' films, to better understand the genre. Also, growing up in the '80s and '90s meant that, like it or not, some of the biggest blockbusters I watched invariably had elements of a stark world of the future, where the existence of cyborgs is common, and even humans are more mechanical.

Total Recall (1990), which over time has adopted cult status, always seemed to me, to essentially be a B-movie. It is garish, with awful acting and many scenes set up to make the audience laugh. It is, at the heart of it all, just a fun, cheesy ride. It helped in creating Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'legend' status and is probably Sharon Stone's second most famous role. Why, just after 22 years, they decided to remake the film, is beyond me (besides the obvious hope to cash in loads of money). Yes, the special effects now look dated, but the film is not old enough to need a remake, and still commands a fair fan following that would not like it to be tampered with.

To justify this effort, I guess, 'they' have made some minor changes to the look and feel of the film. The new Total Recall is greyer and quite humourless. By casting Colin Farrell, whose selection of films is really diverse, they have hoped to bring in an actor who is not yet typecast, but generally respected for his work. And with Kate Beckinsale and Jessica Biel, 'sexy action' can be expected, so that should bring in the lads. Unfortunately, what they forgot to bring to the table was a new angle to the story. And though I enjoyed the 'look' of the film (in all its shades of grey), I'm not really sure if the screenplay, the dialogues, the action or anything really impressed me. Yes, Colin and Kate look hot, and that should be reason enough to go to the cinema, but there wasn't much that made me want to stay.

I wasn't thoroughly bored. I was just thoroughly confused about why 'they' felt the need to make this film. With very average action and acting, it's a very average film, which will be massively panned by anyone who actually loved the previous version.

My experience with Dredd was even worse. Judge Dredd (1995) was a fairly miserable film, but here too, over time there was a cult feel about it. Most action fans have seen it, and remember it well, and will probably list it amongst Sylvester Stallone's top films. When the trailer for the new film came out, I wasn't sure if I was quite excited about it, because though Karl Urban doesn't have a half-paralysed face like Sly's, his constantly down-turned mouth, underneath the helmet, seemed like he was aping Stallone (which is weird, because why would you want to repeat a portrayal that has been mocked for almost two decades?). When I finally watched the film, I was further distressed by the fact that his voice kept changing from gruff to normal, like he couldn't make up his mind whether to 'copy' Stallone or not.

The film makers did try to bring something new here though. They did not repeat the story from the first film. Since this character is from a series of comics, there is a definite possibility of bringing new ideas to the table (unlike Total Recall, which is based on a short story). So, what did the writers do? They wrote something completely 'new', that is heavily inspired by an Indonesian film Serbuan Maut (The Raid, 2011), and hoped that no one will notice! Unfortunately for them, The Raid not only had an international release recently, but has been so highly regarded all over the world, as one of the greatest action films ever, that the cat is, sort of, out of the bag. Of course, in the US, where international cinema isn't that widely distributed, it will be business as usual and I am sure this 'new' story will be appreciated.

Except for the stunning visuals and clever cinematography, Dredd bored me so much that I contemplated leaving the cinema a few times. The story was copied, the acting was dull, the dialogues were as cheesy as can be - and the only reason a cheesy action film works (the 'action', itself) was so slow and ungratifying that I really did not see the point of putting up with the movie.

So, in my opinion as dull as Total Recall is, it's still a little more interesting than Dredd - but if I could have my way, I'd go back in time and remove the idea of remaking these films in the first place.

Anna Karenina 2012

It has been a while since I wrote a real opinionated rant, and not a trying-to-be-objective review, but this film has once again brought out the 'animal' in me...!

I have not read Anna Karenina, mainly because anything Tolstoy-related makes me imagine losing the rest of my life to reading one novel. And when there are so many films to watch, why lose your life to written words, I say?! So, this film seemed like the easy way to get my literary education. Instead, I got a theatrical one.

It is set like a theatre production. Stage hands appear and replace pieces of scenery and props, to create new scenes, while the camera watches. A character's walk through the back of the stage implies a journey through town to reach a different destination. Sounds and colours and gestures denote things more poignant than what is apparent. Etc, etc. It's all quite ingenious! And pretentious. And once you have gotten over the novelty of the very stylised film-making, it actually becomes very jarring. The antics around the actors become more than a little distracting, and admiration turns into annoyance. The cinematography is exquisite, though - and the perfect lighting and make-up contribute to some brilliant tight close-ups of the actors.

As for the actors themselves, well, what can I say about Keira Knightley, who plays the title character. It confounds me how successful she has become, with really very little to put her there - but I do have some theories about this:
Britain produces some extraordinary acting talent, and in British cinema conventional good looks are often not the main criterion for casting. Thus, the better-looking actors find themselves lured by better-paid jobs in a much bigger playground called Hollywood. Whether it's Christian Bale or Michael Fassbender or Tom Hardy - men whose good looks are matched by immense talent - they all made their global impact from the other side of the pond. But with the 'fairer' sex, Hollywood has had less luck with recruitment. After Kate Winslet, there have been few actresses that look good, act well and can become stars. Yes, there's Carey Mulligan, but she's not on a film-signing spree for some bizarre reason. Keira Knightley, on the other hand, has caught Hollywood's eye. Who cares if she can't act? She's got those bushy eyebrows, can stare vacantly at things and there are the ever-dependable pouty lip muscles she can exercise. She's the female Robert Pattinson! Also, she has that jutting jaw and high shoulders, that extremely eager, toothy grin - and best of all, she has a British accent and hurried diction, which come in handy for all period films, regardless of their original language. What else could an audience want?
Oh stop being pesky about the acting! We, the audience, are paying for her acting lessons, aren't we? Every time she gets cast in another film that we go and watch, she learns an extra expression, which she uses next time. That's thrifty of her.

In this film, Ms Knightley has employed her best stiff-body-and-multiple-pouts routine so well that some critics actually think she wasn't half-bad. That may be because they're comparing her acting to an even worse, wooden performance by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, who plays Count Vronsky. If there's a saving grace in the main casting, it's Jude Law (seriously...can you believe that?) as Alexei Karenin. His portrayal of the character is sufficiently worthy of both pity and hatred, so a job well done, I guess. Otherwise, there's zero chemistry between any of the actors and every one just seems to be going through the motions at a rehearsal for a stage play.

Yet, despite all this negativity, I'm glad I watched Anna Karenina. I continue to be an admirer and student of cinema, and this film has definitely been created in a very unique manner - so it felt like going to school to learn some really boring, but essential theorems. Otherwise, the acting, the emotions, the characters, all left me fairly cold.

Avoid it, unless you too are afflicted like me.

Lawless 2012

The last time writer Nick Cave (of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds fame) and director John Hillcoat got together to make a movie, the result was the extraordinary The Proposition (2005), a film I am known to refer to as 'the most powerful Western made in recent times'. Seven years later they have returned with a 1930s Gangster Film, a genre that has been explored over and over again, and recently even made it big on television with HBO's Boardwalk Empire.

Lawless is based on Matt Bondurant's historical novel, The Wettest County in the World, which tells the story of his grandfather and grand-uncles, who ran a successful bootlegging business during Prohibition (1920-1933) in Franklin County, Virginia. The film introduces us to the Bondurant brothers: Forrest (Tom Hardy), Howard (Jason Clarke) and Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and to myths about their, or at least Forrest's, invincibility. With the help of family friend Cricket Pate (Dane DeHaan), their liquor business runs efficiently, while their 'bar' serves as a front for illegal activities. But when a new law-enforcer, Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), comes to town and tries to intimidate Franklin's bootleggers into sharing their profits with him, the Bondurants stand up against him and a war gets waged between good and evil, except the lines between these two become extremely fuzzy.

Though the focus of the film is often on Jack, it is Forrest who is a legend. It is his determination that makes the brothers a force to reckon with. He is the brains of the family, Howard the brawn, while Jack is the heart - but none of them is quite as one-dimensional as that. Jack's open infatuation and crazy antics for Bertha Minnix (Mia Wasikowska) bring on the laughter, but it is Forrest's silent longing for Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain) that really melts your heart.

The acting in the film is above par. For me, Shia LaBeouf is the sort of performer that rarely leaves an impression - and here, he is playing a character that not a lot of people take seriously. So, it is to his credit that he has done full justice to his role and slowly grows on you through the film. Jason Clarke and Dane DeHaan have small roles, but they are written so well that both actors make an impact. Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain not only provide the much-needed female distraction in this male-dominated drama, as they would have done in the original Gangster Films of the '30s, but they also have a presence that the film could not have done without.

As for Guy Pearce, he has such a mixed bag of roles in his repertoire, and pretty much each one has been delivered to perfection, but he strangely doesn't seem to make enough waves in Hollywood. He was mind-blowing as Charlie Burns in The Proposition, with the same Cave-Hillcoat crew, and now, as Charlie Rakes, he is so deliciously creepy and repulsive that I wanted to get up and clap for him. But he isn't alone in deserving a standing ovation: Tom Hardy, after an under-whelming turn as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises (2012), which wasn't his fault but rather the writers', has shown once again why he is in so much demand right now. Using a combination of limited dialogue, small grunts and smouldering glares, he has managed to appear just as fearsome, as he is endearing, in this film.

All the actors have delivered measured and perfect performances, but their job has been made easy by the scriptwriter. Nick Cave has interlaced the extreme violence of the story, with real-life absurdity; his warm, believable characters often deal with bizarre, funny situations, just before something terrible happens. Even at the best of times, the dark clouds are always looming, and during some dark moments, there is a weird urge to laugh. But the writer and director never digress, they never lose grip of the story they are telling and the manner in which they want to relay it.

Lawless is not as flawless or as brilliant as The Proposition, but that may just be because it takes place in a very different era (and is a different genre too). It is a film I would recommend very highly, especially if the sight of blood and gore, at very unexpected moments, does not put you off.

This is, quite simply, the sort of film that reaffirms my love for cinema!

Ek Tha Tiger 2012

Note: I don't review many Hindi films, but this one seemed special. I watched and reviewed it on opening day - now 2 weeks later, it's broken all but one Bollywood box-office record, which it's very likely to break soon. 29/08/12

Salman Khan is sitting atop a hat-trick of record-breaking successes (Dabangg 2010, Ready 2011, Bodyguard 2011), and with his latest release - timed perfectly for India's Independence Day celebrations and in anticipation of Eid - he is expected to deliver another shattering success, which he just might.

Ek Tha Tiger is the story of a dedicated RAW agent, Tiger (Salman Khan), who has been on field missions continually for 12 years and has hardly had time for a personal life. His boss (Girish Karnad) sends him to Dublin to observe and report on a retired Indian scientist (Roshan Seth), who is suspected of leaking information to international intelligence agencies. Tiger tries to infiltrate the scientist/professor's home and life, by enlisting help from his housekeeper, Zoya (Katrina Kaif). Despite warnings from his trusted friend and colleague (Ranvir Shorey), Tiger ends up falling for Zoya, in his attempts to make her fall for his charms. All should've gone well, except that Tiger's secret identity isn't the only secret in this story - and as other hidden tales are revealed, our protagonist has to choose between love and his duty to his country. Thus begins a wild chase spanning continents and beautiful locales (we jump from Ireland to India to Turkey to Cuba) - finally proving, once again, that love shall conquer all.

The problem with this film is that despite a hint of an actual story (unlike some of Salman Khan's recent ventures), the twists and turns can be spotted a mile away. Some of the dialogue is trite and most of the conflict, completely banal. A 65-year-old animosity is simplified to the extent that it looks like a silly rivalry between RAW and ISI.

Yet, there is something quite compelling about this film.

From the opening sequence itself, where we see a silhouette of Salman Khan appear against a beautiful Middle Eastern backdrop, the film sets up enough moments for the audiences at home to whistle and clap in the Khan-mania that usually turns even his most ridiculous films into runaway successes. The cinematography is out of this world, aided heavily by formerly unexplored locations (instead of the usual London, we have Dublin; instead of Dubai and New York, we have Istanbul and Havana). The music and song picturisations are also worth mentioning as they never really break the flow of the story and provide just the right amount of Bollywood-style entertainment. Save a couple of typical toilet jokes that have become synonymous with Salman Khan's films, the humour is generally quite subtle (too subtle, at times), which is almost refreshing. And though no one can ever accuse Salman Khan or Katrina Kaif of actually acting well, they are not half bad in this film - and for the first time ever, they appear to have some onscreen chemistry.

Above all, it is the action that's the life of this party. Even though you can clearly identify Salman's stunt double whenever he appears (thank you for that, cameraman), the action is smart, quick and mostly believable (let's not dwell on the tram madness or the helicopter sequence, shall we?). There are no scenes where 10 men circle the 'hero' and go flying in the air with his one kick. True, it's not Jason Bourne action (even The Bourne Legacy 2012 couldn't recapture that level of coolness), but it's definitely quite awesome. The kicks and punches look and sound real, the crazy jumps are almost possible - and for the first time (ever?), the woman gets to kick ass as much as the man in a Bollywood film. Yes, Katrina Kaif isn't a damsel in distress; in fact, she's possibly the most 'equal' female character I have seen in a film named after the male protagonist!

The biggest issue with Ek Tha Tiger is the usual problem with all of Kabir Khan's films: they're always gorgeous and they make sense, but they lack a connection with the audience. There's something clinical about them that keeps the viewers at a distance. So, despite the stunning visuals and a half-decent plot, the very slow-edited, pointlessly lengthy shots, where we wait for a character to react to the information just received, put the viewers off quite a bit. If only he'd spent more time tightening the edits, the final product would have been far superior.

Having said that, this film has all the makings of a blockbuster. There's action, romance, songs, comedy and a couple of very attractive actors. What more could one possibly want from a Salman Khan film, which could just as easily be a hit because he is in it?

Ultimately, if you like 'masala films' and enjoy basic Bollywood, do not miss this one. It will not disappoint!

The Bourne Legacy 2012

I am a little confused as to why most reviewers are finding it necessary to explain that this film stars Jeremy Renner and not Matt Damon. Surely, anyone who hasn't seen the earlier films doesn't care, as the posters and trailers only show Renner; and anyone who has seen the 'Bourne Trilogy' has heard from at least one of the many reports, that have announced for months, that this is not a Matt Damon film.

Anyhow, my quibbles with reviewers aside, The Bourne Legacy is the fourth instalment, and also a reboot, within the Bourne franchise. The story revolves around Aaron Cross (Renner), who is a member of Operation Outcome, a black ops programme that, amongst other things, is running genetic experiments to enhance human capabilities, both physical and mental. We meet Cross on an Alaskan training exercise and learn about his skills and his dependencies. Parallel to this narrative, Jason Bourne is busy exposing Treadstone and Operation Blackbriar (as per the plot of The Bourne Ultimatum 2007), which leads to panic within the darker, more secret wings of the CIA, and consequently Eric Byer (Edward Norton), who oversees such projects, orders the 'shutdown' of Operation Outcome. Along with his Outcome doctor, Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), who herself is being hunted, Cross ingeniously escapes his fate and begins the international chase that is synonymous with Bourne films. 

Unfortunate for any spy thriller made post-2002, when The Bourne Identity was released, comparisons with the Jason Bourne films are inevitable. This one is of course just a little more unfortunate as it is not only a spy thriller, but also bears the name of the trilogy that effectively altered the canvas of this genre. There are some obvious similarities in the way this film has been shot, in the way the music accompanies the narrative, in the way the 'evil' characters are written and portrayed. Where it differs massively is the characterisation of its main protagonist. 

Jason Bourne was so clear about self-preservation that he was almost cold and mechanical. We knew that underneath his robotic front was a lost soldier, but he could operate without stopping to feel anything for a long time. Aaron Cross appears to be the kind of person who would stop to smell the flowers. He smiles, jokes and asks 'too many questions'. He is also a lot more open about himself, his dependencies and his shortcomings. He is aware of who he is and there is a lot less angst in him. It is his characterisation that provides the freshest and most interesting hook in this film, because otherwise, the film would just appear to be a cheap imitation of an excellent trilogy.

Jeremy Renner has very quietly climbed the rungs of recognition and success over the past decade or more. I remember him from an episode called 'Somnambulist' in the TV series Angel (2000), where he was a more than impressive adversary. Then nothing. I did not recognise him in a few outings I did see him in, till his daredevil turn in the Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker (2008) and later The Town (2010). Of course, since then he has become a lot more recognisable due to roles in major productions like Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011) and Avengers Assemble (2012). In all his performances, regardless of the standard of the production, he has always been excellent. And once again, in this film, Renner is excellent. Whether it is a success or not, and whether they make a sequel or not, he will be praised for a brilliantly natural portrayal of Aaron Cross.

The rest of the cast is adequate - as is the film. If we can get past the comparisons with a much more superior story, tighter scripts and more believable chase scenes in the previous trilogy, The Bourne Legacy is an exciting thriller. It has some plot holes and some slightly unbelievable moments, but generally it's a decent ride. Worth a watch.

The Dark Knight Rises 2012

There will be no end to analysis and commentary on this last part of a truly epic trilogy. Just as there was no end to speculation around it for the past four years since the previous film had graced our screens. So, here's my drop of wisdom in the huge ocean of Batman discussions.

Traditionally, the third part in a trilogy is often the worst. Take, for instance, The Godfather: Part III (1990), The Matrix Revolutions (2003), X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) and Spider-Man 3 (2007) - all were sorely disappointing, especially as they came after a sometimes stronger second instalment than even the first film. Keeping that in mind, The Dark Knight Rises had a lot at stake. If Batman Begins (2005) had started the fire, the reaction to The Dark Knight (2008) could be likened to the size of an inferno. And since then all eyes have been on what Nolan-Bale would do next.

First, let's cover the story very quickly and spoiler-free. It's been eight years since DA Harvey Dent's death and the horrors inflicted by the maniacal Joker on Gotham City. Batman, blamed for Dent's death, has fled the scene. Ostensibly, there is peace all around and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), now a recluse, finds no reason to be a hero. But as Alfred (Michael Caine) points out, he also seems to have lost all taste for life since Rachel, his childhood friend and hope for a normal life, died in an explosion orchestrated by the Joker. Enter a breath of fresh air, cat-burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway); a young man looking for his inspiration, Officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt); a new reason to believe in the future, honest businesswoman Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard); and a new threat to the city that is bent on destroying everything on a much bigger scale, terrorist Bane (Tom Hardy). With the help of trusted Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), Bruce and Batman both re-enter the worlds they had exited - in a final bid to save Gotham City and its inhabitants from certain death.

The 164-minute-long film builds slowly, and with many sub-plots, to reach the ultimate hour of multiple revelations and conclusions. To be honest, I could have done without so many minor plots. The story did not need to have these diversions, as the fabric of the main story was already rich enough. But this is somewhat reminiscent of the previous two films - they too had too much going on, which on further viewings always felt distracting to me. Here, they expose another flaw, which is that a lot of questions from these subplots are left unanswered. It would have been a better use of footage to concentrate more on the why and how of some character motivations than having haphazard sub-plots. Also, not having seen this on an IMAX screen, I am not sure, but aside from some breathtaking shots, this did not feel like Wally Pfister's best work to date. The sound recording choices too had me a bit perplexed at times. Other minor quibbles include Anne Hathaway's make-up (red lipstick which 'bleeds' in real life is bad enough, but on screen, where make-up is re-touched after every shot, it is just intolerable), a very unnecessary and cheesy lovemaking-by-the-fire sequence and also, the less-than-impressive action choreography (in places, it's almost clunky and slow, which I partly blame on the cinematography).

Now for the good parts. Despite the slow burn, the film sucks you in anyway. A lot of this has to do with Batman's immense appeal, but a lot more is because of well, quite simply, Christian Bale. The audience wants...no...needs Batman and Bruce Wayne back. And so from his first appearance on screen, we are hooked. Also, my one and only, but fairly huge, complaint about the previous film was that it was the story of the Joker. And aside from a couple of powerful interactions between them (did you not literally salivate when Batman 'interrogates' Joker or when Joker stands in the middle of the road challenging Batman to kill him?), the dark knight was barely worth talking about. It's true that his character arc was deliberately setting the scene for the third instalment, but it still annoyed me that the least impressive character in The Dark Knight, was the dark knight, himself. I have no such complaint about this film. This one definitely is about his rising. It concentrates on what goes through his head, what he sees and why he does what he does. This time I felt invested in his fate - I cared again. I do understand that both the second and third parts got the reaction they were meant to - but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about being so uninterested in Batman last time round.

As for the actors, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Caine, get their usual moments in - though I felt I didn't get enough of Alfred this time round. Marion Cotillard does a good job of being dignified and desirable, but then she never needs to do much to put that across (her final scene of the film though, was awful). Joseph Gordon-Levitt carries his role very well - he's real, instantly likeable and never once comes across as weak, which was possible in a story where the other characters are fairly larger-than-life. As for Anne Hathaway, I've heard way too many people say that her Catwoman (a name she's never called by in the entire film) is the perfect rendition of that character. I found it hard to believe before watching the film and I still disagree. Michelle Pfeiffer is Catwoman; Anne Hathaway is a pretty girl in a leather suit with cat ears. On the sexy scale, I'd give far more marks to Scarlett Johannson's Black Widow (The Avengers 2012). So ultimately, though I liked Hathaway in this, she really just seemed to be wearing the suit and doing the character. She never lit the screen on fire.

Finally the forces of good and evil. So, evil first - Bane is meant to be sheer brute force and Tom Hardy's bulk owns that part of the character. But the way he delivered most of his lines sounded like he was constantly asking a question. His intonation was very strange. Also, he never once scared me. I know what his character is known for - and I saw him being brutal and evil on screen. But he still didn't feel menacing. This is a FAR cry from Heath Ledger's Joker, whose very presence gave me the creeps. So, honestly, for me, this film was heavily dependent on Batman / Bruce Wayne - and thank God he was as well-written as the one in Batman Begins. His face, now ageing gracefully, records the journey Bruce has had through the trilogy. There is humility and determination there, very different to the angst and arrogance we remember from his early days in Gotham City. Christian Bale is excellent, as always. He must be the only actor to lend so much dignity to a comic-book character. And everything about his physique is believable - when he leans on a walking stick in the beginning and when he retrains to be Batman, Bale is Bruce Wayne.

Overall, the film is more than satisfying. There are identifiable characters, strong interactions, reasonably interesting twists, a fantastic build-up and a clean conclusion - with some excellent tying up of threads by referring to and including themes we have seen in earlier films. Above all, there is a sexy Batpod!

There's no point in me recommending this film, because every film and comic geek will watch it and will probably take a friend or four. So, I'll just end by chanting Deshi Deshi Basara Basara (what ever language that may be in)!

Magic Mike 2012

It's a little pretty, a little not. A little gritty, a little not. What ever it is, it's definitely not the film I thought I was going to watch. So, five stars for the trailer that incidentally did not give away everything about the film - or make that one star because it sold a completely different film!

Do I sound confused?

Adam (Alex Pettyfer) moves to Tampa to live with his sister Brooke (Cody Horn), after getting into trouble and being kicked out of college. While working at a construction site, he meets Mike (the eponymous Magic Mike - Channing Tatum), who helpfully initiates Adam into the world of stripping, where the money is fast and the women even faster. Cue scenes of gyrating male pelvises, followed by lots of alcohol and sex, followed by more gyration. Oh and of course the club owner, Dallas (Matthew McConaughey), is cool but a little mad, and predictably as nurturing as he is conniving. Through Mike's special tenderness towards Brooke, we become privy to the cracks in his facade, and share his hopes and dreams, which are much bigger than his current lifetsyle. We also witness the impressionable Adam corrupted by the pull of the fast life. Things go up and things go down (no pun intended) - and the film ends.

The reason I am confused is that like many other women in the audience, I went to see some male booty and some comedy. That's what the trailer had somehow led me to believe this film was about. I had even made some comparisons to the Bollywood comedy Desi Boyz (2011), where two friends - played by Akshay Kumar and John Abraham - turn to stripping for some fast money, under the tutelage of a nutty club owner - played by Sunjay Dutt.

But Magic Mike isn't that film. It is, in fact, a mixed bag. There is definitely a lot of booty (male and female), some very sexy dancing (mainly by ex-stripper Tatum) and some quite funny dialogue. And then there's the curveball thrown in - the film tries to be a fly-on-the-wall documentary. And then swerves in a different direction and gets overly dramatic. In some scenes it works brilliantly and in others it jars. Like some recent Steven Soderbergh-directed films, I am not sure exactly what he is trying to do here. None of the characters or situations are explored fully - and nothing makes complete sense. Scenes jump, in tone and framing, from moody to thoughtful to cliched. So do the characters.

Adam's change from vulnerable to confident to cocky comes about too quickly. Dallas's character seems to make no sense either - is he a don or a prima donna? What does Mike really want? His relationship with Joanna (his go-to-shag) is in direct contrast with his relationship with Brooke - and his supreme sacrifice to save Adam has no basis or precedent. And Brooke has an inexplicable character arc too - is she earnest or just playing hard-to-get? Most importantly, none of these puzzle pieces fit together. Even the camera work, with Soderbergh's new pet, the Red digital camera, goes from edgy to boring. There are so many different styles and tones at work here, that the film seems to have been directed by someone suffering from bipolar disorder.

Does this mean I didn't enjoy it? On the contrary! What the film does not deliver in consistency, it more than compensates in 'visual treats', alternating with some beautifully shot, well-written, character-driven scenes. Also, the actors pulled their weight. Matthew McConaughey does a decent turn as sleazy Dallas; Cody Horn has the right proportion of angst and oomph; Alex Pettyfer is surprisingly well-cast to play the endearing misfit and the slimy bastard; and in his own production, Channing Tatum has shown acting chops I did not know he possessed. For someone who's been nothing more than an all-American jock for me, Tatum really impressed me with his expressions, his voice and body language, and his comic timing. His scenes with Cody Horn are raw - and the dialogue between them is written and acted in the most natural, believable manner. So, he gets a gold star for really carrying the film through (yes, yes, I know - it's supposed to be based on his experiences, but that doesn't mean he has to act well!).

I'm not sure what basis to recommend this film on. It's pretty in places and thoughtful in others - and if you're interested in film-making, it could serve as a masterclass on what not to do. So, really I'm not recommending it, even though I did enjoy it myself!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2012

He is amazing indeed, this Spider-Man. Barely a decade after the previous franchise was launched, Spidey gets a reboot and is recast - much to the delight of old lovers like me. But I have to admit, it's been quite a journey to get here.

When I was growing up in the eighties, I had a huge crush on sweet Spider-Man. I don't know whether it was the less than adequate cartoon series that did it, or the even worse TV series, but he was my hero. I loved his graceful movements and his ability to hang from ceilings and swing across buildings - his ability to save the day without a big, black cape or the need for a low, raspy voice.

All that was wiped clean with the onset of my teen years. I was suddenly more fascinated by dark, brooding, unpredictable men (cue Angel, the vampire with a soul and Batman, the dark knight). When first Michael Keaton, then Val Kilmer, and later Christian Bale became Batman (yes, I love George Clooney as much as the next breathing homo sapien, but c'mon, even he apologises for desecrating the very best of DC Comics), I completely gave up on Spider-Man. It didn't help that when he finally got to grace the silver screen, Tobey Maguire was picked to play Peter Parker, along with Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane Watson - two actors who I saw as neither innocent, nor sweet - and so the very premise of the first film seemed flawed. I just wanted Peter to wipe the stupid smile off his face and MJ to not be such a self-centred, conniving girl all the time. They did not win me over at all - and their struggles meant nothing to me.

So, when I saw it announced that the franchise was getting a fresh start, I was happy. And when I learnt that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are the lead pair, I was ecstatic. Garfield had had me mesmerised during 2010's Never Let Me Go and Stone's natural freshness in 2010's Easy A and 2011's Crazy, Stupid, Love had brought me hope for a future Sandra Bullock. This sounded like a dream team.

Then the trailer came out. The trailer that carefully, painfully, in the most detailed way, explained the story of the film, in near-chronological order. I thought, 'that's it...what's the point of going to the cinema now?' Well, obviously I did go (even though it's taken me five paragraphs to get to the point) and I am so glad I did.

The Amazing Spider-Man repeats much of the storyline of 2002's Spider-Man. You see how Peter (Andrew Garfield), bullied and battered at school, tries to keep his head down and be good. You see how his curiosity gets him bit by a radioactive spider and how he acquires an alter-ego. The corresponding rebellion, the ensuing guilt and the desire for revenge from the first film, is imagined in a very similar manner - but there are slight deviations from the original tales, all the way through, which surprise you a little bit. There is definitely more creativity in reference to the back story about his parents, and the secrets they guarded, than in previous films - and this time, it isn't MJ, but rather Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), Peter's comic-book first love, who shares the screen with him. Also, the villain is new, though so many villains have such a similar story that I can hardly tell the difference nowadays. So Dr Curt Connor (Rhys Ifans) too wants to improve his life and humanity in general - but ends up as The Lizard, because of his personal greed and ambition. And of course, it is left to Peter / Spider-Man to save the world from certain darkness, because no one else could ever face the villain like our hero.

But this film is a joy, from start to finish. The entire script is speckled with comic moments and the dialogue is hardly ever cheesy. In fact, the cutest moments - especially between the young lovers - work because the script doesn't actually give them mature, unnatural lines to spout. They're awkward, tongue-tied and very, very smitten - and they show it, with the way they look at each other and how they express their feelings with incomplete, nonsensical exchanges. Garfield and Stone have buckets of chemistry, which helps immensely to bring about the light frothiness of their love story.

Others seem to be doing what they do best. Rhys Ifans plays Dr Connor's insecurities and aspirations to perfection, but honestly, it doesn't seem like he had to act much differently from many of his previous appearances. Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben and Sally Field as Aunt May are genius choices. Excellent actors both, they don't need to be overly dramatic to show pride or disappointment - and again, these weren't difficult roles for them. All three of them are the familiar faces that do exactly what we expect them to do - but they do it so well.

Despite the predictability, and the very expected moments, it is Peter's discovery of his new abilities, the development of his relationship with Gwen, his teenage angst and silent rage, and the realisation of what his mission should be that are portrayed excellently - not only because Andrew Garfield's face is like a canvas of emotions, but also because the scenes are very well-written, directed and edited. Director Marc Webb, with 500 Days of Summer (2009) behind him, certainly knows how to pull at heartstrings. I can't say I have been emotional while watching many other comic-book films, but I sat with moist eyes through quite a bit of this one.

A thoroughly enjoyable ride - with great special effects (all that swinging made me nauseous!), strong acting and a very engaging script. My original crush on Spidey is back - and I would like more of this, please!

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter 2012

Normally, I would research the facts before reviewing a historical drama. But when the title of a film has the name of one of the most influential leaders of the United States, followed by the words 'Vampire Hunter', any need to research facts goes out the window.

With this anything goes spirit and an understanding of how tongue-in-cheek (read wafer-thin) the premise is, I went to see the film in 3D today. And I must say, despite what ever the serious critics may say, I thought the film was a riot.

So, there is Abe Lincoln (Benjamin Walker), the 16th POTUS, who as a child suffered the consequences of a vicious vampire attack on his mother. He grows up with revenge in his heart and is rewarded with a mentor, Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), who trains him in vampire slaying. He is aided by childhood friend Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie) and boss Joshua Speed (Jimmi Simpson) in this endeavour. He also finds time to love, woo and marry Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) - but the mission continues to be 'find and kill the original, 5,000-year-old vampire, Adam' (Rufus Sewell), who it seems is a bigger enemy of the state than even slavery.

Does that sound like a really bad plot? Honestly, it is no better watching it, than describing it. And yet, I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Let me explain by first stating that I'm a Timur Bekmambetov fan - and he has directed this brainless venture. Ever since I saw his Night Watch (2004) and its sequel Day Watch (2006), I thought he had made two of the most interesting vampire / monster films and I couldn't wait for Twilight Watch, which Fox was supposed to produce. Of course, it was depressing to see how Bekmambetov sold his Russian / Kazakh soul to the American devil, who shelved the third instalment of this brilliant story and made him direct Wanted (2008) instead. And that was a painfully bad film, which even Angelina Jolie's fabulous body and some beautiful shots couldn't save. So, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (I snigger every time I think of the title) was actually a surprise because I didn't expect it to be worth my time at all.

There are some great jump-in-your-seat moments, some average dialogue and acting, an amazing scene amongst horses and lots of very satisfactory slaying. But above all else, is the director's undeniable stamp on every shot and every post-production special effect. Timur Bekmambetov seems to delight in creating smoky effects and trails of particles on air. That's been his constant in all previous films I have seen - and is used here in abundance. So, the film looks beautiful and generally feels like fun - but is not expected to make you run out and grab a copy of the novel it is based on.

Seriously, what else did you want from a movie with a title like that? Leave your brain resting at home and just keep your eyes open for a visual feast.

Killer Joe 2011

Who'd have thought I would live to see the day when Matthew McConaughey would deliver an Oscar-worthy performance?

Wow.

Killer Joe is a very disturbing film that starts with Texan trash Chris Smith (Emile Hirsch) plotting with his father, Ansel (Thomas Haden Church), to get his mother killed. She is apparently an evil, self-centred woman, who never loved her children - but much more importantly, Chris has information that her life insurance is worth $50,000 and the sole beneficiary is his sister, Dottie (Juno Temple). Chris has a plan - they will hire cop/contract-killer Joe Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) to do the dirty deed. Not much convincing is required and Ansel agrees to this as long as the cash is also shared with his current wife, Sharla (Gina Gershon).

Enter 'Killer Joe', who is not particularly impressed with the family's low-life characters and their unpredictability but has taken a shine to the slightly unbalanced Dottie. He agrees to take on the contract only on the condition that Dottie is given to him, as guarantee for his fee. But now everything begins to get more and more complicated - and Chris's seemingly simple plan starts to fall apart. As if the family interactions and underlying dynamic weren't sickening enough, when Joe is displeased with the unexpected turn of events, he finds very unusual ways to teach the culprits a lesson. The last few minutes of the film will go down in cinematic history as one of the most disturbing scenes of all time.

The dialogue and style of the film in some places is very much like a stage play's. Of course as I discovered later, it is based on a play of the same name, by Tracy Letts. Its plot revolves around the five main characters, with barely a scene or two involving anyone else. I mention this as it highlights how important each actor's performance is - and how each has excelled in conveying creepy vibes! From the very first scene, Emile Hirsch establishes Chris as the free-loading loser whose harebrained schemes smell of disaster; Thomas Haden Church, who by now has done more than his share of chilled-out roles, adds multi dimensions to the slow-witted Ansel; Gina Gershon is eerily convincing as a trashy, ambitious, small-town woman with big dreams, who seems to be the only one with actual concern for Dottie's welfare; and Juno Temple is remarkably spooky as the slightly off-kilter, young girl, whose desires and lack of ulterior motives make her the only 'honest' person.

And then there is Matthew McConaughey, in a role of a lifetime. Yes, we all know he was excellent in A Time to Kill (1996), and we all loved him in How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003), but in between and after those, he has delivered sub-standard films and rolled along on natural charm and a smooth accent - not to mention, very 'smooth' looks. He seemed to have forgotten any acting talent till Lincoln Lawyer (2011). Of course, not in my wildest dreams could I imagine nice guy McConaughey, with the smooth accent, to be so bloody brilliant as a depraved, sick, psychotic, sadistic killer. Joe Cooper's impeccable manners are familiar, but Matthew's smile has never looked this sinister and scary. There is not a single scene with him where I was not tense, where I did not wonder how unpredictable the situation could get. He is pure menace in every frame. It is an unexpectedly flawless performance.

Like 2010's The Killer Inside Me, there is no good in this film and there isn't always a reason for why the characters are so depraved. There is enough crudity, nudity and brutality for the film to win an NC-17 rating in the US and an 18 certificate in the UK. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a very well-made film, with fantastic performances. Of course, my opening line mentions an unlikely scenario - characters like Joe Cooper do not win their actors Oscar noms, but if they did, Matthew McConaughey would completely deserve it.

Excellent film...but watch at your own risk!

Rock of Ages 2012

When Tom Cruise appeared on Jonathan Ross's couch a few months back to promote his most recent Mission: Impossible venture, he briefly spoke about Rock of Ages and I knew then that I had to watch the film. As much respect as I have for Cruise's serious acting efforts, I seem to appreciate him most when he plays slightly dirty, bad-guy characters. Case in point: Lestat in Interview with the Vampire (1994), Frank in Magnolia (1999) and, more recently, legendary Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder (2008). So, he was my sole point of interest in this film, but as it turns out, there was more on offer here than just one of the most powerful stars in Hollywood today.

Based on a very successful Broadway musical of the same name, Rock of Ages is set in the late 80s and tells the story of Sherrie (Julianne Hough), a young girl from Oklahoma, who moves to Los Angeles to pursue a singing career. Here she meets aspiring musician, Drew (Diego Boneta), who works as a bartender at The Bourbon Room and he gets her a job as a waitress at the famous club. Drew and Sherrie quickly develop 'feelings' for each other and are almost blissful. Enter notoriously debauched rockstar, Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), who is due to perform at The Bourbon Room, and Drew's band is roped in to open his concert. Stacee finds time before his performance to first harass and then woo Rolling Stone reporter, 'Constance Sack' (Malin Ackerman). Due to a series of unfortunate incidents, Drew thinks it is Sherrie that Stacee has just slept with and, heartbroken, he mistreats her and tries to get famous by 'selling his soul to the devil', who in this case is Stacee's very corrupt manager, Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti). Rejected and humiliated, Sherrie quits her job and starts working as a pole dancer just to make money. More disasters ensue in everyone's life and there are other sub-plots: one with club owner Dennis (Alec Baldwin) and club manager Lonny (Russell Brand), another with the mayor's puritanical wife, Patricia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), and yet another involving a dance bar owner, Justice (Mary J. Blige). But this is a musical after all - and the right partners get together in the end, with happiness and success all around.

Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta can certainly sing, but neither is really an actor. They go through the motions and are not exactly terrible, but that is where 'praise' for them ends. Thankfully, this is just ostensibly their story, and the actual work is done by the stellar 'supporting role' actors. Paul Giamatti is sufficiently slimy, Alec Baldwin is ever-endearing, Russell Brand (who is really growing on me) is smart and sweet, and Malin Ackerman mixes geeky and gorgeous with absolute ease. I wish I could continue in this manner for Mary J. Blige and Catherine Zeta-Jones, but I really, really can not. The former, with her admittedly extraordinary voice, is more wooden than Pinocchio (she practically makes Cher look emotive) and the latter is ageing so badly that her lack of acting ability stands out even more than ever before.

Anyhow, it is the main attraction of the film, in every sense of the word, who deserves  special attention. Tom Cruise is mind-blowing. I wish he had done this role ten years ago, when he was younger and had the face and body that would have made his 'Rock God' performance even more convincing - but even at this age, he is the right choice. He's a little Axl Rose, a little Alice Cooper, and of course a little every-other-major-rockstar-that-ever-lived. Everything - from his hair to his make-up, from his expressions to his body language, from his stance to his tattoos - is pure magic. The screen crackles when he's on it and I lived from scene to scene just to see him. It's true that Stacee Jaxx is the main highlight of this musical - but it is Tom Cruise, effortlessly playing Stacee Jaxx, that is just a little more special.

Finally the other star of the film - the music. Yes, they're mostly remixes and covers of 70s/80s rock, but that's the best thing about it. You know and love all the songs and are dying to sing along. And all the actors can sing - they really can. Unlike Mamma Mia (2008), where you just cut them some slack because they seemed to be having fun, this soundtrack is a lot riskier. Rock fans will not put up with the slaughter of their anthems. So, I'm grateful that everyone has the voice (or the supporting studio back up) to make it all work. And Tom Cruise is actually good. He's no Jon Bon Jovi or Axl Rose, but he's good.

Overall, the film has lots of weaknesses. Anybody who has seen the stage musical (I haven't) will probably find this to be a cheap imitation, anyway. Some of the dialogue is so bad a third-grader could do better and the premise is terribly stale and dated. If it's directly lifted from the stage musical, then all I can say is that it may very well work on stage, but on film it falls flat way too many times. There's nothing new on offer here and nothing smart to make you forget you've seen all this before.

And yet, I thoroughly enjoyed it! Yes, there's no accounting for bad taste!

It's cheesy and predictable, but it's fun and familiar too. The star power is definitely a huge draw - and I would fully recommend it for the nostalgic music and 'the' Tom Cruise. But please watch it at your own risk and with lowered expectations. You have been warned that this is an imperfect film, which can be lots of fun if you let it take you for a silly ride.

'Don't...Stop...Belieeeeving...'

The Raid 2011

Indonesian film Serbuan Maut (released internationally as The Raid) has taken the world by storm. Screened as the Official Selection at a number of well-reputed film festivals, it's being touted as 'the best action movie in decades' (Twitch).

The story is simple enough: a SWAT team of elite cops raids a multi-storey building owned by a crime lord, in the hope of arresting him. Leaving aside the preliminary ten minutes, the rest of the film is the raid - a martial-arts-infested, non-stop-action treat where people keep getting butchered in the most innovative ways. A film like this does not necessarily need dialogue, and whatever dialogue there is, is simple and cliched. In fact, the character arcs come straight out of a bottle too: there is the cool-as-a-cucumber-but-ruthless underworld don; his two henchmen - one crazy and one calm; the rookie cop who is looking forward to becoming a father; the honest leader whose men would follow him into any battle; and the corrupt old man who only looks out for himself. Throw in the story of two estranged brothers, on both sides of the law, and some daddy issues - and the formula is complete.

Sound like a Bollywood movie? You bet! Except this is the film Sanjay Gupta has been trying (and failing) to make for years.

The formula may be stale, but the action is not. The film showcases what is apparently called Pencak Silat, a form of traditional Indonesian martial arts. It is fast, brutal and pretty extraordinary. Two of the main actors (said rookie cop and crazy henchman) are the fight choreographers of the film - and understandably they both get to have the most astounding fight sequences. In some scenes, the visuals are breathtaking - and in all, the pace is unrelenting.

Barring a couple of typical, must-have shots, the camera work is excellent for the kind of action it captures. It moves very quickly, covers all angles and never once bores. Of course, the editing is perfect too. But it is the music and sound recording that deserve a very special mention. All the brilliant choreography and cinematography in the world would have been wasted if this film didn't have the strength of the score. Every fight sequence carries its own little soundtrack, often very different to the previous one (this is saying a lot, considering there are a lot of fight scenes and barely any moments of respite). Even the soft humming sound of continuous gunshots works beautifully when it is used. The technical work is flawless and complements the breakneck speed of the action perfectly.

Don't get me wrong, though - this is not Ong Bak (2003). The fights are never that neat and Iko Uwais / Yayan Ruhian do not have Tony Jaa's grace. My knowledge of martial arts is limited at best, so maybe the difference is simply that this is a far more brutal and honest form of fighting than Muay Thai is - but visually, it is less 'precise'. Yet if you enjoyed the beauty of Old Boy's (2003) sequence where Oh Dae-Su fights a corridor-full of hoods, or the magic of Bourne Ultimatum's (2007) bathroom fight scene, The Raid is exactly what the doctor ordered - and then some.

I'm just repeating myself here, but the action in this film is on steroids - it's fast, brutal, relentless and ever so rewarding. Unlike Ong Bak, you never get a break in this film - it literally goes from one killing spree to the next. Not for the faint-hearted - but if you enjoy the genre, watch it NOW!

The Believer 2001

I have always raved about Ryan Gosling's acting. In previous posts about Blue Valentine and Drive, I have had difficulty in toning down my admiration for this brilliant performer and his ability to steal a scene, sometimes with just his expressions and stance. Having seen pretty much all his films since Remember the Titans (2000), I was on a mission to catch the only three I have missed - and today, I finally caught The Believer, one of his earliest and most controversial works.

Winner of the Sundance Grand Jury Prize, the film follows Daniel Balint, a young Orthodox-Jew-turned-Neo-Nazi, who, in his determination to kill Jews, joins fascist groups, gathers support from other believers of the 'mission' and somewhere along the way, is confronted by the stark contradiction of his identity against his philosophy. Underneath all his so-called convictions, lies the fear of exposure: no one in his new-found circle of supporters knows that he, himself, is actually a Jew. He is hounded by this dilemma and the loopholes in his belief system. He is intelligent enough to question his religion - but also, intelligent enough to question his hatred. This is his undoing.

Beautifully shot with hand-held cameras on high-sensitivity film, there is a documentary feel about the visuals, which works very well considering the story is loosely based on Daniel Burros, a real-life Jewish member of the American Nazi Party in the 1960s, who shot himself hours after his Jewish identity was made public by a New York Times reporter. The direction, too, is very strong - but I feel that the film is let down by a loose script. There isn't a lot of focus on the motivation of the characters, which is an essential ingredient when the subject matter is this disturbing. Films like A Clockwork Orange (1971), American History X (1998) and, more recently, This is England (2006), have scripts far more compelling - though, The Believer did remind me of all three (hence, the mentions). As with Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (2008), I never actually engaged with the story through the entirety of this film, which is a shame because it could have been so much more powerful than it was.

Having said all that, there isn't a single scene where I feel that Ryan Gosling could have done better. The script may not have made Daniel Balint's motivations very clear, but both his comfort and conflict with his convictions were given life on Gosling's face. With very subtle looks, smiles, frowns, gestures and tones, Balint's entire persona is alive on screen. It is extraordinary that this was Gosling's first major role and even more shocking that he was barely out of his teens when he did this film. His acting is art-in-motion - and truly remarkable.

An interesting film, which could have been vastly improved with better characterisations, but is more than ably carried off with a powerhouse performance by its lead.

The Avengers 2012

I am not a comic book geek. But I love films that are based on comic books (well, the good ones, at least).

And I love Joss Whedon. Very much.

So The Avengers (or Marvel's Avengers Assemble in countries where the original title may be confused with the British spy series from the 1960s) was a film I was excited about. It's true that Iron Man 2 was not as good as the first instalment; Thor (2011) was so bad, it really upset me; and Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) though not unbearable, was not really awe-inspiring either. Yet, I believed in writer/director Joss Whedon, the man who can do no wrong (let's pretend he had nothing to do with Dollhouse). And he did not let me down!

The film is set in a time after the end of the three afore-mentioned films. We find that Thor's brother Loki has conspired with an alien race to bring an army to earth to subjugate human beings. As he starts putting his plan into action, and steals the Tesseract (immensely powerful energy source) from a S.H.I.E.L.D. facility, and turns Agent Clint Barton into his minion, director Nick Fury is forced to put the Avengers Initiative into action. With some subtle arm-twisting, Dr Bruce Banner, Tony Stark and Captain Steve Rogers are all brought together. Just as Iron Man and Captain America manage to capture Loki, Thor arrives to confront his brother and the ensemble is complete. Though Loki escapes, Agent Natasha Romanoff (Black Widow) breaks the mind control 'spell' over Agent Barton (Hawkeye) and all six of our good guys unite to save the world from Loki's evil plans. When the Tesseract is used to open a cross-dimensional portal, allowing the alien army to enter our world (NYC to be specific), it takes all the efforts of the Avengers to fight against the unimaginable mighty forces of another world in a mind-blowing finale.

While the first half is used to re-introduce characters and set the scene, with another few minutes dedicated to conflict, the last 40 minutes of the film are a full-blown ride through mayhem and madness - the scale of which I can not describe. Suffice it to say, that I watched the entire film with a stupid grin on my face, but during the battle I just did not know where to look, it was that amazing.

Joss Whedon's ability to write exceptional scripts and his track record as a master of ensemble casts, made this the ideal platform for him to showcase what he is capable of. The 220-million-dollar budget definitely helped towards the effects, but it is his imagination that made it work. As usual, every bit of dialogue is a punchline-fest (before you're done laughing at one line, two more crack you up), every scene is painstakingly planned (unusual camera placements creating beautiful shots) and every character gets to leave a mark (if you have seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel or Firely, you will know what I mean). I suppose his work on Firefly has contributed heavily towards this film, and there are various scenes where I was reminded of that very brilliant, short-lived series (characters placed at different heights on the aircraft to give a scope of the space, shots of characters taken from outside the 'ship', unfocused, hand-held camera shots to heighten the feel of the action).

Above all, it is the characterisations and the acting that make this an excellent film. We all know that Tony Stark is a smart-mouth, but Whedon's script gives everyone, including the dry Steve Rogers, moments of pure comic genius. His Loki, Thor, Captain America and Iron Man were so much better written than in previous films. And Black Widow and Hawkeye get their fair space to shine. But as Joss Whedon had revealed in some interviews before, it is Hulk who comes as the biggest surprise. Not only is Mark Ruffalo an excellent choice for Banner (and using him to create the CGI version of the green monster was the best decision ever), but he also gets the best scenes, for which the film will be remembered.

This may just be my best cinematic experience of 2012! For a predominantly action-packed film, The Avengers has unusually well-written characters, some brilliant comedy and more than the requisite dose of perfectly-choreographed, awesome stunts. Even the 3D is thought through and well-executed. Mr Whedon has surpassed expectations, despite his very limited prior experience of working for the big screen.

This is a 5-star film that had better spawn sequels - hopefully all under Joss Whedon's command!

The Cabin in the Woods 2011

This film has been described by so many reviewers as 'genre-defying' that I was beginning to wonder if it was an exaggeration. But what was I thinking? Penned and produced by Joss Whedon - the man who famously created Buffy (the Vampire Slayer), and turned all pre-conceived notions about a young, blond girl in a dark alley - The Cabin in the Woods actually does bring a revolution to the 'five youngsters go to a cabin in the woods' storyline.

The premise is obvious (and I've just stated it). The main protagonists are made up of the jock, the nerd, the stoner, the slut and the 'good' girl. The cast includes a healthy dose of Whedon alumni (Fran Kranz, Amy Acker, Tom Lenk) and other famous television stars (Bradley Whitford, Jesse Williams) with current poster-boy Chris Hemsworth. And that's where the familiarity ends. 

The trailer gives away so little of the twist in the story that you have got to be a Whedon fan (or a reader of all the hype) to know that this film has anything new to offer besides the obvious sex, torture and death that teen horror is known for. And unfortunately, I can't say any more about the plot either - as it will ruin the film for any one who hasn't seen it.

It is fair to say though that the dialogue is super smart, the references are tongue in cheek (AND in your face), the twists are as funny as they are welcome, and throughout the film you're simply rooting for the actors and film makers because it is entertainment at its purest. There are moments where you jump just a little, laugh a little too loud, feel bewitched by the horrors - and of course, the last 20 minutes are insanity at its peak (sorry, but I can't talk about that either). Even the posters for the film are so well-designed, they're worth collecting! It's shocking that such a fun piece of work had been lying in the cans since 2009 (before Hemsworth became Thor), because of various studio issues. 

Joss Whedon calls it a 'very loving hate letter' to the genre (Total Film 191) and I hate to repeat myself, but if you're familiar with his work, you will see and hear Whedon in every concept and dialogue of the film (even though he only co-wrote it, along with director Drew Goddard). I used to say that Joss is the god of television; he does what Tarantino does for cinema. And then he did Dollhouse (2009-2010) and made me cry. With The Cabin in the Woods, my faith is restored and I bow my head to the cleverness of Joss Whedon, once again.

'Recommend, much?' You bet!