X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009) - Gavin Hood

Another month, another superhero movie. It’s getting a little tedious at this stage. The big names, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men have all been done. And yet, in an attempt to squeeze another few pennies out of a dying genre, the big studious continue to wheel out these movies. Sure, some are entertaining. Some are even genre-defying. And then, you have films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. An attempt to set up a franchise spin-off from another franchise. Seriously, Fox should just rename these films Cash Cow: Wolverine. Gavin Hood attempts to give us the mysterious back-story to X-Men’s most iconic character, Wolverine.

We all know Wolverine. The nigh-invulnerable, adamantium-boned, claw-slasher. As the anti-hero of the X-Men, he is inevitably the most popular character. But his past is shrouded in mystery. He’s a product of the Weapon X program. Where he’s come from is unknown. But in this film, which is essentially a 2-hour flashback, the missing pieces are put into place. We see kiddie Wolverine, born sometime in the mid-nineteenth century. After a disaster involving his father, Wolverine and his half-brother, Victor, also known as Sabretooth wander the earth, getting involved in the American Civil War, both World Wars, Vietnam until their both recruited into a special ops program run by William Stryker. After a crisis of consciousness, Wolverine leaves the program to lead a quiet life with his girlfriend. But things don’t quite work out when Sabretooth returns to kill Wolverine’s gal and draw him out of hiding. Wolverine agrees to take part in Stryker’s Weapon X program in return for a chance at revenge.



I liked X-Men. I liked X-Men 2. The third film was a dreadful piece of shit, thanks to Fox’s interference in production and a hack director in Brett Ratner. So hopes were high that this film would restore some of the magic that made the first two X-Men films very enjoyable. Oh, how misplaced our hopes were. To put it simply, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a complete disaster of a film. At every level of the production, the film is a failure. The script is a complete and utter mess. Characters are never fully realised or fleshed out. For a film that explores what makes established characters act and think the way they do, there is very little character development. From the moment the opening titles began, I knew the film was in trouble. But the script is not the only problem.

The production itself is quite shockingly poor. The CGI, which is an essential part of these big-budget special effects fests, is jaw-droppingly bad. At moments, I found myself really asking if what I was watching was a complete film or had the cinema I was in been slipped a copy of the workprint that was leaked to the world. I am not kidding when I say that the CGI in this film is some of the worst I’ve ever seen. At one point, Wolverine is examining his newly adamantium-clad claws in a bathroom. The effects are so bad that the claws look like cartoons. In other moments, they float over Wolverine’s hands where they’re supposed to be protruding from his hand. It’s incredibly sloppy.

The direction is piss-poor. Gavin Hood may have some small amount talent for doing drama, as seen in Rendition. However, if X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a showcase of his abilities for doing big budget, high concept actioners, he shouldn’t be allowed behind the camera again. Scenes are badly composed, action sequences are horribly shot, and the editing is all over the place. At one point, Wolverine knocks Gabit out with a punch. Literally seconds later, Gambit is sprinting across a roof and leaps off, only to land back where he’d just been punched, without any explanation as to how or why he got back onto the roof in the first place. That’s just one is a long laundry-list of badly executed scenes.



The acting in the film isn’t the worst part of the production. Hugh Jackman is pretty comfortable in the Wolverine role, and when he has things to do, he does them well. Otherwise, he wanders about looking dour and waiting for things to explode behind him. It’s unfortunate for Jackman that he’s left with a god-awful script to work with. Liev Schreiber, also a good actor, is given very little to do as Sabretooth. Turn up, growl and leap about. Not exactly a challenging role. Everyone else is barely worth mentioning. Except for Will I Am. Note to future filmmakers- rappers do not make good actors.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is terrible. It is a terrible, awful, disaster of a film. The number of awful superhero movies vastly outnumbers the good. Maybe it’s time to cease the genre and allow maybe one or two superhero movies come along every few years. Maybe when the scripts are polished, the productions are planned properly and the studios allow creatives to control the making of the film. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a prime example of a badly executed attempt to cash in on a popular property. It’s just a shame further films from this dying franchise are already in production.


3/10

WATCHMEN (2009) - Zack Snyder

In 1986, writer Alan Moore and illustrator Dave Gibbons unleashed Watchmen upon the world. It would change the face of comic books and become the first comic that was hailed by the literary world. Since that time the idea to adapt the book into a film has been bandied about Hollywood. Directors such as Terry Gilliam, Darren Aaronofsky and Paul Greengrass were all attached to direct at different points. The project was considered unfilmable. But two years ago Zack Snyder, fresh off 300, decided to give it a shot.

Watchmen is a deconstruction of the superhero concept. In an alternate version of US history, superheroes emerge in the 1940’s, fighting crime in the US. The superhero phenomenon continues into the 1970’s when the government, led by Richard Nixon, outlaws masked vigilantes. In 1984, a former superhero, The Comedian, is murdered by an unknown assailant. Rorschach, a former colleague of The Comedian’s, and still operating covertly, takes it upon himself to solve the case. But his investigation reveals a plot to eliminate all former Watchmen. Meanwhile, the US edges closer and closer to a nuclear war with the USSR. And only Dr. Manhattan, the only superhero with superhuman powers can stop nuclear Armageddon.



Watchmen has been the holy grail of adaptations for comic book fans. The community was split as to whether the book could be successfully adapted into a film. It is an incredibly dense work and the thought was that there is no way such a convoluted story could be boiled down into a 2 and a half hour film. And... those who said it couldn’t be filmed... were right. Watchmen is a heroic failure. There are elements of greatness in it. But overall, the flaws are too apparent and take away from what could have been the ultimate comic book movie.



To be fair to those behind the cameras, their job of bringing Watchmen to the big screen was monumental. As I’ve said, the book is incredibly dense. It reads more like a novel than a comic book. And a novel that is thick with plot, exposition and character development. The story unravels at a very measured pace, and this is lost in Zack Snyder’s adaptation. The film seems to strip the story of it’s very essence and delivers version of the story that seems to have missed the point. Snyder does attempt to cover all bases, and I think this is where things become unstuck. He does a good job of delivering the back story to Doctor Manhattan. And his adaptation of the Rorschach is the strongest part of the film. Largely thanks to a brilliant performance from Jackie Earle Haley. But the story isn’t just exposition. There is a plot. And while this plot works in the confines of the book, it is just lost on film.

But the structure and plot development aren’t the only slip-ups in the film. While Jackie Earle Haley really excels as Walter Kovaks/Rorschach, and Billy Crudup is great as Doctor Manhattan (for a guy who’s essentially a CGI creation for the majority of the film), the rest of the cast falls rather flat. There is little chemistry between Patrick Wilson, playing Nite Owl II and Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre. And this is a huge problem, as their story is integral to the dissection of the superhero mythos. And Matthew Goode, who plays Ozymandias, is terrible. He mumbles all his lines and floats about like a prat. Some of the make-up effects also seem pretty poor for such a high-budget film.



One of the surprising things about the film is that it’s gratuitously violent. I understand that this is to jazz proceedings up a little. The source material is very character driven and not thick on the action. But it’s window-dressing and does little but distract from the flaws. It’s a shame really. The story really is brilliant. And, as mentioned by a friend of mine, would have made for a really excellent mini-series. But as it is, two and a half hours just isn’t enough time to fit all the complexities of the story into one film. It’s a fundamental flaw and cannot be overlooked. To leave out elements of the story just makes everything seem rushed and stripped of it’s brilliance. Snyder does his best. And when he gets it right, he really does nail it. But unfortunately, these moments are rare. Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach is definitely the highlight and makes you long for the film to focus on him. But alas, it’s not to be. And with an edit that is 40 minutes longer, you just don’t imagine that the film can get any stronger. A failure. But an admirable attempt.


5/10

HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY (2008) - Guillermo Del Toro

Guillermo Del Toro is an interesting case in the annals of Hollywood. He’s an arty, independent director who works in his native Spanish language. But on the other hand, he makes big-budget Hollywood spectaculars. And yet both aspects to his career make plenty of money and garner critical acclaim. It’s a good thing then, that Del Toro sticks to his artistic principles and never seems to compromise just to get the films he’s making done. Take Hellboy, for example. Nobody would have thought that casting Ron Perlman as the central character would work. But Del Toro, and Hellboy creator, Mike Mignola did. And they were right. Hellboy didn’t set the box-office alight, but it was a modest hit. And did well enough to warrant a sequel, Hellboy II: The Golden Army.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army picks up where the previous film left off. In the opening few minutes we see Hellboy as a kid, watching Howdie Doody before he’s put to bed with a story telling of the creation of the Golden Army, a force created by Elves to destroy human kind. Young Hellboy assures himself it’s just a story. Years later, the prince of the Elves, Prince Nuada returns from exile to wage war on the humans once again. He wants to control the Golden Army, but his father and sister resist him. Far be it for Nuada to let a family squabble get in the way. He kills his father. His sister goes on the run with the last piece of the crown that will allow him control over the Golden Army. Meanwhile, Hellboy is having a rough time while working for The Bureau for Paranormal Research and Development. He’s having a rough time with his girlfriend, Liz Sherman. The Bureau want to tighten control on Hellboy, while he craves attention and fame. And with Prince Nuada making things difficult for everyone, Hellboy’s life is about to get a whole lot more complicated.



Hellboy is one of those franchises that flies under the radar. It’s never going to have the success of Batman or Spiderman films. But at the same time, the quality of the films is as good as the higher profile films. Guillermo Del Toro’s flair for the visual does give the Hellboy films something over it’s rivals. The films are packed with crazy and inventive monsters and creatures. Del Toro’s fascinated by visually stimulating media and draws inspiration from everything from Goya paintings to fairy tales and it’s because of this that his films are so fascinating to watch. Pan’s Labyrinth was one of Del Toro’s most personal films. But at the same time, Hellboy II, despite it being a Hollywood blockbuster, retains a lot of the personality of Pan’s Labyrinth.

While Hellboy II deals with the fantastical, the character of Hellboy also has to deal with personal issues. He’s hungry for fame, but finds himself the subject of ridicule when he gets the fame. He’s in love with Liz Sherman, but he’s also responsible for the breakdown in the relationship. And he’s got a huge problem with his temper. So while on the face of it, Hellboy II is a big spectacle film, it also has a personal side. Having said this, the story is the weakest part of the film. A personal side to these films is what gives them the edge over brainless blockbusters. But the spectacle must be huge. And for some reason, Hellboy II just doesn’t seem big enough. I know this seems like a contradiction, but there was just something lacking in the film that made it feel bigger than the screen.



Ron Perlman seems to have been born to play Hellboy, and here, he’s once again great as the big Red one. He’s certainly tough enough. But he’s also got the comedy edge to Hellboy down, and is always entertaining. Doug Jones plays a number of characters in the film, but mostly Hellboy’s colleague and friend, Abe Sapien. Jones is a Del Toro regular and he’s amazing in the monsters he embodies. His movements are unique to each character, and you really just don’t think it’s a human creating these characters. Jones also gets to use his own voice for Sapien, this time. In Hellboy, Sapien was voiced by David Hyde Pierce. Luke Goss, yes, him from Bros, plays the villain, Prince Nuada. Goss does pretty well in the role, which, for a villain, isn’t entirely unsympathetic. He’s got a beef, but it stems from injustice in the past. Del Toro’s writing makes the character interesting, but Goss manages to pull the role off, despite some dodgy acting in the past. The rest of the cast, Selma Blair, Jeffrey Tambor, fill out the roles you’d come to expect from a film of this kind, but none really stand out. It’s just up to Perlman to do his thing, and he does it well.



While Hellboy II: The Golden Army won’t usurp The Dark Knight as the best comic book movie of the summer, it’s definitely very entertaining. The visual side of the film is fascinating, and the monsters are brilliantly designed. It’s not the greatest story in the world, but it’s funny, exciting and very entertaining. With Del Toro’s visual flair, and Peter Jackson working with him on the script, The Hobbit looks like a pant-wettingly exciting prospect. Hellboy II: The Golden Army is gives us a taste of what will come.


8/10

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) - Christopher Nolan

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months, the marketing for Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight has been gaining frantic momentum. The film finally got it’s release in the last week. The Dark Knight is the sequel to 2005’s Batman Begins, the film that resurrected the franchise after it was beaten to a horrible neon death by Joel Schumacher. The film, and it’s sequel, take a whole different approach to the subject matter, aiming for films more grounded in ‘reality’ than the whole gothic approach established in Burton’s movies. And while it may be difficult, I’ll resist the urge to descend into hyperbolic fanboy ranting when I talk about the film.

The Dark Knight sees Batman dealing with the problems of escalation which he and Jim Gordon discussed at the end of Batman Begins. Crime in Gotham is taken to a whole new level when a character known only as The Joker begins his campaign to bring chaos to the order in Gotham. However, the new district atourney, Harvey Dent is Gotham’s shining knight. He’s incorruptible and determined to bring a new age to Gotham. Seeing this, Bruce Wayne begins to envision an end to his crusade. Gotham will no longer need a hero in him. They’ll have a public hero in Harvey Dent.



It’s very difficult to know where to begin with The Dark Knight. The thing that has people talking the most is Heath Ledger’s performance. A pretty vigorous campaign has been launched to see the actor at least nominated for an Academy Award. While I think that’s all rather stupid, I will admit, his performance is astonishing. I remember when he was cast, many people doubted the actor could pull it off. I did raise an eyebrow, but I maintained that Nolan knew what he was doing. And he certainly has proved the doubters wrong. Ledger’s Joker is quite unlike any comic book villain put to screen. Forget Nicholson’s now camp gay uncle Joker from 1989’s Batman. This Joker is formidable. He does get laughs, but the laughs for the most part are out of shock. Ledger spent a great deal of time becoming the character, and every nuance shows how deeply he immersed himself in the role.

And while Ledger is the face and body of the Joker, a great deal of credit must go to Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan for writing the character. What I found most interesting about their script is that when he’s off screen, even then the sense of malice created by the Joker lingers over proceedings. To that end, the point can be made that the Joker almost overshadows the entire film. Which, if treated incorrectly, could have spelled disaster for the movie. However, the Nolans’ writing is meticulous. Some people have complained that the film is too long. I couldn’t disagree more. It is long. But the pace is relentless. There’s plenty to cram in, and if I was to have one complaint about the film’s running time it would be that the inclusion of Two-Face was a little brief. Two-Face is, for me, is second only to the Joker as Batman’s most compelling villain. He was once a pillar of virtue who, through tragic events, turns to the dark side. He’s obsessed with chance, and this makes for a very compelling character. Aaron Eckhart, who plays Dent certainly delivers a compelling performance. He’s dynamic and energetic, but he also has an edge. An edge the Joker seems determined to exploit. It’s a shame Two-Face makes such a brief appearance, because Eckhart certainly makes him a character worthy of a film by himself.



On the other side of the coin (see what I did there?) we have Christian Bale and Gary Oldman returning as the good, Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jim Gordon. Something that was only touched upon in the last film was Bruce Wayne’s billionaire playboy lifestyle. In The Dark Knight, we get a better view of Wayne’s lifestyle. Bale delivers the goods here, certainly carrying across the cocksure attitude Wayne has developed to throw off suspicions that he is Batman. The Bat-voice is back again. It’s a little strong at the start of the film, but eases up and never becomes too much of a hindrance. Gary Oldman delivers the second best performance of the film. It’s a very understated performance, and it’s so subtle, it almost goes unnoticed. But Oldman’s presence is so integral to the success of the film that there would be a huge void were his character removed. In a film that’s jam packed full of larger than life characters, it’s a stand out performance to have someone so real as Gordon.

Nolan’s direction is meticulous. He stated that Michael Mann’s Heat was a great inspiration for The Dark Knight, and you certainly get that impression watching the film. As with Heat, the pace moves very quickly, with not one scene wasted with pointless exposition. As we’ve come to expect from Nolan’s films, there are some sleights of hand in the writing. Nolan seems to delight in misdirection, and it’s no different in this film. There are many themes touched upon in the film. Light and dark. The question of the goodness in human nature. At moments, the morality is with little subtlety. But the film never gets too heavy handed. It’s also a beautifully shot film. Wally Pfister has developed a relationship with Nolan since Memento, and their combined efforts make for a visually stunning piece of film. Special mention must be made for the score of the film. James Newton Howard’s themes return for the film, but this time Hans Zimmer completes the score. For the Joker, he uses one simple note played out on violins. It’s incredibly ominous, and just added to the menace of the Joker.



As a comic book film, The Dark Knight is without a doubt the finest comic book adaptation put to screen. The Batman animated series from the 1990s was one of the most faithful depictions of the character, and this film is as close to that series as you’re ever going to see. But the film transcends the pigeon holing that comes with the words ‘comic book movie.’ Sure, it’s a film about a guy who dresses up as a bat and hunts down a murderous clown. But it’s as good as any crime drama you’re likely to see. The hype surrounding Ledger’s Joker is not exaggerated. He is every bit as good as you’re hearing. He’s incredibly menacing, yet still humorous as you’d expect from the character. He’s the best thing about the very strong ensemble cast. There are a few elements I haven’t covered. The fact that we see Batman as a detective, the essence of what the Batman character is. Maggie Gyllenhaal’s performance as Rachael Dawes, which is vastly superior to Katie Holmes’ performance in Batman Begins. The superb chase through Gotham streets, one of the stand out action sequences not only in the film, but this year. But to cover these things would require another review by itself. The Dark Knight is incredibly entertaining and compelling. As well as being the best film of the summer it’s one of the best of the year. It’s the finest of all comic book films.


10/10

WANTED (2008) - Timur Bekmambetov

2008, the year of the comic book movie... although recently, every year has seemed to be the year of the comic book movie, marches on with another adaptation. Where as the bigger names, the Batmans, Iron Mans and Hellboys are more recognisable to the general public, Wanted, adapted from Mark Millar’s comic of the same name, will be less recognisable. It arrives with less of a fanfare than the other films mentioned, and doesn’t feature leather or rubber clad super humans. Instead, it’s a bit of a gun fetishist movie.

Wesley Gibson is an office-working drone with a cheating girlfriend, miserable apartment and a life that nobody would envy. He’s prone to anxiety attacks and apologises constantly for things that aren’t even his fault. One day he’s approached by a woman in a drug store. She tells Wesley his father was one of the worlds’ greatest assassins and that he is a marked man himself. Wesley is introduced to The Fraternity, an ancient brotherhood of assassins who take orders from fate and assassinate people in order to keep the world stable. Wesley is told he has inherited his father’s gifts and must use them to take his father’s place as one of the world’s top assassins.



Some comic book movies take themselves very seriously. Which works for them. Some are a bit camp, which fits in with some views of the comic medium. And then you have the films that are just about the action. And this is the category Wanted falls into. You really need to check your brain at the door, because there is nothing in the film that really needs any use of the old gray matter. It’s a film that’s all explosions and bullets. There are some real tongue-in-cheek humour moments and plenty of gore. As long as you’re aware of what you’re letting yourself in for, there’s plenty of enjoyment to be had from the film.

The plot of the film is pretty thin. Paper thin. It’s yet another origin story, but since there’s not much to the characters, the origins part is more like a training montage from the Rocky films. These characters don’t have super powers or fancy gadgets. What they do have, however, is a love for guns and bullets that is a little odd. The type of love a man should really reserve for his partner. Or a very fine pair of pants. But if you’ve seen the trailer, you pretty much know what to expect, so don’t complain about the lack of plot.



The performances are very much in tone with the plot. There’s little to do but provide mouths for dialogue and hands for guns. James McAvoy plays the weak Wesley quite convincingly, and can deliver the action parts when necessary. Although there’s little bare knuckle fighting to be done, he has two legs for running, a finger for pulling a trigger and he uses them well. Angelina Jolie has little to do but smirk, stand around and look sexy. She pretty much delivers that by turning up to the set, and when she’s required to deliver some action, she too has little problem. Everyone’s favourite mentor, Morgan Freeman plays Sloan, the leader of the Fraternity. I have a feeling Freeman did this one for the dollars, as it’s not exactly a taxing role. Although it’s worth the price of admission alone to hear the man who embodies gravitas say the line ‘kill this motherfucker.’

Director Timur Bekmambetov previously delivered the almost incomprehensible but visually entertaining Russian films Nightwatch and Daywatch. Those films were thick with visual style, and Bekmambetov delivers the same here. There are some moments that will either make you grin or roll your eyes. Some of the action sequences get a little confusing. But it’s a frenetic film and it makes no apologies for being that way. Really, Wanted is 2008’s 300. It’s absolutely nothing but testosterone and action. For some, that will fall far from the mark of a decent film. But if you accept the film for what it is, you’ll at least be entertained.


7/10

IRON MAN (2008) - Jon Favreau

The film adaptations of the many Marvel comics have certainly been a mixed bag. For every Spider-Man, there’s a Daredevil. For every X-Men 2, there’s an X-Men 3. At this stage, it’s difficult to judge which way each Marvel adaptation will go when it hits the big screen. Director Jon Favreau, who’s made some pretty decent indie flicks in (writing) Swingers and (writing/directing) Made takes a big gamble by making Iron Man, one of Marvel’s biggest franchises. Favreau has made some bigger-budget films in Elf and Zathura, but this is in a different league altogether. Is it a success?

Iron Man tells the story of Tony Stark; weapons-manufacturer, inventor, adventurer, philanthropist, womanising multi-billionaire. While Stark Industries produces some of the world’s most destructive weapons, Stark is unapologetic about the industry he’s a leader in. While on a weapons demonstration trip in Afghanistan, Stark is badly injured and captured by a group of terrorists who demand Stark builds them one of his patented Jericho missiles. Stark agrees. But instead of building the missile, Stark constructs a metallic, heavily armed suit of armour which he uses to break free from captivity. Stark then uses his experiences to become a super-hero who protect those he puts in harm’s way.



The summer blockbuster season (and man, what a season it’s shaping up to be) kicks off with this movie, and if it continues in the vein of Iron Man, then 2008 will be seen as a great year. Boiled down to it’s simplest format, Iron Man is a ‘beginnings’ movie, much like Marvel’s Spider-Man and DC’s Batman Begins. And while it’s far better than the arachnid movie, it’s not quite as good as the Bat. It’s a far lighter-hearted affair than Batman Begins, and maybe it’s because of that that it doesn’t quite trump that film. It just hasn’t the same gravitas as Bruce Wayne’s story. They’re similar in ways. Both are billionaires born into money. Both are inventors. Both have play-boy lifestyles. But where as Wayne uses his playboy image to deflect the media’s eye away from the possibility that he is Batman, Stark embraces the attention. Iron Man just doesn’t feel as deep as Batman Begins.



But I digress. Iron Man is a damn entertaining film. Robert Downey Jnr. Seems to be perfectly cast as Tony Stark. I must admit, I’m not overly familiar with the Iron Man comics. I know the basics of the character, and his eccentric ways, and knowing Downey Jnr.’s past, he seems like the perfect casting choice. He’s clearly relishing the role, and never seems out of place at any point. When he’s in the Iron Man suit, it’s pretty difficult to ‘act,’ but Favreau gives us shots of Stark inside the armour, and Downey Jnr. retains the cock-sure attitude at these moments without any problem. The always-entertaining Jeff Bridges plays opposite Robert Downey Jnr. as his business partner and eventual enemy, Obadiah Stain. Bridges chews up the scenery in nearly every role he plays, and he’s great opposite Robert Downey Jnr. Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrence Howard round off the main cast as Pepper Potts and Jim Rhodes, Stark’s PA and best friend. They provide pretty solid support, but they’re still second tier to Robert Downey Jnr.



The film’s not perfect, however. While origins films can suffer somewhat from getting through the ‘how x became y,’ back-story, they mustn’t fail to entertain. Iron Man builds for quite a while, and when the big showdown happens, for a while, it’s good fun. It’s a damn sight more entertaining than watching the Transformers wail on each other. But the showdown also ends pretty abruptly, and you’re left thinking ‘that’s it?’ And when there’s not that much in the way of emotional depth to the movie, it kind of leaves you thinking there’s something lacking. That’s the case here. I’m sure the Iron Man sequels will up the ante considerably. And if this movie is any indication, it’ll be spectacular. Iron Man is a far, far better movie than Spider-Man. But it falls just short of the depth of Batman Begins. But having said that, it’s a fine piece of entertainment, and a great way to kick the blockbuster season into life.


8/10

30 DAYS OF NIGHT (2007) - David Slade

The current Hollywood trend of translating comic books into movies shows no sign of slowing up with this month’s latest adaptation, 30 Days Of Night. The comic book in question doesn’t come from one of the two big publishers, Marvel and DC, instead it comes from smaller publisher, Dark Horse Comics. There are no superheroes in this film. Instead, the subject of this film are those pesky bloodsuckers who have seen plenty of screen time, vampires. Director David Slade, who previously brought the excellent Hard Candy to the screen, skilfully directs Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith’s comic with incredibly gory results!

The film is set in Barrow, Alaska, the northern most town in the United States. The thirty days of night in question are one month a year where the town is plunged into perpetual darkness, with no sunlight at all. As the sun begins to disappear behind the horizon, strange things start happening in the town of Barrow. On the case is Eben Oleson, the recently separated Sheriff of Barrow. While investigating the recent crimes, Sheriff Oleson comes across a trouble causing man who warns the Sheriff of impending doom for the residents of Barrow. The sun dips behind the horizon and hell is unleashed on Barrow as a group of vampires begin to devour the helpless residents. The struggle to withstand the thirty days begins for the survivors who have to rely on their wits to survive.



Comic book movies can be hit or miss. Horror can be very difficult to execute effectively. So it stands to reason that a horror comic should be extremely difficult and a near disaster. Certainly, since it’s release, 30 Days of Night has had it’s detractors. And admittedly, it isn’t perfect. The source material was pretty scant in terms of story. Sun goes down, vampires turn up, town is eaten, survivors struggle to survive. And in the hands of a director with less talent than Slade, the film could have suffered a helluva lot. As it is, 30 Days Of Night is one of the most entertaining horror movies of recent times. Slade’s previous film, Hard Candy consisted almost entirely of dialogue, which had to drive the narrative. The opposite is the case here, with dialogue taking back seat to spectacle. And Spade delivers with gusto.

The vampires in this movie are quite unlike the charming, poetic and graceful vampires from the likes of Interview with the Vampire. These vampires are horrific monsters. Vicious, blood-thirsty ghouls, hell-bent on devouring every last human in Barrow. And it’s the vampires that are the most interesting thing about 30 Days Of Night. When they’re not on-screen, you find yourself wishing they’d pop up again. When they do arrive, you find your skin crawling. And this is the success of the movie. The performances from all involved are pretty sound. Josh Hartnett, who usually makes a plank seem compelling actually puts in a solid performance as Sheriff Oleson. He and his estranged wife, Stella (played by Melissa George) have to rely on each other for survival and their relationship, while limited by the story is still interesting enough. The bad guys are the stars though, with Danny Huston chewing up the scenery (as well as the extras) as Marlowe, the lead vampire. Ben Foster puts in another deranged character performance as the stranger who heralds the arrival of the vampire horde.



30 Days of Night isn’t an incredibly taxing film. Nor should it be. It’s a film about a bunch of monsters eating the inhabitants of a small town. There doesn’t need to be much in the way of character development, except for setting the smorgasbord for the monsters. And this is how the film treats it’s characters. There’s plenty of violence and gore. And man alive, is it graphic. No punches are pulled, and the blood flows freely. In fact, there’s one scene that could qualify for one of the most gory in recent times. Those slightly squeamish should stay away!

David Slade did remarkably well with his first feature, and his sophomore effort is a very decent and highly entertaining horror. A genre that has suffered in recent times, it’s great to see something of quality on the big screen again. Don’t eat for an hour beforehand, disengage your brain, sit back and enjoy the spectacle. 30 Days of Night is a horror worthy of seeing.


8/10

SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007) - Sam Raimi

And so the first of the huge summer blockbusters arrives on our screens in the shape of everyone's favorite friendly neighborhood webslinger in Spider-Man 3. While I've never been such a massive fan of Spidey, I did enjoy director Sam Raimi's vision of Spider-Man in the first movie, and was thrilled by the much stronger second movie. The trailers for Spider-Man 3 looked extremely promising, and excitement up to release grew to the point of hysteria. And then the movie got it's release. Initial reports on Spider-Man 3 were sketchy, so I entered the theatre with a little trepidation. But I sat back and allowed for the fun to begin. Two hours and twenty minutes later, I fell out of the cinema in a stupor of shock brought on by what can only be described as one of the most tedious and disappointing films I've seen in quite a while! Where, oh where did it all go wrong?!

Spider-Man 3 opens with Peter Parker on a high. New York City is deeply in love with Spider-Man, his girlfriend Mary-Jane Parker makes her debut on Broadway and thoughts of marriage swim through Parker's head. Life is great. But forces begin to conspire against Spidey. Parker's best mate, son of his former enemy, Harry Osborn is plotting revenge on Peter for killing the Green Goblin. The man who killed Parker's Uncle Ben has escaped from prison and is on a path that will have him collide with the webslinger. Add to this an alien symbiote that's just itching to combine with Parker and a rival for his job in the Daily Bugle, and things are heating up for young Parker.



Flint Marko, the man who killed Uncle Ben (how's that for a totally contrived plot twist) literally stumbles across a molecular particle experiment and becomes fused with sand, giving birth to the Sandman. Why this experiment is conducted at night and in a facility that is heavily guarded by um... a wire fence is never fully explained, but we'll let that one go for now. Parker and Osborn, the new Green Goblin, have an arial scap and Harry ends up with a highly convenient case of amnesia. He and Parker are friends again. Parker has a few scrapes with Sandman, eventually merges with the alien symbiote and goes emo for a while, has issues, dances for a while, removes the symbiote and ends up in a confrontation with Sandman and Venom, the result of combining the symbiote with Eddie Brock, Parker's rival for the job at the Bugle.

Convoluted plot, eh? Damn straight it is, and we're subjected to it for the best part of 2 hours, 10 minutes before being given a by-the-numbers battle and a ridiculous conclusion. The biggest problem with Spider-Man 3 is the plot and pacing. There is no logical path to the story and the plot and subplots meander in and out of each other to the point of tedium.
They say a superhero is only as interesting as his villains, and never is that point more relevant than here. Marko, as the main villain is not developed at all. We're given a brief insight into why he's a criminal at the beginning of the movie, but beyond that, he isn't explored at all. And the creation of Sandman is extremely weak. He literally falls into his creation and this is glossed over by some fairly mediocre special effects.
The reborn Green Goblin, who was presented to us briefly at the end of Spider-Man 2 disappears due to amnesia. In a move that is more suited to afternoon soap operas, Harry Osborn once again becomes a side character only returning to the screen towards the end of the movie and making a character choice that is both ridiculous and tedious.
And as for Venom, well, he pops up towards the end. I'd imagine all the fan-boys who salivated at the thought of this character being brought to the screen will be bitterly disappointed at how little this character is used.



Sam Raimi really made an impact with his two previous Spider-Man films. His direction was slick and exciting while keeping things fun. But here, he's running on fumes. None of the actions scenes are a departure from what we've seen before. And in a third movie in a saga, this is almost unforgivable. When the action is set aside (which, unfortunately is for most of the film), we're subjected to scene after repetitive scene of Parker being arrogant and Mary-Jane looking forlorn. Even when Parker goes emo and starts to show an edge, Raimi delivers one of the most ill-advised and badly executed scenes in recent cinema history. I know what he was trying to do, but he fails miserably at it.
Acting wise, Tobey Maguire is his usual bland self as Peter Parker. Even when he has the opportunity to get a little badass, his facial expression fails to change. Only a change to his hairline lets us know he's being moody. Kirsten Dunst is equally bland as Mary-Jane Parker (except she gets to have her singing voice badly dubbed). Thomas Hayden Church is woefully under used as Flint Marko. The rest of the cast, including Topher Grace as Brock, Bryce Dallas Howard as love rival for Mary-Jane Gwen Stacy, and James Franco as Harry Osborn are all inconsequential. In fact, the most interesting part of the movie is a little cameo by cult favorite, Bruce Campbell doing his best Monty Python routine as a French waiter. But then, anything Bruce does is going to be great.

Overall, Spider-Man 3 is a terrible disappointment. After two great films, Raimi really drops the ball with this one. Sloppy direction, dull acting and a dreadfully boring script make this a really unsatisfactory third chapter in the Spider-Man saga. But it'll make a truck load of money and already, another three Spider-Man movies are greenlit. Hopefully they'll be a helluva lot more interesting than this one.

3/10

300 (2007) - Zack Snyder

Zack Snyder arrived on the movie scene in 2004 with a remake of George A. Romero's landmark zombie film, Dawn of the Dead. No where close to as good as the original, it was still a worthy effort when judged by itself. And now we have his follow up, an adaptation of Frank Miller's comic book, 300. Set in 480 B.C., Persian King Xerxes has taken over a large proportion of the known world. He arrives in Greece and sends an emissary to Sparta with a simple proposition- capitulate or perish. Leonidas, king of the warrior race of Spartans, quickly dispatches the emissary and marches to Thermopylae, a 12-meter wide pass in the mountains, with 300 of his best soldiers. Here, they will make their stand against Xerxes' army of 200,000. Meanwhile, Leonidas' wife, Queen Gorgo attempts, using any means, to convince the Spartan council to join the fight.

First and foremost, let's establish one thing you should remember while watching this movie. While the Battle Of Thermopylae did actually happen in 480 B.C., the creators state quite categorically, that this movie is not a history lesson. It's fact inspired fantasy. And man alive, what a great piece of fantasy this is. The plot is paper thin. Bad guys make a threat, good guys ignore, good guys mount a heroic last stand to inspire a nation. Having read the graphic novel some years back, I was quite intrigued as to what Snyder would make of the source material. Shot almost entirely against green screen, the movie is incredibly stylized. Snyder captures the visual style of the comic perfectly, while putting his own spin on proceedings. While Sin City, Miller's last comic to be translated to the screen was shot in the same manner, 300 just takes to the screen better, while offering a little more in the entertainment stakes.
The film is incredibly violent. Limbs and head are lobbed off with abandon as the Spartans push back wave after wave of Persian troops. Gerard Butler plays the Scottish, sorry, Spartan King Leonidas with gusto. He screams line after line of inspirational slogans at his scantily clad troops as they work themselves up into a frenzy of bloodlust and patriotism. A Spartan warrior's greatest honor is to die on the battlefield, so you can imagine what their attitudes will be like. The battle scenes themselves are like a frenetic ballet punctuated with slow-mo. They are pure fantasy, so were the battle scenes in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and 300's offerings rightly take their place amongst those, and the likes of Braveheart.

Honestly, the film is pure machismo and violence. If you're looking for something with a thick, engaging plot, look elsewhere. But if you're looking for something that wont test you and looks fantastic, check out this piece of pure entertainment. Fantastic.