REVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises

Christopher Nolan. You either love him, or you think he does alright films. I've not met anyone yet who doesn't at least like his films. However, I've met more people that love his films.

You can't deny that he has reinvented the comic book hero film genre (to a degree). Even the new The Amazing Spider-Man has some added grittiness and character drama to it, which you could argue is due to Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. The Dark Knight Rises is Nolan's swan song to Batman and in all fairness, it seems that he has put in as much blood, sweat and tears into this one as he did with the other two.

The Dark Knight Rises is set eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. The people of Gotham City have blamed Batman (Christian Bale) for the atrocities against their city and have heralded Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) a hero of the city, but Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is sitting on the truth and unsure whether to clear Batman's name. However, before he has a chance to, a new terrorist, Bane (Tom Hardy) is terrorising Gotham by trapping the majority of the police force underground, taking over Batman's armoury and trapping the people of Gotham by destroying all of the bridges in and out of the city and promising to set off an atomic bomb if anyone tries to escape. This forces an unfit Bruce Wayne to don the Batsuit once again and protect the city and reluctantly calls upon local thief, Selena (aka. Catwoman - Anne Hathaway) for help.

Before I properly start my review of The Dark Knight Rises, I feel that I must admit that I'm not a massive Batman fan and I'm by no means a Christopher Nolan fanboy. I fall into the category of finding his films "alright". However, I can't deny that his Dark Knight films have been stunning and seemed to be getting better and better. Many have claimed that The Dark Knight Rises is the perfect end to the perfect trilogy... and while I do agree that it's a very good film, I wouldn't say that it's perfect.

Let's start with the good, and there is a lot of good. The film is visually stunning to look at, which to be honest, you can always count on with Nolan. The opening plane heist scene, which has been covered a lot on various internet sites and even featured heavily in the promos, was brilliantly tense and epic. The ending shot, where Bane is clutching onto the nuclear scientist as the hull of the plane falls around them and then the camera lingers on them as we see the plane hull plummet to the Earth below, was beautiful. The sweeping shots of Gotham city were gorgeous (although a little too reminiscent of New York City - I think I preferred the Gotham City in Batman Begins).

Another positive that I have to mention is the casting of the film. As ever, Bale pulls off a great Bruce Wayne (who spends a lot of this film battered, bruised and ageing in this film) to the then brooding and aggressive Batman. However, I really feel that it's Hathaway the one that steals the show in every scene that she is in. From the moment that we are introduced to her, she shows how to pull off believably how a character can be three-dimensional and have more than just one character trait. Catwoman's development from a cold-hearted bitch who double crosses Batman to the one who arrives last minute to save the day is a little bit predictable, but I can overlook that minor gripe. Tom Hardy as Bane had a tough act to follow from the last villain in The Dark Knight - I don't care if people think I'm jumping on the bandwagon with the Joker, but Heath Ledger's performance was spot on in The Dark Knight. While Hardy does a really good job of playing Bane, his character just felt a little flat compared to The Joker and even compared to Catwoman. While we do learn a little more about Bane in the third act of the film and how he fits into the larger picture, it's not really enough for us to truly empathise with him or understand why he hates Batman and Gotham City so much.

There's also Bane's voice, which sometimes is a little hard to understand. But, if you've read anything about The Dark Knight Rises online, then I'm sure you've seen enough about that.

However, like I said, The Dark Knight Rises is not perfect (something, which I realise is very hard to achieve, so it's not really a criticism in saying it's not perfect.)

The first thing I need to criticise is the pace of the film. I'm not really bothered that the film was nearly three hours long, I can deal with that, but the pace of the film just felt really slow. Now, I sometimes quite like slow films that focus on characters, but The Dark Knight Rises felt like it was delving too much into the politics of Wayne Enterprise and Bruce Wayne in Bane's prison. If we had more of a development between Bruce Wayne and Miranda's (Marion Cotillard) relationship, after the death of Rachel in The Dark Knight, I feel like the film would have packed more of an emotional punch.

Another thing that The Dark Knight Rises was lacking was in it's action and fight scenes. They felt kind of underwhelming, especially the fight scenes between Batman and Bane. While I realise that Nolan needed to show us how powerful Bane was in comparison to Batman in order to try and ratchet up the tension, I would have liked to see Batman fight back just a little bit more. Also, Bane (and another key villain's) demise at the end of the film felt somewhat of an anticlimax. In fact, when Bane was defeated, I almost missed it. Now, I'm not saying that it needed a big dramatic musical crescendo or a dramatic "NOOOO!" to the camera from Bane, but it just needed something a little bit more, just to show that Batman was now the one in charge! Having said that, Bane overall felt a little sidelined in the final battle scene when the second villain behind the master plan was revealed, something that I felt was a bit of a shame, because Bane was built up to be this big badass throughout the rest of the film.

So, while The Dark Knight Rises isn't a perfect end to Nolan's trilogy (and I think I like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight just a little bit better) it is still a very very good film. The main thing that I think The Dark Knight Rises suffers from is trying to pack too much into the film and trying to develop the characters and plot even further than they have been previously (something that a third film in a trilogy can suffer from, because it needs to prove that the characters and plot are still 'fresh'.)

**** / *****

REVIEW: Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World

What would you do if you only had a couple of weeks left to live? What would make it to the top of your bucket list?

Spend all your last remaining moments with your family...

Eat just about whatever you want and not worry about dieting...

Commit a crime without worrying about the consequences...

Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World goes against the traditional big-budget end of the world disaster films that have come before it and decides to focus on the budding relationship between two characters as their impending doom is counted down before them.

The film follows Dodge (Steve Carell) who is unexpectedly dumped by his wife, Linda (Nancy Carell) as it is announced on the radio that humanity's last hope for destroying the asteroid that is heading towards Earth has failed. He tries living his life as normal, despite the end of the world being very close, but he soon decides that he wants to reunite himself with his first true love, his High School sweetheart. However, before he leaves he meets his neighbour, Penny (Kiera Knightley) who is having troubles of her own. She wants to get back home to the UK to see her family before they die (but the last aeroplane has already left) and he wants to get across country quickly (and she is the one who has a car). As they both make their way across the USA together, they start forming a close friendship and realise that it's never too late to find true love.

OK, so let's get this clear straight away. Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World is a romantic-comedy. It's not a disaster film. You will not see the asteroid hurtling through space, you will not see the panic of the Government trying to destroy the asteroid and finally, you will not see the asteroid finally collide with Earth. Having said this, it isn't a bad thing that it's not a disaster film, because not once does it even try to trick you that it's anything different - you don't even get a shot of the asteroid in the sky from Earth.

Having said that, the genius in the film really lies in it's subtlety. Despite being a romantic-comedy, there are not really any stupid zany moments played for laughs (the closest being the scene in "Friendsies" - the cult-like restaurant that believes in free love since the announcement of the end of the world) and there is no big cheesy slow-motion kiss scene. Despite the relationship being a little awkward with the massive age gap between the two characters, it's largely played for the cute factor, as they realise that they don't need to hurry themselves to get to their High School sweetheart/family for company, because they actually just want to spend their last moments together. While you could argue that the relationship seems a little rushed - especially in the second half of the film - it does it all for the emotionally wringing final scene where the two characters just lie on a bed in each other's company.

However, the film is by no means perfect. One of the biggest flaws with Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World lies in it's casting. While Carell does a fairly good job in playing the awkward Dodge and Knightley does a passable job at the quirky Penny, the two just can't seem to pull off a deeply emotional scene. Penny's last phone call home should have been something really special, but it wasn't. Dodge's breakdown when his wife left him should have left us feeling sorry for him, but it didn't. And finally, when Penny and Dodge lie together for the last moments of their lives together, I should have been tearing up, but I wasn't. It's hard to say exactly what was missing from those scenes, but I think one of the biggest problems was that Carell and Knightley didn't seem to have much of an on-screen chemistry. I could believe them as friends, but the film lost me as soon as they started to fall in love, because I didn't believe it.

Finally, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World is also another case of a film being wrongly marketed. If you have seen the film's trailer (which can be found here) promotes the film as a comedy, with an element of romance. However, the trailer practically uses every funny moment from the film and what we are left with in reality is a romance film, with a couple of funny moments. Literally, the whole second half of the film felt devoid of any laughs, and after the comedy build-up in the first half, I felt a little cheated.

So, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World is a film that hits all the right moments but doesn't feel like it necessarily flows together very well. After a promising build-up, the film feels a little flat in the second half. However, I have to give it credit for it's fairly bleak ending, even if it wasn't as emotional as it should have been.

**½ / *****

REVIEW: Killer Joe

I'm not really too familiar with American culture, especially in the South. Sure, I know all the stereotypes; beer drinking drunks, unintelligent bums and sexist pigs. This isn't true though, is it? But, it certainly makes for an interesting and funny film.

Killer Joe kind of has a misleading international poster. One look at it and I guess you would be expecting a moody thriller with a hired assassin as the main character. However, you would be wrong, because Killer Joe is going down as one of the most surprising comedies of the year so far.

The film follows the titular Joe Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) who is a local policeman who moonlights as an undercover assassin who charges very high prices. Chris Smith (Emile Hirsch) is a local drunk who has left his girlfriend and is in big trouble with the local drug dealer, Digger Soames (Marc Macaulay). Chris returns home to his Father, Ansel Smith (Thomas Haden Church), his Step-Mother, Sharla Smith (Gina Gershon) and his sister, Dottie Smith (Juno Temple) with a master plan of killing his Mother and collecting her life insurance policy so he can pay off Digger. When they can't pay Joe upfront, they agree to let him have Dottie as his holding fee before he can be paid with cash. However, things get twisted along the way as Joe and Dottie get a bit too close, Chris realises he is being conned and the drug dealers are getting closer and closer.

It's really hard to categorise Killer Joe into a genre, because it mixes quite a few together very well. There's the obvious horror element to it, involving assassins and the unsettling location of the trailer park at night. However, Killer Joe also leans into exploitation, drama, (twisted) romance and most surprisingly, comedy. So far, I think I have laughed the most during Killer Joe, largely because I wasn't expecting to when I walked into the cinema.

Firstly, I have to mention and give credit to the casting of this film, because it was spot on. McConaughey as Joe Cooper was inspired, as he plays the moody and dark characters quite well. While I want to say that this role should be one that defines him as an Actor, I'm not sure if he will want people to remember the film that saw him force a female character perform fellatio onto a chicken drumstick..! Hirsch as the troubled Chris also played the very fine line between being determined and annoying very well. He could have easily slipped into being a whiny character - he is being chased by drug dealers, he hates his Mother and his Step-Mother and Father hate him - but he keeps it quite grounded and sympathetic at the same time. Temple as the strange but endearing Dottie did fairly well with the role that she was given, although I would have liked to have a little more insight into how she was really feeling about Joe. And finally, Church and Gershon were just brilliant as the mismatched couple and the scenes that they have together are some of the best comedy I have seen in a long time - the scene in the lawyers office towards the end of the film really steals the show!

William Friedkin (The Exorcist, The French Connection) really knows how to take a scene and wring it out for every emotional second that he can, and this is an amazing talent to have as a Director. The scenes at the trailer park, with the torrential rain, the dull lighting and the barking dog really set a disturbing atmosphere and then the scenes at the strip club with the garish lighting and the lingering shots on the female body really amp up the exploitation aspect of the film. The way that the film can so effortlessly switch between the different settings and mood is brilliant and proves for a really engaging storyline.

Oh yes, the stripper clubs. I've only just mentioned them, haven't I?! The film is rated 18 by the BBFC and I have to say, the film wholly deserves it. It's not really the kind of film you want to see with your parents or your grandparents or one that you would take the kids to go and see. However, despite the rating and the content of the film, it also feels like it's a film for mature adults. It's not your silly Scary Movie or your simple-minded Planet Terror type of film, where the focus is on gore or nudity. While Killer Joe does have both of those things, it also deals with a very twisted love scene, when Dottie cooks Joe his first meal and then they end up sleeping together while reminiscing about Dottie's first love at High School. Or the aforementioned chicken drumstick fellatio scene where all the skeletons come out of the closet for the Smith family and Joe starts to take charge of the situation.

So, overall I was pleasantly surprised by Killer Joe. While I would have liked a little bit more insight into the character of Dottie and her true intentions with Joe, the film overall does a very good job of taking you through a roller coaster of emotions.

It's almost a five star... Almost.

****½ / *****

REVIEW: Storage 24

I'm not really sure how to start this review. What makes a British film actually British? How bland can a film be before it fades into obscurity? How many TV stars can you fit into one film?

Storage 24 is a film that just kind of exists. I seriously doubt it's going to end up being someones favourite film, because it's just so bland. Which is a shame really, because when I saw the trailer, I really thought that this could be the new British Alien, but set in a storage warehouse...

The film follows Charlie (Noel Clarke), who we find out has recently split up from his girlfriend Shelley (Antonia Campbell-Hughes). Charlie is taking his friend Mark (Colin O'Donoghue) to the storage centre to help him clear out his belongings from their shared storage. Unfortunately, Shelley is already there with her friends Nikki (Laura Haddock) and Chris (Jamie Thomas King) to clear her own stuff out, but a recent air crash means that the power trips out and they are all trapped inside the storage centre together. However, they are not alone as something is creeping around and is terrorising them. Slowly but surely, they must band together if they are to survive the night.

The film starts of promising enough as the action begins straight away. In the opening scene, we see... or rather, we hear the crash that kickstarts the alien invasion. We are then treated to a fairly tense scene where a woman walking her dog decides to 'investigate' a part of the crash site, but the tension just kind of fizzles out and nothing happens. However, after the crash happens, the film drags in introducing the bunch of characters that we should really care about. We learn that Charlie is a whining idiot who won't give up on the fact that he and Shelley are no longer an item. We find out that there is tension between Charlie and Chris, because, well... they just don't like each other. We don't really know why.

While all this character driven stuff is going on, there really is very little alien action. It's just too slow. There is a little bit of alien stalking, but the direction by Johannes Roberts (F, Roadkill) means that there is very little build up to the reveal of the alien. We just kind of see it and that's that. Despite the mishandling of the alien creature, Roberts doesn't do too badly with the rest of the film, but the style is just quite generic (repetitive tracking shots of empty corridors, stylish depth of field and focus...)

Some might not say this is a bad thing, however as the alien design is probably the best part of the film. The money used on the creature and special effects design was some of the best spent money on this film. Basically, when the alien is on-screen, it is some of the best moments that the film has to offer.

Unfortunately, there just aren't enough of these moments in the film. The alien just wasn't made out to be threatening enough. Basically, I didn't really feel like the characters were in danger for most of the film. In fact, I forgot that the alien was there most of the time.

There are some twists along the way, mainly involving the characters themselves and their relationships and backgrounds. Overall though, the film writing is quite lazy. I've never really watched a British film before that has so much American influence. I got a serious Skyline and Alien vibe from this film (although, some might say that Alien is British too...) There was long tracking shots of the empty storage corridors, there is the crazy character who seems to know too much about the aliens (even though it has only been attacking them for about an hour or two) and there are lots of seriously stupid character decisions (like running off alone or going to investigate a dark room.)

For the casting of the film, the actors did the best job with what they were given. Despite being a whining idiot, Noel Clarke still managed to pull the character Charlie off without becoming too annoying. Laura Haddock does a good job of being the pretty blonde one and actually outshines Antonia Campbell-Hughes in most of their scenes together. It almost felt like Haddock should have been the female lead instead, because her character is more proactive, interesting and (without giving anything away) doesn't do anything stupid to make the audience dislike her, unlike how Campbell-Hughes' character does.

So, while the film isn't brilliant by any stretch of the imagination, it was great to see a British Sci-Fi film in cinemas and feel like I was supporting British films! It's just a shame that the film is so unremarkable and does more so in copying the style of American Sci-Fi films, rather than trying it's own style or plot.

** / *****

REVIEW: Katy Perry - Part of Me

Autobiographies. They are supposed to provide an insight into a lively career, a look back into the past of an interesting life or some nostalgia for those who simply remember the "good old days".

When our cinema screens are being invaded by biography films like Justin Bieber: Never Say Never or Katy Perry - Part of Me, how can all of those things be fulfilled when the person in question is 19 years old or when the events of the film only happened last year?!

Katy Perry - Part of Me is a documentary film that follows pop star Katy Perry through her year-long 2011 world tour as well as explaining how she became the pop star that she is today. Cue lots of interviews with fans, people that work with her and her family telling you how amazing she is, the occasional filler of a song that she sings in concert and then some down time of where Perry is backstage, rehearsing for the next show or visiting family at home. Katy Perry - Part of Me follows the blueprint o the fastly-growing established pop star documentary film almost to an exact T. The main difference is that Perry's film tries to add some emotional weight to the film by including her relationship breakdown with then husband, Russell Brand, before the uplifting "don't let anyone get you down, ever!!" ending.

Let me start by saying, I'm not a Katy Perry super-fan. I'm not a KatyCat, so this film probably isn't aimed at me in the slightest. I went into this film hoping to see a little bit of some female dancer's flesh and Katy Perry dancing around provocatively on-stage (while trying to claim that she is a role-model to young girls.) Even with those extremely low expectations, I was still left disappointed. There was no female dancer flesh and Perry did dance around stage, but not provocatively enough!

The film starts off like an E! Channel special, where there are lots of interviews with family, friends and minions... I mean people who work for Katy Perry telling us how amazing she is, how hard she worked to get to where she is now and how she deserves every bit of success she has. It's all feels like a big advertisement for the Katy Perry brand with a distinct lack of the woman to speak for herself. Sure, we se her rehearsing backstage, talking to fans and singing the occasional song on-stage, but she never really talks to us herself or offers much of an insight into her past.

Sure, we get it. Katy Perry likes to think that she struggled to get where she is today. She struggled against her strict Christian upbringing and she struggled against major music studios telling her to be something she's not, but we are lead to believe that she went all against this to be something she wanted to be? So she wanted to be a scantily-dressed female singer singing songs like I Kissed a Girl and making videos where spray cream comes out from her bikini top like in California Girls?

"Thank you for believing in my weirdness!" As she claims in the film, but ultimately I couldn't help but feel I was watching some tame, family friendly version of Lady GaGa or Juliette Lewis.

However, like I said, where this film stands out from the other concert biography films is that it pulls apart the sugar-coated "look how great I am" exterior and includes the breakdown of her then marriage to celebrity, Russell Brand. While he pops up occasionally in the opening fifteen minutes of the film, almost like a teaser into saying, "You know what happens!" it's not until the last fifteen minutes that we catch a small glimpse into how it affected Perry while she was still on her world tour. I say only a small glimpse, because all we really get is some shots of Perry crying in her make-up chair, a shot of her sobbing before going on stage and then her psyching herself up before the stage lift takes her up.

We do get a short interview with her, where Perry claims that when she was younger she wanted someone to love her and accept her for what she was but that's not the way it planned out, before she bursts into tears, but we are never given anything meaty about what happened. All we get is what the newspapers told us six months ago and what we could guess - they split because they never spent any time together.

Finally, I didn't see the film in 3D, but I'm not sure why it's being released in 3D (other than to try and earn that little bit more at the Box Office.) It's certainly not filmed in a way that will be enhanced with 3D (mainly shaky hand-held camera that keeps going in and out of focus) and there are no gimmicky 'hand at the camera' moments when Perry is on stage. So, yeah. Basically, don't fork out extra for the 3D...

So, if you are a Katy Perry super fan (aka. a KatyCat), then Katy Perry - Part of Me is like a dream come true really. However, for the casual viewer, or if you are male who has no interest in Katy Perry, then give this film a miss, because you won't be seeing anything new at all.

** / *****

REVIEW: The Amazing Spider-Man

What makes a reboot different to a remake? How many things have to change in the story before filmmakers feel comfortable in trying to flog the film as something 'new'? And finally, what is our fascination with being told the exact same story again and again?

I could list off a whole load of remakes, but that would be a waste of time. I've never really looked forward to any remake, except when The Amazing Spider-Man was announced. It was promised to be more in line with the comics and tell the 'untold story' of Spider-Man. That was it. I was hooked. However, the story follows more of the same structure as the 2002 film directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man than the filmmakers really let on.

The Amazing Spider-Man follows loveable geek, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) as he struggles to come to terms with high school, bullies, the love of his life, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone) and trying to find out why his parents left him with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) when he was a young boy. When he lets a thief pass him by in the street that ultimately leads to the death of his beloved Uncle Ben, Parker vows to seek vengeance on the thieves out on the street and more importantly, the one who killed his uncle. At the same time, Parker finds a briefcase containing files which provide clues to his Father's secret work when he was younger. As Parker tries to find out more of his Father's shady path, it puts him onto a collision course with Oscorp and Doctor Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), the man whom his Father used to work with, which challenges his fate to become the hero he is destined to be.

Now, I'll admit straight away that I am quite a fan of Spider-Man. I find him to be more charismatic than Batman, more intriguing than Superman and more sympathetic than Iron Man. However, to say that The Amazing Spider-Man tells the 'untold story' of Spider-Man is a bit of a lie. I just can't help but feel that this film is a bit of an anti-climax to the superhero that I like the most. Call me biased, call me a fan-boy, but I didn't learn anything new in The Amazing Spider-Man than I didn't already know from Raimi's Spider-Man.

Firstly, the plot is pretty damn similar. Parker is left with his Aunt and Uncle (standard) and is bullied by Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka) in high school. The bullying in this film still feels really 90s cliche, like something we would have seen in Clueless or Not Another Teen Movie(!) Moving on... Parker is still the cause of his Uncle's death (pivotal to the plot really), but he's responsible in the exact same way - letting a thief bypass him when he could have stopped him. The villain is still green (OK, that one is very tenuous!) and he still pines after the girl in high-school and then gets her when he gets the swag of being Spider-Man on his side (original comic-book girlfriend, Gwen Stacey in this case, not Mary-Jane Watson.)

To be a true 'untold story', I would have liked to have seen more background to Spider-Man. Think more like Nolan's Batman Begins, where we truly get to know the heartbreak behind Parker's parents disappearing, because The Amazing Spider-Man seems to gloss over key points. Some of these being, Rajit Ratha (Irrfan Khan), who is never truly explained as to why he is working so closely with Oscorp, Parker's Father or Doctor Connors. In fact, in the third act he just disappears. The thief that kills Uncle Ben, because Parker swears vengeance against him, spends the first hour of the film hunting him down and then just forgets about him. Connors past with Parker's Father is never truly explored and his sudden turn to 'good' at the end seemed a little cheap and came out of nowhere. Finally, The Lizard/Connor's plans to turn the citizens of New York City into lizards felt a bit half-baked. He gasses some armed policemen into lizards and never uses them - in fact they are never seen again until the end of the film when they are turning back to humans. Surely he would have used them as his foot soldiers?!

However, it's not all bad. Director Marc Webb does brilliantly with what he has been given and actually ends up making a beautiful looking film. The night scenes and much darker and grittier than the 2002 film, the Spider-Man swinging scenes are thrilling and the battles are quite exciting. It is a shame that the music in the film (courtesy of James Horner) is quite jarring and doesn't really compliment the visuals that Webb puts on the screen. A prime example would be when The Lizard is stalking the labs of Oscorp and Gwen Stacey is hiding in a cupboard - its like Horner put in some cheap 80s horror film music.

Also, the casting of the film was pretty inspired. To step up and fill the shoes (or boots) of Tobey Maguire was a big ask, because he certainly made the role his own, but Andrew Garfield did a brilliant act of balancing the awkwardness of Parker and the cockiness of Spider-Man. Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey also played a much more likeable and interesting character than Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane. Finally, Rhys Ifans also did his best with the limited role of Doctor Curt Connors, but I would have loved to see more a struggle with the loss of his arm - something similar to the struggle we saw with Doc Ock (Alfred Molina) loosing his wife in Spider-Man 2.

Finally, while I don't think the film went into as much detail of Parker's life than I would have liked, an obvious tell-tale sign would have been the list of writers that are credited with the film... A mixing pot of James Vanderbilt (Screenplay and Story), Alvin Sargent (Screenplay) and Steve Kloves (Screenplay) certainly wouldn't have helped the film. In fact, I think it probably contributed to the clashing elements of the film. The first half of the film does brilliantly in setting up Parker as a superhero with all the responsibilities that come with it, and the death of Uncle Ben was actually quite upsetting and full of drama. However, as soon as The Lizard was thrown into the mix, the film became a paint-by-the-numbers superhero film that offered nothing new and killed off all the intriguing subplots (vengeance against the thief, Parker's father's history, the evil Ratha and Connors' connection with Parker's Father.)

So, as a whole The Amazing Spider-Man is a much better looking film than Raimi's Spider-Man, but doesn't really offer enough of anything new to make it truly remarkable and worthy of rebooting the franchise. If only Spider-Man could of had Christopher Nolan behind the writing of the film to truly make it an origins story.

*** / *****

REVIEW: The Five-Year Engagement

I've said it before, but I'll say it again... I don't really like it when posters try to lure us in with the promise of it being made by the Producers of other films, or the Director of other films or even the tea-lady of other films. It just feels kind of like a cheap trick.

The Five-Year Engagement does do this on it's poster though. "From the Producer of Bridesmaids", is what it so proudly says. Again, it's misleading, because The Five-Year Engagement is much funnier than Bridesmaids.

The film follows Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) and Tom Solomon (Jason Siegal) and straight away, Tom proposes to Violet. All seems to be going well, they are in love, Tom has a great job as second Chef at a thriving restaurant and Violet is waiting on being accepting into the University of Michigan. However, as they try to set the date for their wedding, things just keep getting in the way, like Violet's studies and her professor, Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans), Tom's new friendship with the weird Michigan locals, Bill (Chris Parnell) and Tarquin (Brian Posehn). As they slowly drift apart, it begs the question as to whether they will actually make it down the aisle or call off the engagement altogether.

Firstly, I have to congratulate the filmmakers and the writer for making a romantic comedy film that is equally enjoyable for males and females alike. While I can safely say, I wasn't looking forward to seeing this film, the silly comedy moments certainly made up for the fact that I was sitting in the cinema and watching a rom-com! Siegal and Blunt were perfectly cast in their roles and made the moments just seem really natural and fluid.

For a comedy film, there was rarely a moment that felt forced or pushed just for a laugh. The annoying friend, Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet's sister, Susie (Alison Brie) were the perfect couple to offset the challenges that Tom and Violet were facing - Alex and Brie never really wanted to be together in the first place but got married and had children straight away... The systematic deaths of the grandparents was a brilliant way to show the passing of time, up the tension for the couple to hurry up and get married, but also provide a nice nod to Four Weddings and a Funeral and some extra laughs as well.

However, one gripe that I did have was that for a fluffy romantic comedy, the film did seem to be one of two halves. It sets itself up as a light-hearted romance film, but then takes a turn into The Break Up territory, where it seems to be the anti rom-com with a much darker and unhappier ending. While this would have been a good twist on the narrative, there seems to be a tacked one fifteen minute epilogue, where the film swerves back into the happy Hollywood ending. While it would have been a bit of a downer ending, it would have made the film stick out from the crowd. However the ending that the film does have seems like a massive rewrite, because it's sickly-sweet and completely inconceivable that anyone could really pull it off.

Another weird thing that the film does is that it tries to pull off scenes set in England that are obviously filmed in America. All of the grandparents live in the UK (for some reason), but when Violet systematically visits the UK for their funerals, it is such a slice of Americana that it's just too hard to swallow for the audience (it's bright an sunny and the Church is a wooden shack in the middle of flat prairie land... but the filmmakers use a London black cab, so all is well in the world!)

Despite those slight flaws, The Five-Year Engagement is actually a rather good comedy film that can also draw in the male crowd. It's just a shame that the film has been doing so badly in America and across the rest of the world, because as far as wedding-based comedies go, The Five-Year Engagement definitely beats Bridesmaids.

***½ / *****

REVIEW: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

How can you hook in an audience nowadays? The film market has become so saturated with new releases that it's difficult to tell some films apart. I mean there is only so many ways that you can tell the same story, right?

Well, one way it seems to make your film stick out is to give it a ridiculous title. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I mean, last time I checked, Lincoln wasn't a vampire hunter.

The film follows Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker)... surprise, surprise... through his early life right up until he becomes President of the United States of America. When he was younger, he watched his Mother (Robin McLeavy) killed by vampire, Jack Barts (Marton Csokas). After a failed attempt to take revenge, Lincoln is trained by Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper) - who has a dark secret of his own - to kill vampires, but only the vampires that Sturgess tells him to. Along the way, Lincoln meets the love of his life, Mary Todd Lincoln (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). When he later becomes President, Lincoln soon realises that vampires have joined forces with the Confederates in the South, so he decides to mount his own campaign to not only abolish slavery, but also to kill all vampires.

As you can see, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter covers a lot of ground in Lincoln's life. It literally takes him from his childhood, right up until the moments before he dies (his wife's last words being, "Hurry up or we'll be late for the theatre!")

Because of this, certain parts of the film feel very rushed. When his Mother is killed near the beginning, Lincoln is given no time to mourn his Mother's death. Straight away, he seeks revenge and attempts to kill Barts. When he meets Mary Todd, their relationship seems really rushed as they are given no time to fall in love. There is a quite nice scene where she demands to know what Lincoln does and he tells her the exact truth about hunting vampires, before she laughs and tells him to not be so silly. However, there doesn't seem to be enough of these moments. Also, when revenge is exacted upon Barts (as it so inevitably happens - I would label this a spoiler, but it's pretty obvious that it will happen), Lincoln seems to kill him and then move on straight away.

However, while the film can feel a little rushed at time, the action also runs along at break-neck speed. The direction from Timur Bekmambetov (previous films including Wanted and Night Watch) is pretty much spot on to create the exciting, yet tongue-in-cheek atmosphere that the film so desperately needed. It could have easily gone down the serious horror route, but I think this would have been damaging to the credibility of the film being an action adventure. While some scenes can seems bit repetitive from Timur's previous efforts (the train scene in this film seemed painfully close to the train crash scene from Wanted), you can't blame him for sticking to what he does best.

If anything, I would have liked the film to be a little bit more funny, maybe in the vein of something like Sherlock Holmes. I'm sure people would claim that this would be a wrong idea and that the vampire genre has completely "jumped the shark" with this film, but I couldn't help but feel how much of a good time I was having while watching this. Sometimes, you just need a silly film to switch off to, and Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is definitely a film that you need to switch off to.

The set design and costumes are something that I cannot fault, and coupled with the gorgeous cinematography, this film certainly looks impressive. While the 3D doesn't really add anything to the film, it's rarely used as a gimmick - the only shot I can think of is when someone cracks their whip right in your face... Otherwise, you wouldn't miss the 3D at all in this film. The furthest thing that "sticks out" is the dust in the air in some of the scenes.

So, if you like your vampire films silly with lots of action scenes that keep you on the edge of your seat, then you can't really go wrong with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. However, if you are a vampire aficionado, then this one should be missed. But, if you are a serious vampire fan and you aren't put off by a title such as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, then I have no pity for you!

***½ / *****

REVIEW: Friends With Kids

Following on from the latest "Friends With..." title comes Friends With Bene... Kids. Another notch on the American comedy market, featuring many familiar faces from Bridesmaids.

While the film is touted as the next big thing or, more precisely, "The funniest film of its kind since Bridesmaids" (as says the poster), the film itself is more of an affectionate look at friends falling in love after having a child together... Rather than a belly-laugh comedy that the poster would suggest.

The film opens with two best friends, Jason (Adam Scott) and Julie (Jennifer Westfeldt), talking on the phone at 4am after last nights conquests lie next to them in their beds. Straight away, we realise that they are long standing buddies without any funny business going on between them (despite everyone around them wanting there to be something.) There is also Leslie (Maya Rudolph) and Alex (Chris O'Dowd), the couple who get pregnant first out of all their friends and after having their children, they like to argue... a lot. But, they still love each other, despite their flaws. And finally, there is Missy (Kristen Wiig) and Ben (Jon Hamm), the newly wed couple, who like to sleep with each other a lot and also end up getting pregnant before, well, falling out again.

It's all very set-up and from the moment the film starts, it's all kind of obvious how the film is going to go. While this isn't a completely bad thing, it does mean that you have to invest time for your audience to completely care about these characters. The audience knows who is going to get their heart broken and who is going to want a divorce, but the journey that they take to that moment is where you want to completely pull on your audience's heart strings and put them through the emotional wringer. Unfortunately, Friends With Kids fails to do this.

One of my biggest problems was, why was it Julie that had to have unrequited love for Jason? Why couldn't the film have switched it around and have the man be the one pining for the woman who doesn't love him back? I'm not a feminist, but I think it would have been different and more emotional to have it that way, rather than have the stereotypical helpless, emotional female character. Also, what happened to Kristen Wiig in this film?! She was reduced to looking pissed off in the corner of every scene. She hardly had any input or any reasoning as to why she was so annoyed with her husband. Sure, he was a bit of an idiot and didn't help her with their child, but he didn't seem to do much more to warrant such hatred from her.

Also, the film didn't really get it's casting right. Julie (Westfeldt) seemed a bit weak to be a main protagonist. If she is going to get her heartbroken, we want to see her change from being helpless to being a strong, independent woman (I heard you, Destiny's Child!) However, she just remains helpless throughout.

Are we supposed to buy it that Jason (West) is a womanising lothario, who can date and bed different women like Mary Jane (Megan Fox) with ease every single week? Sure, films are meant to represent a fantasy, as such, and what man wouldn't want to bed a different Megan Fox each week? But Adam West just didn't really seem to fulfil his role very well.

However, while the film isn't laugh-out-loud funny like The Hangover or Bridesmaids (like the poster suggests it is), the film is a sweet look at how friends can sometimes fall in love. Some might say it's a bit of a predictable and sickly finish to the film, but I think that it filled it's role as romantic mush very well.

So, if you like your films light on the drama but a bit heavier on the "feel-good factor", then Friends With Kids is definitely something to give a go. However, it doesn't have an emotional punch to it to make it exactly memorable.

** / *****