Way back in 2008, I watched Iron Man and thought it was an average superhero film middling around the X-Men 2 level. The main reason it worked was the significant boost given to it by the personal magnetism of Robert Downey Jr and the first 20-30 minutes which sees Tony Start held hostage by terrorists. That first 20-30 minutes of Iron Man are a great film in miniature.

The sequels to superhero films are usually the best, as the characters are familiar to the audience, the cast and crew are more confident and all the origin story is out the way. The trouble with Iron Man 2 is it doesn't really elevate itself in anyway, what it actually does is replicate the faults of the original film in a much bigger way. In fact, the film seems to have replicated the narcissistic personality of its main character, representing the ego and selfishness of all involved. If you want to put it a less confrontational way, it's a bit like they all got carried away with themselves and lost some perspective.

The key problem with Iron Man 2, is it feels like they tried to recapture the strands of brilliance which elevated the original, but those strands proved elusive, and potentially created by accident not design, and as soon as they've tried to do it consciously it all feels fake. Robert Downey Jr is good as Tony Stark, but his character doesn't feel as engaging this time around or as funny. In truth, it's like he's trying to act the part that came naturally before. His grand opening at Stark Expro just doesn't flow. The scene where he is drunk at his birthday just feels, embarrassing. He looks stupid whenever he walks around in the Iron Man armour with the helmet open. It's almost cringe worthy. In fact, it is cringe worthy, it was probably my knowledge that an 'alcoholism' story needs to be told that made it marginally acceptable. Even the relationship with Pepper Potts doesn't have that essentially frisson it had before, it's just a bit annoying.

Then we have the presence of SHIELD. I know there is lots of people who get very excited about the way a wider Marvel Universe is being woven across the Iron Man, Hulk and Captain America and Thor films. I accept, it's kind of cool, but I also think people put too much weight on it. It's the sort of thing a certain type of fan can risk viewing as too cool. The problem is, Samuel L Jackson is now a caricature of himself and he brings that to his portrayal of Nick Fury. It just doesn't work. I kept imagining is next line being 'where is my super suit'. As for Black Widow? Scarlett Johansson is as gorgeous as ever, and plays the part in a pretty perfunctory manner. She looks good in her outfit. The trouble is she doesn't add anything to the film. There is no conflict between her and Stark or Pepper Potts. She just exists, and gets a brief action scene at the end.

The villains are also pretty lacklustre. In fact, this has been a problem with both Iron Man films. It's usually true that a hero is only as good as the villain he gets to give a good kicking and Iron Man's celluloid enemies are found wanting. In the first film it worked because Stark and Stane were in conflict over the company, and the two actors worked well together. In Iron Man 2, Mickey Rourke phones in his performance as the 'sort of Whiplash' Ivan Vanko. He glowers a bit, mumbles some Russian every so often and actually only talks to Stark once. This leaves us with another corporate enemy in the shape of Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. Now, I'm no comics expert, but my understanding is Justin Hammer is a pretty serious dude. I think he stole Stark's technology and proliferated it around villains and criminal fraternities in an epic storyline. I wasn't seeking this to be replicated in any shape or form directly, but I wasn't expecting him to be played by Sam Rockwell who seems to be channelling a Rick Moranis performance. It's just, stupid. He's a joke. In short, the villains are weaker than in the original Iron Man, this reflects badly on the hero.

Then we have the fact Jon Favreau has inserted himself into the film. Not a harmless cameo. No. The narcissism of the production sees him as Stark's driver who gets a lot of air time. He gets involved in some initial jokes with Stark after the Expo, like it's a buddy movie. He drives Stark's car the wrong way down the Monaco race track in an attempt to get his Iron Man armour to him during the Whiplash attack. He even drives Black Widow to Hammer's offices so she can do her infiltration routine. Why? Is she incapable of driving a car 'super spy' style through the streets? Why stop there? Give yourself an action scene for good measure.

The action scenes are a mixed bag as well. The conflict between Stark and Rhodes feels forced and as such the quintessential battle between Iron Man and War Machine doesn't have an emotional grounding to give the battle between two computer generated figures any depth. The final showdown is promising, as Iron Man and War Machine face off against a horde of robot soldiers, but a lot of it is pretty bland. Things explode. There is lot of noise. It's a bit fast and bewildering. The stylistic choice they make in filming the flight scenes makes them quite confusing. This is a bit ironic, since the scenes that sold the original film were clear scenes of Iron Man flying around and interacting with jets. The majority of the time Iron Man is just a fast moving flare. Tony Stark and Iron Man have supposedly privatised world peace, but you never get a sense of that, in fact you get it more in the original film.

The original Iron Man was a mixed bag, but it had moments of brilliance. Iron Man 2 is one of the few superhero films that isn't as good as the original. The first one was a surprise hit, capturing something that probably came about via a combination of factors that seem to have been difficult to duplicate consciously. A core of the characters are superfluous or are verging on the silly. There is a lack of emotional attachment to the whole process. Last, but not least, they seem to have got carried away with the success of the original, and potentially a bit of ego moderation needed to take place.

I'm not the biggest fan of the whole Avenger's sequence of films, and I'm not really understanding the fan ardour with respect to them. I can only think it's a case of fan service, with people getting excited about the artistic control and 'wider marvel universe' elements that the films exhibit. The trouble is, for me, what's actually getting delivered isn't bad, it's just not particularly exciting. This is a pity.

Forty minutes ago the credits rolled on Kick Ass. I'm never at a loss of words to describe a film I've just seen. The problem with Kick Ass is: I've just seen the cinematic equivalent of shock and awe on numerous levels and I'm having to think it through so I don't just list a burst of superlatives and leave it at that.

The basic plot of Kick Ass entwines two stories. The one we are familiar with from the trailers is the story of the endearing, romantic and naive student who sets out to be a superhero. A man who wants to change the world in his own small way by not being the person who just stands by and watches as crimes are committed. The second story, not overly covered in the trailers I've seen, is the darker tale of the Mcready family,a father and daughter, racked by revenge, becoming vigilantes in the process, with the goal of killing the crime boss Frank D'Amico. One of the many brilliant things about the film, is it interweaves these two stories, one of almost sentimentality, the other bloody and cold-hearted revenge, into one film without ever compromising either one. That alone is a writing, acting and directorial achievement.

All the performances in the film are excellent, but the film belongs to Nicolas Cage, Aaron Johnson and Chloe Moretz. Nicolas Cage, well-known for his love for comic books, finally gets to act in a comic book inspired film of worth, and while his role as Big Daddy is a reverent parody, homage and serious protagonist and bad ass all at once, he pulls it off perfectly. Aaron Johnson is also excellent, carrying you through the film as the audiences eyes and ears. The whole idea of not standing by and doing nothing appeals to all of us because we feel that's what society is turning into, and Aaron takes on that journey of one man trying to make a difference perfectly. Even when it's being mined for humour value his performance, or the film for that matter, never loses its integrity. If the film belongs to anyone though, it's probably Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl. I'm not even sure how they got away with that character, in her first appearance as Hit Girl she says the C word. What's amazing about the character and the performance is it's never forgotten Hit Girl is eleven, and as such it's more powerful for it (it probably helps the actress is actually eleven).. The nature of the film will no doubt mean Moretz gets no awards, but Hit Girl reminded me of Kirsten Dunst's performance in Interview with a Vampire, it's that good and she got a Golden Globe for that.

The action scenes are spectacular and brutal. Hell, large parts of the film are damned brutal, and it still amazes me they get away with merging those parts with the endearing and romantic elements without breaking the integrity of the piece. Basically, any time Hit Girl is on the screen the action scenes go into overdrive. The assault on D'Amico's tower feels exciting, dangerous and awesome all at the same time. The conflict at the end of the film between the principal characters is also very well done. It's not a film that takes action scenes to a whole new level, but it does something. It's hard to describe. It's somehow managed to keep the pace and editing without making the action scenes too jarring and unintelligible, in the process creating something, sharp, brutal and exciting.

In all honesty, the film needs a second viewing just to take it all in, and I'm also sure there is even more depth to it for those more knowledgeable in comic book law than me. The film is just full of references as it mines the opportunities present in a film about superheroes in a world in which superhero comics exist and are the inspiration. This takes place in the script with numerous references, certain scenes and even in the music which, unless I'm going mad, had key riffs or close calls to music from other films (such as Batman, 28 Days Later and a spaghetti western I can't remember the name of). In fact, we've already decided we are probably going to watch it again on the first Orange Wednesday after it's released officially. I can count the number of films I've watched more than once at the cinema on one hand.

I've not read the comic, so maybe the experience will be different for those who know the story ahead of time, or who are seeking to compare it, but, ultimately, Kick Ass is an endearing, romantic, inspiring, orgy of violence, reverent parody and homage, emotionally draining, cinematic shock and awe experience.

The shortest way to describe it is: genius.

Yesterday I saw Avatar, and the short answer is: I thought it was brilliant. In fact, the only reservation I have about seeing the film is I didn't see it on the largest screen known to man in a mythical heroism extravaganza of epic IMAX imagery and 3D lustre. There was no problem with the cinema I did see it on, but it seriously deserves the IMAX experience.

Warning: Spoilers beyond this point.

The film is gorgeous and the 3D is an integral part of it. The majority of films in 3D are essentially a gimmick, this isn't the case with Avatar. The obvious elements to focus on are the gorgeous forests and the action scenes, but I found the 3D even added a layer of beauty, and as you may expect, depth, to even the most innocuous of scenes. The various 'science fiction control rooms' were enthralling with actors moving around desks and interfaces. Don't even get me started on the fleets of 'ships' lingering over the forests. Even the science fiction staple of the panning shot of a ship coming into land was transformed. It was also the detail, such as the smudges on glass, the way characters interacted due the depth being present and the use of things like smoke. Avatar is the first 3D film I've seen that made even the mundane beautiful and what would have normally been beautiful astounding. It sold 3D as a serious, possible future. It's going to lose something on DVD, because the 3D is an integral part of the film.

Is the story a bit formulaic? Of course it is, but then I didn't expect it to be anything else. Avatar, like the grand, mythically orientated space operas before it, is by definition formulaic. The hero has a call to adventure (his accident and brother's death), he steps through to another world (Pandora), he obtains supernatural aid (Neytiri), he undergoes a series of trials (training with Neytiri), the moment of failure and darkness (the destruction of the 'World Tree') and becoming the great hero of the Na'vi by joining with the ultimate 'flying dragon'. The point of the piece is how well it delivers on the mythical structure and whether it has you riding the highs and lows and wanting you to cry out 'hell yeah' as it hits the peaks. Avatar delivers on this. I seriously felt for the Na'vi when their ancestral home was destroyed, the effect of it swept through the cinema, a combination of the effects, 3D and the reactions of Neytiri specifically. I was roused when Sully rides in on the most dangerous flying beast on Pandora, taking his place as their mythical leader. The point of these films is not so much to avoid the telegraphed events, but for the audience to be mentally 'pumping the air' for it to happen anyway! As for the final battle? Amazing, it would have undoubtedly had George Lucas screaming at the sky on Skywalker Ranch. Impressive and emotionally enthralling. In a way, expecting the story not to be formulaic to the degree certain beats and expectations can be expected is like complaining because a comedy turned out to be funny.

A weak point is undoubtedly some of the characters. Colonel Quaritch, played by Stephen Lang, is firmly in caricature territory, to the point of not being a character at all. He serves his purpose, he's the character you're allowed to hate without reservation, but it was ridiculous. He's like a caricature out of an eighties action film, and they themselves were often caricatures. Dr Grace Augustine, played by Sigourney Weaver, also suffers, mostly because she's given the indignant scientist role who represents the altruistic view against 'the corporation' and 'the military', which is way too close to Ripley territory and even some of the lines are similar. All the other characters are fine for the type of story that is being told. I found Sam Worthington very engaging, specifically in his normal, human form. I thought the actress who portrayed Neytiri was very good and was undoubtedly the stand-out character of the film, she sold the Neytiri and through her you understood their world and felt the emotion of their world and their losses. This brings me to the Na'vi themselves, who are the next step in graphical characters. Personally, I accepted them completely, and in large scenes in which only these CGI creations existed I accepted it as a normal film. They carried it, and that is a moment in cinema.

Ultimately, I didn't just watch Avatar, I was carried forward on its mythical wave and enjoyed every single moment of it as the current buffeted me forward. I loved the Na'vi, and I didn't think I would. I fell in love with Neytiri. The images were just gorgeous even when things were relatively mundane. The destruction of the 'World Tree' was haunting and had the cinema held in absolute awe and silence. The final battle had my heart racing and gave any recent science fiction epic a good trouncing. It was a great experience. It just might have been too good a one for when it hits the small screen? But then they've been saying for a while 3D TV is the next big thing, possibly Avatar is the first shot in a series of cinema releases that might begin to justify it. You never know.

I was expecting to really dislike GI Joe. This was based on the trailers which largely showed some underwater sub fights, the collapse of the Eiffel Tower and a series of scenes that seemed to feature a stereotypical comedy black character. It didn't bode well. It also had the misfortune to be directed by Stephen Sommers, and I haven't liked a Stephen Sommers film since The Mummy.

Let's get the bad out of the way first because, they are, by and large, irritations. The first is accents. Any character with anything other than an American accent just feels wrong. Is it because they are bad accents? Possibly. I just know they grate on the nerves. The Scottish, French and Cockney accent are all minor irritations. The same is true of the couple of people who put on 'serious military voices', the biggest culprits being Dennis Quaid and a very minor character played by Brendan Fraser who is only in one scene. The second problem is the fact that it's primarily the black character who is played for comedy value. It's not as badly done as in a lot of other films, but he gets into the Joe's purely through default and whenever the, very few, incompetent scenes show up, it's the black guy who is incompetent. It's nowhere near the worst example of the 'comedy black character' stereotype, as the character has other types of scene, but it's there nevertheless. These are the relatively minor irritations woven through the film.

I know very little about what GI Joe is supposed to be, beyond what you absorb from popular culture and the few comics we had in the house. I was expecting iconic characters with a visual flair, possibly the odd visual signature. Heroic super-spies and their foes who are seriously competent. Bases. Gadgets. Amazing vehicles. Funky Technology. Last, but by no means least, at least one melodramatic comic book conflict, the one between two Ninjas. GI Joe delivers on all of these with style and aplomb and it rises above some of the competition by really delivering on those melodramatic relationships.

Structurally, the film is split into four grand set-pieces that are threaded together with the most tenuous of links. They are cool super-spy technology links connecting up the dots, but tenuous nonetheless. Normally, this would make for a really bad film. The kicker is the action sequences are really good and provide a suitable visual spectacle. I was going to pick out the best one, but I suddenly realised I couldn't. They are all great, over the top comic book set-pieces with a range of characters just doing their cool shit. One of the sensible choices is the number of nameless mooks is always kept to a minimum, keeping the action between the named characters. This makes sense, since a core of them have good comic book style relationships going on. Even when this isn't happening, let's admit it, Baroness and Scarlett going at in stylish super-spy leather outfits is no bad thing? I thought the final assault on the underwater base was clever as it allowed a combination of different types of action to occur, it being part 'James Bond base assault', part 'Assault on the Death Star' and filtering in a bit of Moonraker.

It's the melodramatic relationships that made it work for me. It's not fantastically deep storytelling, you'd imagine them playing out in a simple, stylised way across panels in a comic, but they work on that level. Duke (Channing Tatum) was going to marry Baroness (Sienna Miller) before she somehow became evil. Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow want to run each other through for past transgressions. Ripcord (Marlon Wayans) and Scarlett (Rachel Nichols) have something going on as he tries to break the beauties logical mindset. The first two are the best, and rather surprisingly, are told in flashbacks triggered at appropriate points in the film. A bit like a comic. It gives the action that extra frission when these characters face each other. I have to admit, the thought of Sienna Miller striding around as an evil femme fatale super-spy seemed to be a disaster waiting to happen, but in the context of the film it works.

I'm not trying to suggest GI Joe is some sort of work of art, or a fantastically deep and layered film. It's not. I did think it replicated the over the top, melodramatic, comic book awesome that one would hope to find in a GI Joe comic. It did from the vague memories I had of the few comics we had in the house when I was younger. The good action scenes, the melodramatic conflicts, and surprisingly a group of actors who, while not necessarily having the greatest acting chops in the world, pulled it off with enough credibility and style to make it work.

I watched the film in a window a quarter of the size of a 19" monitor, possibly this helped, who knows? It may have helped reduce any CGI overload that some Stephen Sommers films often suffer from. At the end of the day though, let's face it, was it ever under any doubt I'd not like a film that has as one of it's central relationships a grand, melodramatic, comic book, action-based romance between the lead hero and the kick-ass villainess? Of course not.

After seeing New Moon it's all too easy to see Twilight as a practice for the second film. New Moon is much better than its predecessor. It has Vampires. It has Werewolves. It has untapped teenage romance and lust...which this time is done very well. It exudes it from every pore of the massive screen. I'd even go as far to say the film is very well written, acted and directed.

Rewind a bit though. One of the unique things about seeing New Moon was the audience. They are a passionate lot, which is particularly apt I think. I've never seen so many teenage girls in one place for some time, since school I'd guess. That was the core of the audience, some of them dressed up as if they expected Robert Pattinson to select them from the screen. One girl almost blinded the audience in her sparkly number whenever she walked up the stairs despite the low lights. Then there was the families. The older fans. The boyfriends dragged to the film. It makes for an interesting experience as it was like watching a film in the US. Lots of gasps, low key cheers and I think some of the audience nearly passed out when the film hit the 'cliffhanger'.

New Moon basically presents us with a love triangle, mixed up with some even more literal Romeo and Juliet parallels (right down to mix-ups over deaths). Edward decides his relationship with Bella (Kristen Stewart) is dysfunctional and dangerous (which would be...right?) and leaves her. This coincides with Jacob (Taylor Lautner) coming of age, going from weedy young man to hot bloke and also becoming a Werewolf. Bella, obviously touched by fate to have a series of relationships with supernaturals she can't find happiness with, half falls for Jacob and half leads him along for protection. It's good stuff. It's also done really well. It's melodramatic, which is essential, but done with a deft touch. It's the little things that speak volumes, like Bella apologising to Jacob for hurting herself as in Edward circles that would be dangerous. The slight touches, which I have to admit the film does manage to make hot and full of sexual tension, such as when Bella lightly touches Jacob's stomach to stop him getting too close.

The werewolves are also done very well. They are either human or wolf, but giant dire wolves. Twilight werewolves avoid the very hit and miss middle-form of the wolf man. Probably a good idea. It was also good how they are established as the direct opposites of the Vampires (or at least Edward). Werewolves are hot to the touch, Vampires are cold. Werewolves are full of rage, Vampires are more reserves. Jacob is intense and outgoing, while Edward is intense and introspective (and boring). Werewolves also like walking around half-naked. Why? Is it because they are permanently hot? Is it because they transform back to humans naked, so they have shorts, socks and a pair of trainers hidden around the forest? Is it just because it gives Taylor Lautner a chance to show off his new buff torso? Who knows. I'm sure the women appreciate it and everyone else gets a good dose of Werewolf on Vampire animosity and rage.

It's not all good, but some of this may be from personal bias. I thought the Edward aspect of the film was a bit weak, it forms the start of the film and then is tagged on at the end introducing us to a bit of the wider vampire world in the process. It's pure Romeo and Juliet. It's okay, but it tends to be a bit ponderous and lacks a bit of life (no pun intended). The heart of the film is the middle bit when Edward has exited stage left and the relationship between Bella and Jacob takes centre stage. It seemed a much healthier relationship to me, you know, other than Jacob's propensity to rip your face off if he gets too angry, and probably having a liking for doing it doggy-style.

A good film. Worth watching for anyone who doesn't mind a bit of teenage romance with a high degree of unconsummated lust. The vampire and werewolves are realised on screen well, with a dose of originality. I'd actually watch New Moon again on DVD, though I'd probably not watch the original Twilight as much. If I had a teenage daughter, there would be a lot of films I'd rather she not be watching than the Twilight series, which are positively wholesome.

Just remember, screw the boy who sparkles, team Jacob all the way!

Nearly a year later I've finally watched Twilight, and it was fascinating. Totally fascinating. I'm not sure what I expected, but it wasn't really the film I saw. Note, I've not read any of the books. I know it's big. Very big. San Diego Comic Con this year saw a ridiculous increase in attendance the day the Twilight crew were at the convention and a ridiculous drop after they left. I just haven't really got pulled into the whole Harry Potter-esque phenomena.

The first thing that makes the film strange is the setting, it's set in a small town in Washington state, and as such it's grey, moody and often raining. It has an X Files vibe going on, and it also allows the vampires to wonder around without too much sun. Not that these vampires burst into flame in the sun, instead they just sparkle like they've been sprayed with glitter. It also allows for American Indian werewolves to be part of the story, neatly indicating a conflict between the two parties. It makes for an interesting milieu though, and a big change from the usual cosmopolitan cities we are familiar with from a myriad of other vampire stories.

The second thing that makes it strange is the whole story is supposed to be a variation on Romeo and Juliet, love across boundaries and the like. Teenage angst. Hormones running rampant. The trouble is, for at least 50% of the film Robert Pattinson's character just comes across as a creepy stalker. This is made even more strange when Kristen Stewart's character looks longingly after him, like he's some sort of remote, mysterious 'emo' figure. It didn't work for me though and it doesn't make sense. The justification for Kristen Stewart's character taking this route didn't seem to be present because Pattinson's character was just scary. The fact he's scary makes sense, but it makes no sense to me for the teenage girl to pursue him. Possibly I'm getting old. Still, once Pattinson's character opens up, it starts to make sense, but initially, it appears more damaged than anything else.

The third odd thing is some of the special effects. The film does a great job of pitching the vampires as the ultimate predators of human beings. All vampire films suggest this. Twilight really pitches it and makes you believe it. The trouble is, some of the powers they choose to give the vampires are very hard to implement on screen without them looking stupid. The film falls into this trap. Whenever the film has the vampires move at speed without it largely happening off camera looks pretty stupid, the scene with Stewart being given a high speed run around the forest by Pattinson being a case in point. This happens enough times for it to be jarring, but overall the special effects are subtle, effective and super heroic while still feeling real and grounded.

This suggests I didn't like the film, but that isn't true, I thought it was really good once it got going. I liked the whole idea of a 'family' of vampires trying to live as human beings despite them being more animalistic and predatory than some other implementation. It was both scary and funny at the same time. The whole preparing dinner but Stewart had already eaten scene was funny. The on screen romance between Stewart and Pattison was good once we moved past the creepy phase. I also liked the illusions to the wider tapestry, with light touches bringing in the prospect of werewolves without doing it with a heavy hand. I also liked the simplicity of the jeopardy in the final quarter of the film, as the simplicity of one relentless vampire hunting Stewart was suitably threatening without raising the stakes to a ridiculous level.

Overall, Twilight was a good teenage romance, eventually, and it was a pretty good vampire film. I enjoyed it anyway. I'm certainly looking forward to the second one which introduces even more romantic angst with a three way romance when Stewart gets involved with a werewolf. It does start to sound a bit Anita Blake, but hopefully it'll stay relatively innocent rather than ever increasing debauchery. In a way, some people already know, but I doubt I'm going to start reading the books.

So, I watched United 93 last night, and I...well, it's hard to describe. Is enjoyed it the right word? Probably not. I found it intriguing? It's hard to describe because it's an odd work. It's odd because ...well..I'm not 100% sure on that either.

We have films that are based on historical events, but they are purely works of fiction, just based on a true story. A fictionalised reality. I'm thinking of things like Band of Brothers or other films 'based on true events'. The strange thing about these is while you accept they are based on true events, and they are the more awe inspiring for it, you do watch them largely in the context of a fictional drama. That is the fact the events sort of happened in some way remotely similar, or to a degree similar, enhances the drama and makes you think.

United 93 is different. It's different because it's a drama, filmed like a documentary based on a true story in which a core of the events, those on the plane, can't possibly be known in any great degree because everyone died. This places it in a strange position. The result is it doesn't feel right. You see, the events in the film, beside those on the plane, can be documentary-based, as there must be a lot of memory and factual information about events with air traffic control, the military and so on. The plane though, has to be totally fictional. In truth, it might have been meant purely as a work of fiction, but the fact it's based on true events influences perceptions and then the documentary style they chose to film in adds another influence. Should they have filmed it with all the events on the plane coming in second hand? Who knows.

It was just strange. It didn't work as a drama. It didn't work as a sort of dramatised documentary. It just happened. Strangely, this combination of factors, meant that the events on the plane didn't feel that tense or horrible. They should have done but they didn't. But then, should the intention be to impart such a feeling of fear and inevitability?

Who knows. It's probably destined to be confused until sufficient time has passed for it to be more dramatised. Terrible? Possibly, but then if you can film Schindler's List you can film anything. Eventually.

We saw Bruno yesterday on one of these free deals to create buzz. I wasn't expecting it to be funny. I've not been a big follower of Sacha Baron Cohen, though I did find Borat very funny, in a guilty sort of way. That's the thing about Barot, you almost feel guilt for finding it funny, caught between feeling it's exploitive and offensive and being a great spotlight on certain elements of US culture. The reason I wasn't expecting Bruno to be funny is I didn't think I'd find a film about the fashion industry funny, but the film soon distances itself from that and actually becomes a story about a gay man willing to do outrageous things to be famous in the US.

It follows the same format as Borat, in that Cohen plays Bruno constantly and puts himself in all sorts of real, live situations in which the participants aren't fully in on the 'joke', though I have no idea how he gets some people into the situations. You are left feeling that the film is offensive to non-heterosexuals, as Bruno is a stereotype, often a heterosexual stereotype of gay men, but in turn he uses this to show some really outrageous views on gay men in US society. As a result, you laugh pretty much continuously to the point it's painful while feeling half-guilty at the same time. I'd say the film is far more outrageous than Borat, though this may primarily be because of the subject matter, people regrettably find the comedy foreigner less contentious ground. A handful of people did leave the cinema and not see the film through. It certainly has a lot more sexual content.

I could go on to describe why it's funny, but that would give a lot away. It's suffice to say the film is only about 90-minutes long, and is packed with material, while still following a narrative. He meets ex-presidential candidates, goes on an outrageous talk show with an exclusive African American audience, takes on the Middles East crises, 'adopts' a black baby, goes on a hunting trip with white, right wing hunters, joins the army, creates his own TV show and has it test screened by a studio, it's pretty impressive and packed. The final scene encompasses the whole film, making you cringe, gasp at the reactions of the audience and laugh all at the same time. The film is at its best when its focusing on the relationship between the gay man and certain elements of US society.

I can see it offending people, and I'd understand why that was the case, but what can I say? I found it hilarious, slightly offensive, and shocking in terms of the views, lifestyles and reactions of some of his 'victims'. Like Borat, I'm not sure it has any repeat value, but it's worth the one viewing. I was in pain when it finished.

We went to see My Sister's Keeper yesterday. It's not the sort of film we'd normally pay 10 GBP to see but we got to see it for free to spread the word. It was a lot better than I thought and I was enthralled by it, but it was very traumatic. As traumatic as P.S. I Love You? Probably not, but it was close to it. It is 109 minutes of watching a family deal with a daughter you know is going to die of cancer eventually, and spends most of the film looking very sick. If you throw in the fact they have a younger daughter who has been genetically tweaked to be the perfect donor, then it's horrendous.

I just didn't feel right for the rest of the evening. It did get me thinking though.

I know a few people who have a very opinionated view of 'screen violence'. It's not worth discussing anything remotely violent with them as they either won't have seen it or they'll just have a view on it tainted by the violence. It doesn't have to be that violent either, it can just be the odd thing that 'crosses their imaginary line' that triggers their views. It can be a perfectly pedestrian affair, spoiled by an innocent young woman being shot on her door step and the bullet hole on her forehead being shown (in a standard, not that gory way). The source of this is a general feeling that violent TV and film spawns a violent society and is the source of all modern societies ills. They don't seem to grasp that the relationship, to the extent it exists, could be much more circular and chicken and egg.

So, back to My Sister's Keeper. It occurred to me that My Sister's Keeper had a traumatic effect on me much worse than any violent film (the most extreme, gratuitous and pointless torture porn aside). I can take cartoon violence, general action violence and artistic violence integrated into the needs of the dramatic framework, enjoy the film and sleep at night. The continual images of that teenager dying just did me in though. I'm not suggesting that My Sister's Keeper shouldn't be made, but that the willingness of my sample group to embrace such films, but not mildly violent films makes little sense. My Sister's Keeper was a 12A, and while it can be argued it's life and your child should know about it (oddly an argument that could be used for some violent films), I'm of no doubt it could have been a very traumatic experience. You see, a kid with a strong family background can cope with exposure to the odd bit of TV or film violence and contextualises it quite easily as a film, as it's often fantastical to a degree it's not real. This wouldn't be the case with My Sister's Keeper, it's something they'd understand could happen to them.

Despite this, My Sister's Keeper would been seen as a worthy film by my 'sample group', a family drama, sad, but still getting the required moral vote. It takes all sorts.

In closing, there is one very interesting trilogy of films which is oddly telling with respect to my small sample group: Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the Rings films are largely accepted. This seems to be because they are clearly fantasy, and probably because they are pretty clear on the good and the bad guys. They're not fantasy fans. Still, despite this, they are very violent. Lots of people die. At the same time, at least one of them didn't understand the film was largely an allegory on the First World War and the industrialised military machine (despite it being laid on quite thick visually and aurally in the film to me). This tells me they have very foggy thinking, and what sets off the moral trigger doesn't seem to be very consistent.

I'll quite happily admit I liked the first Transformers movie. It has its faults. It's plot is total bollocks and it's middle section seems to descend into humour despite a great extended opening and finale, but overall I loved it's 'balls to the wall' approach. It has a certain nobility, scale and melodramatic punch that just works. You experience the first film, it just propels you along.

Sadly, this cannot be said about Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, which has taken the 'creative' route of weaving the crass and pathetic humour present in bits of the middle section of the first film, ramping it up to all new levels and weaving it throughout the whole film while disposing of any of the emotional connections the characters' shared (between each of the human leads and the Transformers). Remember when Bumblebee took a leak on the comedy government agent? Groan inducing humour? Well, Transformers 2 is a continual stream of Bumblee taking a leak jokes and the comedy government agent gets a major part.

The film starts with an extended comedy scene about Sam going to college, utilising Sam's parents as one of the many 'comedy sidekick' characters in the movie (at least seven by my count). The film just never picks up from that point and stays at that level. We even have two comedy Autobots, who look and sound like southern state retards, and they get more script time then any of the other autobots. In fact, you get a lot of generic Transformers in this film: mega-Transformers, cat-like robots, human looking robots and generic Decepticons. It's a far cry from the characterised group in the first film. While it begins with an extended comedy scene, even the action at the end features a mega-Transformer with a set of clanging brass balls and a gonad choke. Nice.

The sexualisation of the film has been taken to ridiculous levels. It actually got to eye rolling proportions. In the first film we all remember the shot of Megan Fox bending over the car bonnet looking at the engine. It made her career. In Transformers 2, the first shot of Megan Fox is of her straddling a motorbike in hot, denim shorts and boots while spray painting. I think she was spray painting, your eyes don't really get that far. It then continues on from that point. While she's not posed like a manikin in as ridiculous a way again, she's obviously been told to permanently pout like some demented porn star all the way through the film. I don't remember that being as bad in the first film either. If it's not Megan Fox it's cybernetic college students in a Battlestar Galactica style. This is despite the fact cyborgs haven't featured before. I'm pretty sure it was thought up quickly over bagels one morning in a writers' meeting. If it's not humans it's jokes about dogs getting randy. If dogs won't do then we can always have one of the many comedy small Transformers shag Megan Fox's leg.

The film just has no core, it just shoots out in every direction and you don't really care. Nothing connects on any meaningful or emotional level. It nearly happens a few times. Whenever Optimus Prime is on screen it works. When Sam and Bumblebee interact it also works. On the odd occasion that Sam and Mikaela have a conversation rather than being chased or surrounded by explosions it's better than nothing. That is if you can get past Megan Fox's permanent pout. These elements, the bits that gave the first film a way to connect with the audience, and give the robot battles a sense of purpose, are downplayed. Bumblebee is hardly in it. Optimus Prime is not around for large parts of the film. Sam and Mikaela have to compete with at least seven 'comedy sidekick' characters for air time. It's just a complete mess. It's quite clearly 'throw things at the wall' writing and include even the things that don't stick.

It's just a really bad film. The weirdest thing? In our sitting everyone was in hysterics. They loved the humour. The world has gone mad. Myself and Louise just kept looking at each other incredulously, like we'd entered a strange alternate world in which what was on screen was actually funny and we hadn't been given the memo.

I can't remember exactly why it came up, but during the last session of the 4E Campaign, the Masters of the Universe film got mentioned. I said I liked it and it was much derided. Well, to be fair, I said it was good, which might have been stretching it a bit. The better description is I found it fun and I enjoyed it anyway.

The question is why?

A large part of it is I'm a bit of a sucker for cheap fantasy. You know what you are getting and it's enjoyable enough. I'm thinking Dragonslayer (1981), The Sword and the Sorcerer (1982), The Beastmaster (1982), Krull (1983), Deathstalker (1983), Red Sonja (1985), Willow (1988), Kull the Conqueror (1997) and, of course, Masters of the Universe (1987). In fact, looking at that list, the eighties was a 'pretty good year'. I jest, it's undoubtedly to do with the prevalence of cheap VHS and a thousand and one back street video rental stores. If I'm liking such 'classics' as Beastmaster and Red Sonja then Masters of the Universe isn't that out of left field.

The second reason is Courtney Cox. A young Courtney Cox, not ten years of Friends and ravaged by weird Hollywood diets Courtney Cox. In Masters of the Universe she's positively stunning. I think, back in the day, when I first watched the film and I was 16, I had a serious crush on Courtney Cox. All based on Masters of the Universe. Lots of running around in a short skirt and cute eighties jacket while an assortment of weird bad guys try to hunt her down for reasons I can't remember. Interestingly, while this isn't a reason why the film appeals, it also had a young Robert Duncan McNeill in who went on to play a rather drab Paris in Star Trek: Voyager.

The third reason, and probably the main one, is Skeletor. Frank Langella as Skeletor. It's not an Oscar worthy performance, but he certainly stalks the screen and outshines everybody else in the film. I'll admit it, I find his performance engaging. It's over the top, and full of dramatic movements with his staff, and dramatic strides as well as killing minions indiscriminately, but it's a pretty top class B-Movie performance. As an actor, he was the 'what is he doing in this' casting. I may be extremely sad, but I still remember Skeletor chewing the scenery to this day. In fact, while no one probably realised it, Grand Artificer Maundrin in the Thrilling Tales serial The Battle for the Hollow Earth! was based on Skeletor. Not in looks, but certainly in action. He made a good enough impression an aspect got swapped out for him, so he can't have been that bad.

So, that's the reasons. In fact, this has got me thinking that I need to track down copies of the films above. I'm sure they are going cheap these days. Pondering.

Way back in 2001 when The Fast and the Furious was released the various news services were always running stories of illegal car races in the streets and of folks coming together to compare their 'pimped out cars' and ridiculous stereo systems. Whether such meetings had the 1001 beautiful girls parading around in ridiculous small shorts and skirts grinding their booty to the music I don't know. I'm pretty sure they didn't in the UK, such things seemed to be largely the domain of spotty young men, girls from dodgy estates and a Ford Fiesta with a dodgy spoiler on the back was hardly anything to envy.

If you wanted to see a weaker version of Point Break but with glamorised car racing rather than 'new age surfer bollocks' then The Fast and the Furious was it. Personally, it was okay, it pretty much came down to the racing scenes. Fast and Furious is a direct sequel to The Fast and the Furious, which looks to be placed after the second film but before Tokyo Drift (which I've not seen). It's quite possible to watch the first film and this one as a pair. It's probably as good as the original if not a bit better to be honest, due to the progress that has been made in film frenetic car chases.

The plot is basically one of revenge for Dominic Torreto while Brian O'Conner is trying to figure out whether he's a 'good guy pretending to be a bad guy' or a 'bad guy pretending to be a good guy', it's a personal code thing. It's not the deepest of plots, but in that broadly premise-based approach to action heroes Hollywood takes it works pretty well. Paul Walker is great (I think he's one of those wasted actors), while Vin Diesel walks around looking big and moody and gets all the ridiculous lines comparing women to cars. He does get a cool but slightly odd scene in which he gets to do the 'car crash scene equivalent' of Aragorn figuring out the Hobbits ran into Fangorn Forest. Well done, but a bit surreal to see an idea transposed so literally with the trappings changed.

Anyway, the plot is suitably ridiculous as Dominic and O'Conner try and break into a criminal gang who need drivers. They need drivers because they kill these amazingly skilled people after every run. They run drugs through a very formidably defended border with Mexico via rushing cars through a series of tight tunnels under a mountain range. Who knows how these tunnels got built if the border is so formidable? Who cares? Needless to say, many car chases ensue, incompetent cops feature and there is a search to figure out who the main boss actually is. Surprisingly there is very little sex, so the film just compensates by having ridiculous amounts of women in very little clothing every time more than two men are together or more than three 'pimped' cars are parked in one place.

It's all in the car chases, the problem is the best two are at the very beginning and in the middle. The opening scene with Torreto stealing gas from a massive gas tanker as if he was living in the world of Mad Max is very well done. It has great motion, numerous stages and is ridiculously over the top but just holding back enough that it doesn't get too ridiculous. It succeeds in not feeling like a video game, for instance. It's a bit like watching someone with a maxed out drive skill in Spirit of the Century going to work, complete with timing a drive under an oncoming rolling and burning oil tanker. It was good. The second best one is in the second quarter of the film, with Torreto and O'Conner competing to get into the criminal gang, it has some great uses of a GPS system and an excellent race through traffic. The rest of the chases are fine but suffer due to featuring those border tunnels or not having a personal dimension. As an example, in the final chase Torreto never really has a direct 'car on car' conflict with the person he wants to kill.

What can I say, I enjoyed the film.

The funniest thing about the night? The guy who walked past us in the cinema who'd been caught for speeding on the way. I thought the irony of incurring a 60 GBP speeding ticket (and associated insurance increases) to see a free showing of Fast and Furious was mildly humorous.

Apparently there is a way to 'scam' a trip to the cinema for free. I'm not sure what arcane process is involved, but it seems to involve having an eye for the right website at the right time. Louise does all that, since she's always capable of finding a bargain. It's all to do with promotion, the idea is you see the film and tell your mates and as such the film gets some word of mouth before it's actually released. I suspect, in a healthy number of cases people see the film and don't really do that much promotion. Still, someone has probably done the maths.

At the time I write this we have or are going to see:

• Marley & Me
• The Boat That Rocked
• Fast and Furious
• State of Play
• Coraline

I'm sure whatever arcane process Louise uses will cause more opportunities to be summoned forth.

It's a bit of a strange process as it's obviously an advanced screening. When we sent to see Marley and Me they'd obviously given out more codes, token, permission slips or whatever than could be seated in the cinema. This meant people were turning up very close to the time and find there was no seats. Never had any sympathy for people who walk in at the last minute, usually. I did feel a bit sorry for the people laden with about 20 GBP worth of food only to find out they couldn't see the film though.

When we went to see The Boat That Rocked the security was much tighter, as they actually had bouncers on the cinema screen door. They checked your bags for cameras and everything. It was a bit strange, especially when you consider we went to see it only the day before it was officially released.

Still, free films. Can't complain.

Finally seen Slumdog Millionaire. I've taken the usual approach to this film that I suspect a lot of people have, in that if it wasn't for all the publicity and the Oscar win I'd wouldn't have given it the time of day. It's great that it got the critical attention as it was a very interesting film.

The film uses the structure of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire as a way to tell the life story of the slum kid Jamal, his brother and the girl he is destined to love, Latika. On the eve of answering the final question for the big prize he is accused of cheating and as such questions by the police and scenes from the show itself are interspersed with episodes of his life as he explains how he knew the answers to the questions. It's a clever structure, and it works well. The powerful stuff obviously comes from the story of Jamal's life. The character's aren't that interesting or engaging to be honest, just okay, it's the events they find themselves in that are the main interest.

This best bit of Slumdog Millionaire is the realisation of Jamal's life as it pulls you into the slums of Mumbai and tells a grand tale of these three characters growing up and their attempts to escape that life one way or another. Jamal tries to earn a living while his brother becomes part of the crime syndicates that bedevil the prospering Mumbai. That's something else the film touches upon, the economic improvements changing the landscape of places like Mumbai. It all comes together and it is very interesting. It has all sorts of moments both touching and pretty grim that build up to a mosaic of imagery about life in Mumbai. This goes from the grim life in the slums to the surreal nature of working in an Indian call centre. A large part of the film is the world it draws you into.

One thing I have to take issue with is this: Slumdog Millionaire, the feel good movie of 2009? Heh, what? First, it's only the first quarter of 2009 so it seems a bit early to make the proclamation. Second, if Slumdog Millionaire is a feel good movie then I stridently claim The Dark Knight to be the feel good movie of 2008. Okay, he gets the girl in the end, and that's good and all, but only after he's been shit upon by his brother numerous times, his brother dies and she gets used as a sex slave by his brother and his crime boss. She also gets a facial scar for good measure. It also features torture in the opening scenes, mass clubbing of slum residents and an 'Indian Fagin' blinding kids because blind singers can beg for more money. It has a happy ending, I'll give it that, but feel good movie? It's a stretch. The film has more similarities with a Tarantino or Scorsese gangster film than an uplifting experience. It's like calling Trainspotting uplifting. It has all the fancy Bollywood imagery going on in some of its marketing communications, all the trailers are relatively mundane, showing cheeky Indian kids and that dance routine that doesn't even feature till the end credits (rather incongruously). It was an orchestrated exercise in marketing misdirection.

Still, it is a very good film. Even if half the audience at any particular cinema showing probably thought they'd turned up for the wrong film.

Yesterday in our post 2100 TV watching period we watched Quantum of Solace. I was really looking forward to it, as while I didn't think Casino Royal was perfect, as a new direction for Bond I thought it was fantastic. The trouble is, Quantum of Solace was pretty bland. In fact, it lost all the layers that made Casino Royal good and instead delivered a pretty mediocre Jason Bourne film.

The main problem with Quantum of Solace is it follows on directly from Casino Royal. Immediately after. Like a serialised TV show, but with the episodes years apart. The majority of the film felt like I'd just tuned in to a TV show I'd stopped watching and as such I spent most of the time trying to make sense of it. I admit, some of this is my fault, I possibly should have watched Casino Royal again, but is that really something we should expect going to the cinema? A sequel is one thing, but episode one and two of a serialised TV show? I'm not sure it works for me.

The actions scenes didn't really inspire, neither were they anything breathtaking. The majority of the time they just gave you a headache as things cut too quickly and the camera has too much motion. We get a pretty good car chase, followed by a running and jumping chase across and through buildings, then a little boat chase and we even get some brief air plane action. He gets around a bit in that 90-minutes and manages to fit in virtually everything. The conclusion is just a bit weird, as it takes place in a deserted, modern hotel in the middle of the desert. All fine, but it seems to be some strange attempt to fit in the 'attack on the soon to be exploding enemies base' sort of dynamic without resorting to the secret society having a base. It just came from nowhere, everything exploded and it...transpired, that's about all you can say about it. At least at 90-minutes things do breeze along at quite a pace and 'fantastic technology' is used to allow character interaction to take place without slowing things down.

The strength of Casino Royal was the character study of Bond, this is weaker in Quantum of Solace. Possibly it has to be as it was so well done in the first instalment. It's very weak, and if it wasn't for Daniel Craig's brooding intensity being able to carry the audience despite not having that much to do it would have been a complete failure. We know it's about getting revenge for the death of Vesper Lynd and whether that achieves anything, but it just doesn't resonate. There was also a few things about the consequences of Bond's actions, but that had been covered much better in Casino Royal as well.

A pity. One of the main things I didn't like about Casino Royal was that it felt like the first instalment in a serialised piece, this continued it to a ridiculous degree. Have to admit, I found it boring.

A couple of days ago we watched Death Race, we didn't know anything about it other than it was about prisoners racing armed cars and it stared Jason Statham. We'd also seen one cheesy trailer in front of some other film I now can't remember which didn't inspire us to watch it at the time.

Have to say, it's one of those films that's actually pretty good, certainly at the top end of the mediocre scale.

The plot is a pretty simple affair, a bit like some of those eighties films that used to feature eighties action stars getting thrown in prison, it's just nowhere near as homoerotic. The future has gone to shit, an extreme economic crises has thrown the world and the USA into social disorder. One of the results of this is the populace finding solace in violent 'event TV'. Jensem Aims, named after the car (and played by Jason Statham), and an ex-race car driver, is a man trying to earn his way, but finds himself framed for murdering his wife. Needless to say, this all ends up as a not so grand plot by the Governor of a prison to keep the audience figures of her Death Race franchise high. It's the usual set-up, the prisoners race and earn their freedom with 5 victories. Prisoner and racer rivalries abound, double-crosses, fights, races and an escape.

Jasan Statham does his usual thing, in that he turns in the same performance he turns in for every film. It's not bad. It's not fantastic. He's like a very good 'middle of the road' action hero from the eighties. A bit like a much better Van Damme. The key thing is he is very watchable and likeable. The rest of the cast all offer workmanlike performances in a pretty by the numbers script, and Natalie Martinez, Jensen's co-driver, is suitably sexy.

So what sets it apart? It's better than the some of its very standard parts. The element that raises the game is the whole realisation of the Death Race franchise. It is realised like some sort of ESPN sport, complete with race listings and people being crossed out as they die. It also has promo videos for all the drivers with the usual hyperbole. It tops all this off with some great races. It actually manages to make the Death Races exciting, dynamic and suitably bloody. It is like the game Car Wars realised up on the screen. I found that surprising, not a big car chase fan, but they really work in Death Race. It's actually the 'game elements' that make it work, such as the fact the cars have to drive over sensors embedded in the tarmac of the 'arena' to activate their offensive and defensive weapons. In one race the dastardly Governor introduces an armoured truck to spice up the race. It makes no sense as she seems to be killing the drivers she depends on for the franchise, but what the hell, taking it out was exciting.

We really enjoyed it despite its standard set-up.

In this modern world of constant media saturation, especially if you're addicted to the Internet, it's very rare that a film comes along that you know absolutely nothing about. This happened a couple of days ago when we watched the film Quarantine. All we knew about it was that it probably was about a quarantine to some extent.

To our surprise it was a Zombie film.

The plot is made of simple stuff. Angela Vidal (played by Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman are making a documentary about a New York fire station. This gives the excuse for the whole film to be shot documentary style and you see everything through that single, portable camera. Needless to say, Angela finally gets her wish and the alarm goes and a single fire truck goes to an old, New York apartment block. The reason for the call is an old woman in distress. A groaning old woman, slavering at the mouth and pacing eerily backwards and forwards. Anyone watching it immediately thinks Zombie while the police and firemen on the scene try and calm her down in the traditional manner. Needless to say, the obvious happens and shortly after more emergency services appear outside and begin to quarantine the building.

That's about it really, the occupants of the apartment complex, Angela, some fireman and a policeman try and survive as the virus inevitably spreads. We are eventually given some pseudo-scientific explanation of it being a rabies variant, but it doesn't really matter.

The main selling point of the film isn't the characters, as they don't particularly have any depth, though the female lead is likeable enough, it's just the tension of the cramped environment and the inevitable fact everyone or the majority of the quarantined will eventually die. It kept our tension levels high anyway and was worth the ninety minutes it took to watch it. It doesn't really have any repeat value though.

One of the weirdest things about Bolt is it feels like a Pixar film in every way. In fact, it feels like a Pixar film circa 1999 or earlier. It isn't a Pixar film though, it's a Disney film. It's obviously a product of the fact Disney purchased Pixar in 2006 and this is one of the first films born from that. It's still a bit strange though, as Pixar still releases films under its brand, the next one being Up. I suppose I just find it odd for Disney to release films with Pixar's unique look and feel and for Pixar to keep doing so as well.

In keeping with the pre-1999 Pixar vibe, the plot of Bolt combines similar riffs as Toy Story and Toy Story II with a bit of The Incredible Journey thrown in for good measure. Bolt (played by John Travolta) is a dog who thinks he has superpowers, he thinks he has superpowers because he stars in a TV show with his owner, Penny (played by Miley Cyrus), and they maintain the illusion it's all real (yeah, just run with it). In the 'world' of Bolt, he has a near indestructible skeleton, super speed, heat vision, the ability to head butt moving cars and the infamous super bark. Needless to say, events conspire to deposit Bolt in New York and he has to get back to Los Angeles while realising he is just a normal dog along the way, and that it ain't so bad. This has similarities with Buzz Lightyear realising he's only a toy. Mittens the cat has issues with pet owners, due to being left behind by her owner when they moved house, so she's quite cynical about Bolt's belief in Penny. Needless to say, the observant among you will notice this is similar to Jessie's story in Toy Story II, and the dynamic between Bolt and Mittens follows similar lines to Woody and Jessie in Tory Story II as well.

One of the best sequences in the film is the extended opening sequence which has Bolt and Penny battling Dr Calico (played by Malcolm McDowell), complete with cat henchmen and his nefarious horde of goons and hi-tech vehicles. It's very well done as it's actually exciting and suitably over the top. It's that good, it makes you regret that you know so much about films before they are released as it's a pity it isn't a shock when it's revealed to all be part of a TV show and an elaborate, and suitably ridiculous attempt, to fool the dog into thinking it's real. Still, you get to enjoy the whole thing while it lasts as it goes on for about ten minutes. Thinking about it, I suppose there are some stylistic similarities between this sequence and The Incredibles sequence on the island, but it's good nonetheless.

What carries the film are the supporting characters, such as the New York and Los Angeles pigeons, and specifically Rhino the Hamster as his character is a work of genius. He is a superfan of the Bolt show and believes Bolt has powers. He spends the whole film rolling around in his ball and has delusions beyond his size and is living his dream, having adventures with Bolt. The character is excellently written, animated and acted and is very, very funny. The film is worth watching for Rhino alone, and it picks up significantly once he becomes part of the trio doing their whole Incredible Journey thing.

Apparently you can see Bolt in 3D. We didn't and got the traditional 2D experience. I didn't know you could see it in 3D until I was writing this, what's surprising about that is the film itself isn't animated in such a way that you think the film 'should be in 3D'. This is unusual. If I was to watch it again maybe I'd notice 3D money shots, but they certainly didn't stand out on my first viewing.

Bolt is well worth watching as even by the numbers 'Pixar' is pretty good, especially when you throw in the good stuff like the opening sequence and the genius that is Rhino. Look at it this way, it's better than Ratatouille? I still think it's going to get weird with Disney releasing films so close to the Pixar style, especially if they continue to trail them by a decade.

After a delay of almost Superman Returns proportions I've finally seen X-Men: The Last Stand (X-Men 3 from now on). Strangely, my expectations going into X-Men 3 were the opposite of Superman Returns as I went in expecting to like that film, but I was expecting to find X-Men 3 to be completely rubbish. In truth, there is actually a good film trying to get out of X-Men 3, and I can see why some fans quite like it.

Surprisingly, it could be argued that the film actually gets one thing right: the realisation of X-Men heroics. This is probably one of the main reasons some people rate the film. The opening scene with Nightcrawler in X-Men 2 aside, the super heroics of the principal characters is much cooler, better realised and they appear in more fluid scenes. In X-Men 3 Storm actually flies. Juggernaut chases Kitty Pride through a succession of walls. Wolverine does his thing on numerous occasions against numerous opponents. We even get the blue fur ball leaping around and beating the crap out of people like a demented ape. It is a film with a high amount of fan service, and I have to admit, when the X-men make their stand against Magneto's 'mutant biker horde of mooks' it does have a 'oh yes' sort of feel. It is an improvement over the short and less dynamic portrayal of super heroics in the first two films.

The second surprising thing is the basic ideas behind the film could have been really good. The film runs with two core ideas. A hi-tech pharmaceutical firm invents an instant cure for the X gene from the DNA of a young mutant with an X gene dampening field. Needless to say this raises numerous issues of whether mutants should be cured? If they want to be cured? If they can be forced to be cured? And how do you deal with walking weapons of mass destruction? This should have fed neatly into core idea number two: the return of Jean Grey, who is succumbing to her Phoenix personality. Phoenix is the literal incarnation of a walking weapon of mass destruction, a totally insane level five mutant. These two elements could have reinforced each other, but the opportunity was lost in a pretty messy tossing together of the two ideas.

The film delivers X-Men awesome on one hand, the aforementioned heroics of the X-Men, the grand nature of the X gene cure and Phoenix, but takes it away with another. When did mutants become something akin to a degenerate biker gang or a horde of hoodies hiding out in a tent city in a forest? Magneto is the ultimate terrorist. No secret bases or islands. No fancy costumes. Just random generic thugs looking like rejects from a heavy metal concert. It was good seeing him do the whole terrorist ultimatum on TV thing, but that was about it.

X-Men 3 was better than I thought it would be. I was surprised it did one thing right that the other two films could have learned from. The rest of it is a couple of grand ideas the production doesn't deliver on effectively. At one point the film can't even decide if it is night or day. Magneto flies a section of the Golden Gate bridge to Alcatraz Island under blue skies and the Californian sun only for the next scene to be at night. As I say, messy.

I was looking forward to the new Superman film when it was new in 2006. The trailers seemed to conjure the right amount of nostalgia, complete with the mythical, dulcet tones of Marlon Brando, while not being afraid to openly play the mythical angle and give everything a new sheen with modern special effects. It was also directed by Brian Singer, fresh from the much loved X-Men 2.

My view after waiting over two years to actually watch it and then only when it came on TV? Mixed, but generally good.

Superman Returns navigates strange ground in terms of the film's set-up. It avoids doing a full origin story by pitching that Superman left Earth five years ago to seek what remained of his home planet. The film also uses the same theme tune from the previous films with Christopher Reeve. It remains unclear whether any of the events of the previous Superman films have occurred as pre-history to this one. The accepted, but not official theory, is Superman left to look for his home world of after Superman II. In some ways this might be true, in other ways it makes no sense. I'm all for the pre-history to this film remaining vague so previous events can be created to service any particular future film. The main one being whether he's battled Zod or not.

The single, best thing about Superman Returns is the realisation of Superman: it is grand, mythical, well acted and, to be honest, beautiful. This realisation is a combination of modern special effects, costume design, sets, direction and Brandon Routh. The sequence during which Superman rescues a plane after a failed shuttle launch is inspired, exciting and visually stunning right down to Superman applying the 'flying breaks' only just managing to bring the plane to a controlled 'stop', holding it by the nose and lowering it to the ground. Brilliant. It is iconic stuff, a visual feast and truly comic book imagination put into motion on the cinema screen. It's as good as the Spider-Man 2 battle on the train. While the rest of the scenes aren't as big in scale or as fluid in motion, every time Superman appears, whether flying down the street to cheers or listening for emergencies in upper orbit, the film goes up a significant notch.

Now, Brandon Routh, he's probably got some flack, but I think it was a good performance. It was obvious the intention was to provide a level of continuity from Christopher Reeve (that strange continuance from the previous films again). At the same time, I thought Routh's performance was different. It was different because he was playing Superman, not Clark Kent. He kept a core of the boy scout elements in his Superman performance but also added something else. It's hard describe, but it's something akin to an awareness of his God among men status, a confidence, and just a slight bit of arrogance and absolute comfort with his abilities. You get more of a feeling Superman hides behind Clark Kent in this film.

Sadly, the same can't be said about Lex Luthor, which is ironic considering he is the star actor of the piece and playing the villain to boot. It just falls flat. The main problem is Kevin Spacey goes for some sort of middle of the road performance playing it a bit angry and maniacal, but only a bit, and in other parts cool and calculated. An argument is it's understated. All well and good but it doesn't really stand out. The role is also diminished by the connection with Superman not being as intense as it could have been. It starts well, with Lex positioning himself as the man who despises Gods who keep their power to themselves, a modern Prometheus looking to 'steal the fire' of Superman, which would have worked well with the central question of whether the world needed Superman any more. This angle doesn't carry through the whole film. Truth be told, the iconic representation of Superman, confident in his power, strong in his belief people are crying out for him, further diminishes the Lex Luthor role. It just isn't a strong performance. The feeling of great enemies clashing just isn't present. The plot of the film isn't that great either, which probably doesn't help Lex Luthor as it diminishes his genius. The mad attempt to raise a Krypton Island just isn't that inspiring. It has an air of the first Christopher Reeve film about it with Lex almost getting on with his thing independently until the final quarter of the film.

The rest of the cast put in solid performances, though it is hard to accept Lois Lane as someone in her mid-twenties, I assume. She seems to have the level of respect and prestige of someone ten years older than her, the presumed age level of the characters from the original films. Strangely, this is less of a problem with Clark Kent and Superman, possibly because he appears a bit older, he's Superman and Clark Kent doesn't act like he's some sort of astounding reporter with a Pulitzer prize. I can understand the 'age issue' being necessary when looking at a franchise of three films which tends to age the actors by a decade at best.

As for Superman having a kid with Lois? I'm only half convinced (the kid himself being 5!). I thought the approach they took with neither Superman or Lois actually acknowledging it was interesting but it depends on how it goes in the future. The Superman in this film seems to accept his difference to humanity, so I'd rather it not involve too much family drama in subsequent films. It does provide a new dynamic to the relationship with Lois, which is probably necessary, considering the familiarity of the Superman-Lois-Kent dynamic. It could be a train wreck in future films or the defining element of a more complex relationship depending on how it's handled.

The film is carried completely by the grandeur of Superman and the majesty of him on the screen and the overall world he inhabits. What we need for Man of Steel is an adversary that can provide a conflict of epic proportions. This should have been possible with Lex Luthor, but this film didn't prove that. I want something off the scale.

Does the world need Superman? Of course, but I realise I may not be in the majority. It's just a pity the new franchise couldn't have gotten off to a bit more of a dynamic start and fallen into a three year cycle so Man of Steel could have been released this year and not in 2011.

As is usual these days, I'm a bit behind, but we finally saw The Incredible Hulk today, and it was pretty good. The Incredible Hulk is not only the second attempt at a Hulk film in recent times it's also the second film building up to The Avengers or Ultimates film 4-5 years away. It's quite an audacious 'project', though all the films on the run up stand up on their own apart from small references only comic fans will probably pick up and final scenes only a minute long suggesting a wider fabric.

Warning: Spoilers beyond this point.

The first thing I'd say is I thought the set-up of the film was really clever, using a Spider-Man II approach to summarise the origin story through the opening credits it quite cleverly got away without having to do a slow and typical origin story. How well the film works with people who aren't familiar with the comic, or at best the old TV series, I don't know, but for people like me, Louise and a core of people I know it was a good way to do it. It's so tired when the first superhero film in a potential franchise or a re-boot has to be the origin story.

Marvel seem to have managed to line up serious talent for these new batch of films, pulling people in who you wouldn't normally associate with superhero films. It's possible Spider-Man changed all that I guess. All the cast did a great job, if there was any fault it was that the script didn't really demand anything significant of them. As a result, you get good actors doing a good job in a pretty workman-like script. Edward Norton and Liv Tyler worked well together, though it has to be said an almost un-recognisable (I didn't see it anyway) William Hurt plays a second fiddle General Ross when compared to the portrayal by Sam Elliot. It's still going to be interesting to see all the principal actors together in an Avengers film though, assuming it all doesn't blow up in Marvel's face.

We do get a bit of a Captain America preview. The scenes we get with Blonsky empowered by the super-soldier drugs before he goes all Abomination are really good. I'm not a big fan of digital stuntmen and all that stuff, as it usually looks really bad, but they managed to show Blonsky doing all sorts of 'just on the edge of human potential' fighting against The Hulk while keeping it looking natural and fluid even when shot in a complete open space on a sunny day (or in a complete virtual environment, but if so a very good one). It was quite easy to transpose those scenes to include a man in red, white and blue and wielding a shield and it looks like the Captain America film could be pretty good. It was even the small things, like him just running faster than everyone else without it looking like a special effect, that really carried those elements. It also left you wondering what the real psychological reasoning was, other than being a 'typical film villain mad man', Blonsky had for throwing away his perfect, seemed to be working fine, human physique, for something akin to The Hulk?

The inevitable conclusion to the film is a superhero battle between two complete CGI creations, which is always risky. Despite it being a CGI affair I actually found the action component of the conclusion much more engaging than the Iron Man final sequences. This is surprising considering the Iron Man film had the benefit of real actors, it possibly shows how lame and how signalled the method of beating Iron Monger was. They managed to convey enough character, and to some extent emotion, in the Hulk's battle with The Abomination that it actually worked, especially once it moved to fighting and trying to ensure Betty Ross stayed safe at the same time. The use of the super-strength 'hand clap' to put out an explosion was particularly inspired. As was the idea that he gets stronger as he gets angrier, which was either present or not present depending on how you read read certain scenes.

The Incredible Hulk is very much like Iron Man before it, in that it's good, enjoyable but doesn't enter that bracket of being something more. It's never more than the some of its parts. In some ways it's better than Iron Man, in that it's overall structure is more even and the story feels more organic, while in other ways it isn't, largely the presence of Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark. It falls firmly into the 'new Marvel way', it's just a pity they can't make that small step and somehow capture that elusive lightning in a bottle of something greater.

It's possible the Captain America film may do that, though it's a challenging topic to undertake, if only because the director chosen could potentially be an inspired choice: Joe Johnston, the director of The Rocketeer, which is one of the most lavish and inspired, period piece 'pulp' films ever produced. It could be a work of genius, but we'll see in three years.

We watched two films lately that proved very traumatic to watch, for two completely different reasons. The first was Hostel. I knew what it was about, but in my usual I'll give anything a shot fashion we gave it a go. We didn't get to the end as while the torture scenes were quite intense, it wasn't as if they were framed with any great story or anything either. I just lost track of why I was subjecting myself to it? I've got no great moralistic bias against such product, but I can't help but question what people get out of the series? Being scared I can understand, I guess watching gut-wrenching torture I can't.

The other film was P.S. I Love You which was almost as traumatic. I say almost because we actually got to the end, but shit it was intense. I know, it's a 'chick flick', but I'm a romantic at heart and my 'no genre left behind' ethos means I have films I like in pretty much every genre. Well, possibly with the exception of the torture porn genre at the moment. If you've got a romantic or compassionate bone in your body, you will get severe muscle cramps from trying not to cry. I did anyway, I freely admit it. I mean okay, the romantic view of Ireland is a bit 'out of the brochure', and the quintessential, charming Irish husband played by Gerard Butler, is a bit silly, but for me it fell within the bounds of the romantic world being set-up. It's a genre, it has its conventions along with everything else. It was the rest of the cast that sold it though, particularly Hilary Swank. She has that quality that makes people naturally like her and as a result act as a canvass onto which you transfer all sorts of emotions related to what you would go through if your significant other died.

I suspect neither of us would send a series of letters to the other in an attempt to get them over their period of mourning, but then I'm hoping neither of us has the time to duly consider those things knowing they are dying either.

Traumatic. It was for me. I admit it.

Virgin Media have done their penny movie promotion again, and the first one to come around was Rambo. I always feel sorry for Sylvester Stallone, though he's probably loaded, the guy meanders about for a bit, and then writes and acts in Rocky which is, even today, a classic film. People forget a couple of things about Rocky: they forget he actually loses the fight in the first film, all he wanted to do was stay the distance, and it won numerous awards including the Golden Globe, BAFTA and Academy Award (Oscars) for Sylvester Stallone in both the lead actor and writing category. That's a third thing people forget, Sylvester Stallone wrote Rocky. While Rambo: First Blood wasn't as critically rewarded, it was a thinking man's action film, odd for the 80's. It was a bit ahead of its time being released six years before Die Hard.

Regrettably, despite that auspicious 'start', things just seemed to go downhill with a series of Rocky and Rambo sequels that got progressively worse (though Rocky II would probably appear on a top sequels list). He became a generic action movie star in the heyday when they ruled our cinema screens. Recently, he has found himself mining the old favourites and we've had both a sixth Rocky film and a fourth Rambo film, in both cases titled after their heroes.

The film Rambo can probably lay claim to two interesting records: the most people killed in 80 minutes of film (possibly), and it may also be the film whose lead has the least amount of lines. In fact, all Rambo's lines are simple sentences, with lots of scenes of silence and the only worthwhile line he comes out with is 'Live for nothing. Die for something', which is a pretty damned good line, it possibly could have been said in a better scene, but that about sums up the script for Stallone. A single gem of a line, not very well placed. The weird thing is, and possibly I'm a bit odd, it wasn't that the Rambo character didn't hold my interest even though he said very little. I admit it's weird.

The death count comes from the fact that the film is a bit old school, in that it takes an eighties action film approach to character death in one sense and a modern approach in another. This means hundreds of people die when the masses try and kill the heroes, but while in the eighties this was done relatively cleanly, now it happens with limbs flying, blood spurting and people exploding into pieces. It is quite visceral, and probably more realistic, but it is a strange experience. This death count doesn't include the scene with a jury-rigged trap that seems to destroy the jungle fifty meters in every direction.

You know what's even stranger? I actually enjoyed all the very brief 80-minutes of it. It's not something I'd repeat, or buy on DVD, but there was something remarkable simplistic, visceral and slightly old school about it that meant I actually enjoyed it. Weird.

They should have used the iconic music from Rambo II though.

I did have high hopes for Hellboy II, as the original Hellboy was good in a 'show the potential' sort of way. The trailer was also very good, parading in front of us all the gloriously realised 'secret world' of Hellboy in Pan's Labyrinth glory. The trouble is, I'm not sure Hellboy II, the gorgeous costumes, puppets, prosthetics and make-up aside is actually that much better than the first one and remains a bit average.

Warning: There are spoilers beyond this point.

The main problem with Hellboy II is sets up a couple of themes and conflicts but doesn't really deliver on them in any great, emotional way, they just sort of meander around. It's like all the points are there, but you never get the pay off. The point seemed to be one of acceptance for being different and linked to this humanities penchant for destroying things we don't understand. Hellboy sets off to 'come out' to the public, and this, along with the reaction of the populace, is contrasted with the plight of the Elves and Prince Nuada's quest to destroy humanity for their treatment of his race. It's a great idea, but it never gets the attention necessary to deliver in any significant way. It feels wasted and some pivotal moments and decisions are supposed to have weight and meaning, such as Liz deciding to 'resurrect' Hellboy despite the abstract consequences that have little impact on this film, but they come across as artificial, you know they are supposed to be meaningful because you're aware of the conventions, but you don't feel it in the moment.

One of the reasons for the watering down of the central theme of the film is probably the fact the film is essentially a romantic comedy. You have the on going romance between Liz and Hellboy as well as the rather hastily dealt with relationship between Abe Sapien and Princess Nuala. The relationship between Abe and Nuala is another example of understanding the emotional context and weight of decisions due to convention, but again not actually feeling it in any way. If you throw in the slapstick comedy, such as the scene in which Johann Krauss beats up Hellboy with some locker doors it just seems to drain away and compete with any more serious theme the film is trying to run with.

The characters also suffered from being incorrectly weighted. I found the introduction of Johann Krause an unnecessary distraction. I found Ron Perlman as Hellboy to be a bit irritating and boring, he just seemed to lack the natural charisma of the first film, not sure why. It was Selma Blair as Liz Sherman and, rather oddly, Luke Goss as Prince Nuada that captivated me throughout the two hours. The film would have even been less interesting with their absence. I'd even go as far to say the plight of the Elves was more interesting than the dynamics within BPRD. In fact, the scene with Prince Nuada facing his people, his father and his sister and still deciding to follow through on his mad quest is one of the few scenes that actually delivered on its dramatic intent.

I suspect the main problem with Hellboy II is while the original came from almost nowhere and batted above it's weight, Hellboy II had higher expectations attached to it, and even made use of 'connections' to the highly regarded work of Pan's Labyrinth, and as such it feels like it didn't live up to its potential, rather than exceeding it. It could also be said Hellboy II set up better and bigger conflicts, and then failed to deliver on those adequately. Still, it's an okay film, I probably wouldn't watch it again or get it on DVD.

At times you just want to watch a bit of trash. You're not looking for anything profound, deep or enlightening, just a bit of entertainment. It was like when I went to the cinema and watched The Core and The Recruit and came away more entertained by The Core. There is nothing wrong with a bit of grandiose commercial fiction. It was on this basis I watched Stealth, which we recorded a few nights ago.

The premise of Stealth is simple. You have three top pilots, expertly split across demographic lines by being Ben Gannon (the white male played by Josh Lucas), Henry Purcell (the black male played by Jamie Fox) and Kara Wade (the white female played by Jessica Biel), who are flying three new super planes called Talons. Obviously, Ben is falling in love with Kara but they don't want to ruin each other's careers. The drama kicks in when the team go to an aircraft carrier to conduct further tests and are introduced to their fourth member: an AI plane. As can be predicted the AI plane goes wrong, people die (and true to form the black guy dies first). Obviously there is attempts to cover it all up by their commander Captain George Cummings (played by Sam Shepard, re-doing his Black Hawk Down performance).

I suspect the reason I found Stealth interesting was because the trailers actually under sold it. Stealth is actually better than its trailers. The trailer sells the film on the basis of the AI plane going wrong and the 3 pilots having to hunt it down in a desperate battle to the death. This never actually happens, and the plight of the pilots and the AI plane takes a different route. While the film is a pretty standard, by the numbers affair, it's a bit more varied than the pilot suggests and provides the odd mildly interesting turn.

I'm not going to buy it on DVD and watch it repeatedly or anything, but it held my interest and I enjoyed the two hours I spent watching it. If all else fails you've always got Jessica Biel's ass.

"Other reservations: shouldn't Nolan, marvellous as his directing here is, be creating original films rather than rebooting and retooling franchise fare? Why can't Hollywood put a tenth as much of the craft and vim into its average releases as it does into what is ultimately only a superhero movie?"

-- Sukhdev Sandhu (on The Dark Knight)

I'm afraid comments like this always annoy me, as it always seems to be saying that 'just because' the story is told through the lense of people dressing up to fight crime, it is naturally a less worthy effort. There is no reason why it has to be any less of a worthy effort, due to its genre, than a movie about gay cowboys.

Now, that's not to say I don't understand a lot of supehero movies might be, just that I don't believe in the definitive causality between one (the genre) and the other (the vague artistic quality being eluded to, as if talent is wasted).

I naturally start thinking of two words in these situations, one beginning with a P the other with a W. It smacks of people, hell it is people, suggesting that great talent is being wasted on something trivial. But who are they to say that? I'm pretty sure Christopher Nolan has signed up for three movies on the basis he thinks it's artistically worthwhile and not a waste of his efforts.

I've not seen the film (that has to wait until the next Orange Wednesday slot), it's more the point of principle I disagree with.

Jumper is a film about people who can teleport. That was pretty much all I knew about it beyond the fact it had Hayden Christenson, Jamie Bell, Rachel Bilson (though I mostly knew her as the girl from The O.C) and Samuel L Jackson in. I have a strange, irrational dislike for Jamie Bell. If you throw in the fact Samuel L Jackson, despite being well regarded, seems to pimp himself out to any old crap, things didn't look good.

I don't think it would have taken much to make a pretty solid film out of Jumper, something that would have been entertaining and a good way to spend a couple of hours. Keep the small town boy who loves the more beautiful small town girl. Then have the boy become a man of the world and rich due to his ability to go anywhere in the blink of an eye. In his new found confidence he comes back for the girl, but in the process becomes known to another Jumper, who isn't as mentally stable (possibly jumping causes this) and they end up in a struggle of ideologies, the lovely small town girl being a pawn in this battle. If you got the actors right, and the dynamics of the struggle set-up correctly it could have been good, throw in neat teleporting battles in exotic locations and it'd have been perfectly entertaining.

Regrettably, Jumper wasn't this film of personal desires without limits and a battle between philosophies of excess and moderation, emotional bonds and unlimited freedom, stability versus madness. It was just a bit of a confused mess.

I suspect Jumper is based on a comic or graphic novel I know nothing about, it has that sort of air. Despite being based on source material that is probably relatively simple, it manages to make things seem unnecessarily obscure. We seem to have Jumpers, who are hunted by Paladins, but truth be told you don't really care as the Paladins are an odd bunch you never really understand. They seem to be religious fanatics going by their name and Samuel L Jackson's few lines on the reason why he hunts them down. They are a cypher beyond that, more time being given to the strange weapons they use to keep Jumpers in one place. Of course, the main character's mother is a Paladin, though this isn't well integrated into the story, and serves little purpose as a mystery or as an emotional anchor. Nothing is integrated though, it all feels pretty random, like the name of the film it jumps about a bit despite the fact it should have been relatively simple.

It's other fault is it's just silly, and this is from me, a person who will overlook anything as long as the character relationships are engaging. Apparently, in the world of Jumper every door magically opens just because you are on the other side of it! Strangely, I thought in most cases you'd just be on the other side of a locked door. Jamie Bell is almost un-intelligible, and I'm British, I'm sure the US audience only understood about 20% of the stuff that came out of his mouth. He also seems to have a death wish as he spends his time fighting Paladins but you don't really know why. He also seems pretty reckless, a bit like the Wolverine of teleporting heroes, in that he teleports vehicles twice that have occupants in (it's hard to believe the bus was empty), and in the second case the innocent driver does seem to get crushed. This would be fine if anything was made of it, such as it being a point of conflict between the two teleporters, but it's just done for visual flare.

Ultimately the film was going along the following lines: small town boy has teleporting powers and loves small town girl, he meets up with another 'superhero' and they decide to work together against the 'evil organisation' when his small town girl friend is used as a pawn. Small town boy's mother is also part of the evil organisation. It shouldn't have been as bad as it was, but the relationship between small town boy and girl didn't engage. They didn't really use the fact small town boy's mother was a 'bad guy' at all. The 'other superhero' was annoying. The only thing they really got right was the inclusion of a fight between the two superheroes over a disagreement of how to finish off the 'evil organisation', though it wasn't spectacular.

Overall, it was pants, despite the fact there was a number of themes and conflicts in the film, they just didn't use them coherently. Luckily, it is only on 84-minutes long so you don't lose too much.

The central premise of Hancock is interesting: place a Superman-scale superhero in the modern world, give him the psychological failings we all share, and let the political and legal issues of the real world play out. It's not a deep study of this premise, but it does play with the idea to give us some humour and sound drama. Initially, the film is set-up to play out this premise quite predictably, with an altruistic PR guy getting the drunk Hancock to go to jail for his property damage and from their engineer a rise to superhero status and gain acceptance. Along the way we learn the mystery of Hancock's origin, which is he woke up in a hospital 80 years ago, with no memory, and his abilities. The idea also takes an interesting turn about halfway through the film, which alters the tone and style established in the trailers and the first half.

The acting talent in the film delivers the goods, but then the film does have Will Smith (an Oscar Nominee) and Charlize Theron (on Oscar Winner), which in itself was probably an indication the comedy nature of the trailers wasn't all of the film. They both do excellent jobs, specifically Will Smith who I think holds you to his performance with his usual aplomb. It was Will Smith who assured the first part of I Am Legend was thoroughly enthralling, and in a similar way it's Will Smith who makes Hancock enthralling on which the majority of the film relies, specifically the first half.

Ultimately Hancock is good, interesting and well worth seeing. If I was forced to watch Hancock or Iron Man all weekend it'd be a hard choice. If there is a slight disappointment with it, it's the fact it could have been amazing. Why? Well, that demands some spoilers.

Warning: There are spoilers beyond this point.

The change in the film comes quite abruptly after Hancock has established himself as a hero, at the point in which you expect a major enemy to show up to challenge the now established hero. Instead we find out, rather surprisingly, that Charlize Theron's character is also a superhero. It's a surprise, because Will Smith and Charlize Theron's portrayal of their character's up to this point suggested the likely outcome was an affair, the fallout serving to challenge Hancock's relatively new altruism. Their portrayals happen also happen to be compatible with the truth of them both being immortals, created in pairs, destined to be lovers and who have lived over the millennia. It's at this point the film moves completely away from its comedic elements, and plays a bit with the idea of a race of Gods among men, a sort of modern mythology. Regrettably, it only touches upon this enough to establish the dynamics, such as them becoming mortal when together (so they can find happiness through mortality), how old they are, and brief information on their past periods together, etc.

As I've stated above, it's this element that, ironically, keeps Hancock from being a really great film, as you can't help but feel this shift in the film's focus wasn't capitalised on as well as it could be. While it's great it happened and it really drove the film forward, they could have done more with it. It contrasts interestingly with I Am Legend, which played with a similar dynamic, changing the nature of the film at a key point in the narrative. In the case of I Am Legend it resulted in a very good first half or two-thirds and a weaker final segment. In the case of Hancock the two segments are more equal in quality (despite being different), but I feel a better management of when the transition took place and the second half's content could have made it a very strong contender in the superhero genre.

It does set Hancock up for a potentially fantastic sequel, which if done well could blaze a trail across the superhero landscape. This in itself would be an achievement, creating a superhero franchise without using an established property. The Marvel franchises seem to be catering to their comic fan-base and producing good, but not outstanding films these days (Spider-Man 2 aside), while focusing on continuity. The need to push the envelope seems to being left to others. A Hancock sequel further mining the acting talent, focusing on the potential depth of the mythology surrounding the ancient heroes could really break out the franchise. Just think about it? All they have to do is an additional 'God among men' they thought was dead, and develop the triangular relationship, the nature of whether they should serve or rule and give that battle a sense of history (even with some historical scenes) and then you could have something spectacular that gives the rogues gallery of radioactive spider-bitten and advanced armour-creating heroes a run for their money. Superman II for the new millennium (and after seeing that film a few months back, it hasn't aged well).

I hope Hancock gets a sequel, and I really hope they manage to make it the mythical powerhouse it deserves to be. They wouldn't even have to drop the humour completely to achieve it.

Well, not literally everything, as that would be beyond a blog post, and deep down we already know the answer is 42. It's a micro-theory to everything, with it's own boundaries, and those boundaries roughly equate to things like role-playing games, fiction, other hobbies and careers. What? Heh?

Okay, I've discussed approaches to role-playing games I favour numerous times here. I've also discussed what other people seem to like and the degree to which I understand them, enjoy them or don't get them at all. Away from this blog the role-playing group has also done the same to one degree or another and it certainly manifests in the games we play and they way they are delivered and the degree to which each of us enjoys them. That's been on-going for a while, but then comes a trigger event, or two trigger events. The first one was one of my responses to a member of the gaming group when commenting on the Building and Crafting Shit entry and the second trigger was my current MBA studies.

Basically, before the second trigger, which happened today, I wrote how the way I approached role-playing games is influenced or dictated by almost every other aspect of my life. The core element being a love of fiction and dramatic stories. I find meaning and enjoyment in them due to the choices people make and the relationships they form. I tend to favour life affirming or choice affirming stories. I tend to see life as a story with it's own dramatic decisions, consequences and ups and downs. I very much see elements of my job as dramatic fiction. It's not that I live in a fantasy world, I'm not insane and I'm well grounded, but major business change, how organisations work and projects are to me moments or constructs of great drama with their own architects and decisions that can, in big or small ways, swing success. The common element of all this is people, with their own influences and stories, all making decisions. I see it this way and I think it helps me manage such things significantly, as it leads to understanding, a great willingness to listen, a healthy dose of foresight in terms of what issues are going to come up, concerns people will have and leading it all through to a conclusion. The fact I believe I can influence, change and lead in such circumstances is also an influence. Hence I see my role-playing games as grand dramas in which people make meaningful, and fateful choices, the joy of the role-playing game is I can succeed or fail and both are good (which isn't often the same in your career).

The second indicator was fascinating, as up until now I thought my way of viewing such things wasn't so much unique, but possibly something that would seem slightly deluded if ever mentioned among my contemporaries (or as an answer to a work / life question in an interview). I've read numerous things on Organisational Behaviour recently, one of those was the opening sections of Organisational Behaviour by Andrzej A. Hyczynski and David A Buchanan. In the opening section it defends their approach to naming pieces of fiction to read for information on organisational behaviour. That was excellent, as while it put in other ideas, it was to a great degree, an affirmation of my thoughts that I've gone through my career with.

All this has sort of been discussed by the role-playing group before, though in my experience more the ex-Iron DM and myself, though it may well have been more rampant I just wasn't involved. As an example, the individual careers of the role-playing group and how that influences or has influenced the delivery of role-playing games? As an example, the Call of Cthulhu game at Cottage Con II had some elements of a training session, some elements got stolen to be used again even. The Iron DM's games have in the past tended to be broad stroke, big picture, grand scheme affairs potentially related to his marketing background.

Another has an amazing eye for detail (be it rules, setting colour or potential conflicts), and being able to use that detail even when he's being spontaneous, it has been suggested this is linked to his career as a lawyer, which involves incredible amounts of detail and being able to apply that detail even in unplanned situations. I believe we are all moving on and changing how we do things, so these things move, but the influences are true.

A similar case can be made for how different people approached the MMO experience. As an example, one member of the role-playing group is always focused on conflict avoidance, and it's suspected this is related to his team leader and training career. This makes him interested in the social and guild building element of the MMO genre, it also means when faced with a dramatic choice in a role-playing game he'll seek the road of least conflict and most compromise, even if this can be an effective avoidance of the decision. In difference, I'll choose one conflict laden option or other based on often having to make decisions that can't please everyone at work and the fact in a role-playing game I can't lose (while at work I could) and it makes good fiction either way. Different stokes.

Personally, I can see my career influencing how I approach things. I tend to feel the need to have a model in my head for how the session might go. This isn't necessarily a highly structure plot, but more a model of what the overall point is and what might happen. Until I have this model and purpose it hasn't clicked. I need to understand. Then in actual delivery I can take on the mantle of grand presentation, in terms of setting scenes and trying to sell the grand, action-based, dramatic nature of it all. Whether I do it well is another question and depends on a number of factors, some unique to the day. This is no doubt related to my job, which is part sales, whether products, strategies or ideas and change. It sounds bad here, like some mad sales man at the gaming table, it's not that bad, it's just you can see how the concepts are shared. The fact my job is often a mad mixture of the detail (project management, business analsis) and sales, concept and change (project management, relationships and change, etc) probably also explains some of my gaming preparation dichotomies.

In a way this was the point of the Building and Crafting Shit blog entry, as I'm constantly fascinated with the reason why people like the things they do, do things in the way they do, etc. As understanding that is always interesting, and useful, even if you sometimes don't like the answer.

In closing I'd like to say I've always thought my hobbies have been directly applicable to my career, and I still thank they are. I've always thought my career had a direct influence on my hobbies, and I still think they do. They are reflections and share a philosophy of life in a way. This in turn is a product of my fiction-focused life from a young age (be it novels or TV shows). What's interesting is to find it affirmed in an MBA text, as now this will be one of numerous ways in which my attitude to things has already been changed in a number of small ways.

I apologise now if I've mis-represented anyone who recognises themselves in this post. No offence was intended.

Thankfully, on Orange Wednesday this week we saw two films, not just one. While it meant we didn't leave the cinema until after midnight, we'd have been very disappointed if all we'd seen was the new Indiana Jones film. The other film we went to see was Sex and the City, and it was excellent.

It's been a while since I've been to the cinema on the opening night of a popular film, so it was a bit of an experience. At first we didn't think we'd get to see both as Sex and the City was already sold out when Louise checked the website in the morning. Luckily, they decided to put a second showing on and this sold out as well. We had to actually queue. I've never seen so many women in one place for some time. I think there was a handful of men in the queue, and probably most of them had come under duress. Have to admit, I wanted to see the film, as I loved the series, but then one could easily label me as one 'gayest straight men' in existence.

Sex and the City is the exact apposite to Indiana Jones, in that the everyone involved in the film is still very much in touch with what Sex and the City is about. They are so secure in themselves they don't try to do a 'to the max' version, or take the piss, they just deliver a well written slice of Sex and the City. At nearly two hours and twenty minutes long it's almost 5 episodes thrown together, but it works really well and you get a mini-season focusing on the lives of the four characters three years later (I think). It was funny, sad, romantic, life affirming and just a joy to watch.

It was interesting to note that not all of the characters came out equally. It was obviously Sarah Jessica Parker's film, as she had the strongest plot and it was the central focus of the film. This is to be expected. Cynthia Nixon probably got the second strongest followed by Kristin Davis and Kim Cattrall running up the rear. I'd say Kim Cattrall got the worst deal, but then the conclusion of the series was particularly strong for her, very strong, so her characters was probably the hardest to write for 'post-ending'. This is more an observation than a criticism.

If you liked the series, then you'll like the film. If you never watched the series I still think it's a good film. In fact, there was a lot of young women in the queue who must have been 12-15 when the show finished and something like 6 when it started on TV, so it's obviously spanning generations.

I don't think there was a dry eye in the house. Apart from me, of course. Honest. I will freely admit to it taking the constitution of an Ox to avoid it though.