Trailer: 'Looper'

Great concept, but not sure the execution seems spot-on. Has the potential to make some bold statements though........

Review: 'The Cabin in the Woods' (2012)

WARNING - I have a ridiculous blind-side when it comes to Joss Whedon, so this review might be a tad (but only a tad, mind!) biased. With that in mind.....

5/5

So you know the story - five young friends go to a cabin in the middle of nowhere for summer fun. Horror, madness and general violence promptly ensues. There's a scene immediately following said cabin arrival that features a mirror. Another scene sees a character drop a weapon in a.....erm....interesting way (really hard to avoid spoilers in with this thing!) Anyway, those scenes directly tell you everything this movie is trying to do. And it succeeds. On many levels.

The writing is classic Whedon. There's not quite so much of his usual wit and funny-talk, but that's probably a good thing since it's an acquired taste. But there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, particularly if you like horror movies. On that note, if you're a horror buff (I consider myself to be nearing that title) you will love it! It does for the standard Monster Horror what Scream (1996) did for Slashers.

The characters are deliberately stock. The jock, the slut (not my words!), the smart glasses-wearing guy, the joker/geek, and the innocent virgin heroine. Some time is spent at the beginning of the film to get to know these guys, but it's not really that necessary, since you've seen them all before. Like I said, that's deliberate. And enough twists are given to their personalities to make them fun players (to explain what I mean by that would give too much away).

The aforementioned heroine Dana (Kristen Connolly) would easily fit in any of Whedon's other works - she's one of those Strong Female Characters he loves so much. And I love her too - she's strong, powerful, funny, and capable of stabbing scary monsters repeatedly (a useful trait in any girl!)

Overall, the script is funny and tightly-written, the performances are right as they should be (perfect casting!), the horror is standard but deliberately so, and the twists and turns keep you hooked throughout. I often rate a film based on what time I look at my watch. That doesn't mean I get bored at that point, but I want to know how long there is to go. For example, Captain America had me checking an hour in, whereas Thor kept me hooked until nearly 2 hours. During The Cabin in the Woods, I didn't check the watch once. Yeah ok, I know it's not that long, but it must mean something!

It's a great film, no two ways about it. It's not just a horror/comedy. And it's not just a critique/love letter to the genre either. The film has something to say about the world as a whole, as all good films should. And fans of Whedon's other work (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse etc) will enjoy spotting various actors used before. It's not too spoilerific to say that a certain nerd who features heavily in Buffy season 7 pops up

Joss Whedon and director Drew Goddard worked together for years on Buffy, and it's clear they do so perfectly. So go see this film immediately!

What should good TV do?

I happened across a thought last night. I think good television should challenge what a 10-year-old knows. Either that, or is should have the power to shape what a 10-year-old believes. Anyone who knows me will be aware that Joss Whedon's work is pretty much my favourite thing ever (followed very closely by anything Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam do!).

I started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer when I was about 9. I vividly remember my sister saying she was going to watch this thing with a really weird title. I figured it was some sort of geeky kids' cartoon. So I ignored it. But some time between episode one and two, my sister convinced me of its awesomeness. And after episode two, I was hooked.

I think because I watched it from such a young age, it shaped what I believe. I didn't see anything unusual about a young girl who killed vampires. But that was unusual in a male-dominated world. Looking back on Buffy now, I think it shaped the way I see a lot of things, mainly feminism and equality. It also defined what I consider to be heroism. That's going into battle despite a prophesy that tells you you're going to die. It's killing the man you love to save the world. It's doing whatever it takes to protect those around you. And it's sharing the power you have for the greater good.

I'll have started watching Angel when I was about 11 or 12. That taught me something very clear - no matter what you've done, however bad, there can always be redemption. And not any religious capital R redemption. Yes, Angel fights with the hope of a reward. But in the final episode, he makes a decision that guarantees no reward will be given (he literally signs on the dotted line!). And yet he fights on anyway. He keeps doing what's right.

I didn't watch Firefly until about 6 or 7 years ago, so most of my opinions were set. But it developed them. Back then, I'd have probably said I was an agnostic. Now I'm an atheist. Turns out that when a TV show puts a die-hard atheist on a spaceship with a religious preacher, both sides are brought out. Mal (our atheist captain) was also probably the most moral man on the ship. That taught me something.

In Serenity (2005), Mal talks with Book (our religious preacher) about faith. Book says "When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?" That taught me that you don't need to be religious in order to believe in something. You can - like Mal - believe in yourself and the people around you. Mal also says "I'm going to show you a world without sin." Which told me very clearly that challenging what you're told and what the masses believe is a good thing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that my three favourite TV shows have also shaped the way I think. So it's this humble blogger's opinion that good TV has the ability to challenge and shape what we think and believe.

Why X2 is better than X-Men: First Class

When X-Men: First Class came out, general conception seemed to be that it was the best X-Men movie ever (it gets 7.9 on IMDb vs. X2's 7.6). To which I say bollocks! And here's why.....

 vs

Let's take the protagonists. X2 has Wolverine, First Class has Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). Both have compelling missions - Wolverine's is to find the truth about his past, and Erik's is to seek revenge on the man who murdered his mother. Wolverine's mission is carefully developed throughout the entire movie, going from investigation at Alkali Lake, to interrogation of Xavier back at the mansion, to full-circle return to Alkali.

This is interrupted by William Stryker's attack on the mansion. But the two key points here are that a) the interruption is caused by the man who holds the key to Wolverine's mission, and b) Wolverine is forced to take this trip away from his primary mission - "I'll be fine," he tells Rogue as they flee the mansion. "But we won't," comes the reply. Wolverine must leave his mission in order to save lives.

In First Class, Erik's mission is interrupted by Sebastian Shaw (ok, good - he holds the key to his primary mission). But in contrast, Erik doesn't have to further divert from his goal of revenge. We've already seen that he is more than capable of fighting his way to Shaw and coming within spitting distance of him. But presented with the possibility of creating a cool team of superheroes with a guy he's just met, he says yes. Why would he do this when he can just fight his way back to Shaw and have another crack at him? This is a man who has spent his entire life filled with anger and revenge, and he's suddenly willing to put that on hold to mentor a few spotty teenage mutants? Sorry, I don't buy it!

The other problem is that First Class does a rather poor job of juggling a few too many characters. Our focus is on Erik for the first act (and what a great first act it is!), with secondary thoughts on Charles and Raven. Then suddenly we're expected to care about a bunch of teenagers who we haven't seen before. That's where the problem lies - we put a lot of time and effort into following Erik's story, but then we're cheated when the film changes from a revenge thriller to a motivational teen movie. And why should we care about them? For example, why was Alex Summers in prison? Why should I care about him if you won't give me a reason?!

In contrast, X2 juggles a large number of characters near-perfectly. Nightcrawler demands a bit of our time, especially later on in the movie where his knowledge and skills become vital. But it's ok, because he is introduced in the opening act. The same goes for Rogue, Bobby and Pyro. But again, we see them early on, so their stories don't come out of the blue. And their backstories are explained enough for us to care.

The only issue I have with X2 (and all of the X-Men movies for that matter) is that Cyclops is criminally under-used. Once he's kidnapped, we don't see him again until the finale, where he does sod all. But perhaps that was wise, as trying to deal with too many main characters can be a disaster (as First Class demonstrates).

Don't get me wrong - I like First Class (it's miles better than The Last Stand, anyway!). I think the first act is excellent, but it's downhill from then on. But X2 beats it on every level. Especially in the final act. Characters ring true in X2 (Magneto betrays his new team members, tricking Xavier into attacking every human on the planet). Whereas First Class expects us to believe that Raven is going to abandon Charles (a man she has spent the best part of her life with) when he has just been shot and paralysed (and may be dying!) in favour of the guy who just caused said paralysis and is wearing the helmet of a Nazi-friendly murderer!

Nah, X2 will always be far superior to First Class.

Rant over.

Relaunching the blog

Since the last thing I posted on here was back in October, I've come to the conclusion that I should re-brand the blog. So from now on, I'm mainly going to be posting super-short film/TV reviews/musings. In the meantime, here's a picture of a cat.

Watch this space.....

Dexter - what's an extra 4 million....?

So there are rumours that Dexter (my favouritest show on air at the moment) is facing cancellation because of cuts:

Showtime is currently in a similar situation with its own hit series Dexter, since talks have broken down between the network and series star Michael C. Hall. The actor's contract is up after this current season, which premiered on Sunday night with a record 2.2 million viewers tuning in. That figure is up 24% from the Season 5 premiere. It is said that Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons. Negotiations are still ongoing, but it seems there is a big gap to overcome.
(via movieweb)

Read that again.

Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons.

Seriously? Four million?! What's four million to Michael C. Hall - the co-executive producer and star of Showtime's biggest show ever? Especially compared to 20 million?

Now, I'm all for people getting money for their work. It doesn't bother me that Tom Hanks has enough money to build seven Death Stars. Neither does it bother me that Michael C. Hall is (most likely) a wee bit richer than me.

But does it really matter whether he gets that four million? I'm in two minds really - part of me loves Dexter and wants to see it continue for as long as possible. But another part of me doesn't want to see the show fizzle out and get worse and worse until, finally, it's axed (Smallville anyone?).

On a side-note, Sunday's season 6 premiere seemed to present a real sense of finality about the show. As though serious shit is about to go down that will never be reversed. Dexter has to get caught eventually, right? I just hope we get to see it....

Ah, I don't know. Watch this space I suppose......

The Academy Awards "changes"

They're clamping down on the "cheating" involved in the Oscars. Take a look here.

A rundown of the new Academy restrictions:
- After Oscar nominations are announced on January 24 (until Feb. 21), no receptions may be held following screenings.
- During this period, Academy members (and nominees) may not attend non-screening events celebrating that year’s nominees.
- Filmmakers may only participate in two Q&A panels at screenings that Academy members have been invited to.
- Remember, no crap talking the other guys on Twitter or Facebook or other social media. Or else, suspension and then bye bye membership! Got it, Nicolas Chartier?
- Also, this will be the first year in which studios may send digital screeners to voting members for consideration.

But will it do any good? Will it make a difference?

There's always going to be a prestige issue with the Oscars, particularly Best Picture.

Why does a "Comedy" never win? Why does Animation get its own category - should every film not be measured on the same scale? Just two issues. There are many.

Looking at the Best Picture winners over the years:

The King's Speech (2010) - I thought Black Swan was vastly superior in terms of writing, acting, and scope. But The King's Speech was a film about a historical figure and was "important". So it won. It was always going to because of that alone.

The Hurt Locker (2009) - again, I thought District 9 was superior. But The Hurt Locker was "important" and based on fact. Whereas aliens have yet to invade (apparently).

Shakespeare in Love (1998) - I've never understood this one. How Saving Private Ryan didn't win is a mystery to me. But then.....Shakespeare in Love is about a historical figure.

Titanic (1997) - better than Good Will Hunting? Seriously?! Ah....but Titanic actually happened!

Yes, I know I'm generalising, but the point is that it's never a level playing field. Prestige is always there.

Maybe it's better that 10 films are nominated now (instead of five, since 2009). But does it mean the bottom of the barrel gets a little scraped?

Some Best Picture nominations from the last two years:

Inglourious Basterds - seriously?! Other than one very well-written scene early on, it's a bit of a train wreck, surely?

Avatar - yes, it's technologically wonderful. But what does it bring to the table? Not much.

Inception - I know a lot of people love it, but for me, the logic doesn't hold up half the time, it's not that visually interesting, the performances are sub-par, and it all seems like an inferior version of The Matrix.

Okay, rant over. You may now go back to your coffee/beer/whisky.

Talking theme - 2001: A Space Odyssey

I remember talking to someone a bit ago (someone with considerably more experience) who said that theme is pointless. A writer shouldn't think about it once during their work. It's just a word used by critics and academics. A prestige thing. To which I say - bollocks!

For me theme is what makes a good movie (which may have a very enjoyable story) a great movie. Particularly with sci-fi.

2001: A Space Odyssey is a classic example. Some say it's only about theme and that there's no story whatsoever. They may be right, but in terms of theme, it's littered with interpretation. "Bring your own subtext," as Joss Whedon would say. I've read/heard about dozens, if not hundreds, of interpretations of 2001. What is that Monolith? Is it God? Is it an alien being? An alien technology? Does it merely symbolise technological advance? Organic advance? Change in human life?

Take one route.....

The monkeys open the film. They are at war with a rival clan, it's a stalemate. One monkey touches the Monolith. Then he uses a bone as a weapon to win the clan war. The Monolith triggers his development into the humans we see aboard the spaceship. These guys also encounter the Monolith and x years later, the ship is controlled by the computer HAL - technological evolution. The people aboard this ship are forced to kill HAL, the thing they created. They destroy their own technological advance. Dave encounters the Monolith again and ages dramatically - the Monolith destroys human life and gives birth to the next stage of evolution (whatever we see floating in space). Theme = technological and human evolution.

Another interpretation: the Apollonian vs Dionysian man.....


The monkeys are purely Dionysian - instinct, emotion, the "id" - and that just doesn't work, the result is murder. Later, during the Jupiter mission, the characters we see are purely Apollonian - structure, logic, the "ego" - having created a mechanical being (HAL) to control their lives. They are completely devoid of emotion and what makes humans human. This also fails, resulting in death. So in the film's finale, the Monolith scraps both versions of Man (Dave ages rapidly and dies) and creates a new form (the foetus we see hanging in space is another kind of Man). This is the "super ego", the natural balance between the instinctual, primal side of Man and the logical, mechanical side. What Freud would say is the balance needed for humankind to function completely. Theme = what makes us human?

Anyway, those are just two possible interpretations (very loosely summarized). The point is, you can throw anything you want at 2001 and it will stick. A religious interpretation - the Monolith is God and He presses the reset button on humanity. Or.....in the end, Dave - the representation of Man - becomes God (he is afterall, hovering in the sky over the world all deity-like). 

One way of creating theme would be to write the script (forget about everything else). After draft 1 or 2, look for some sort of interpretation for your script, and you can create a theme. If your film has a clear Christian vs. Atheist thing going on, change that character's name from Bob to Abel. You might surprise yourself....

Next up - Blade Runner.

Sad

This was a b-side:

All the photographs are peeling, colors turn to gray
He stayed... in his room with memories for days
He faced... an undertow of futures laid to waste
Embraced... by the loss of one he could not replace

And there's no reason that she passed
And there is no God with a plan, it's sad
And his loneliness is proof, it's sad
He could only love you, it's sad

The door swings through a passing fable, a fate we may delay, we say
Holding on, live within our embrace

He lit a match, he lay in bed,
Hoping that dreams would bring her back, it's sad
And his loneliness is cruel, it's sad
He could only love you, it's sad

Holding his last breath, believing
He'll make his way
She's not forgotten, he's haunted
He's searching for escape

If just one wish could bring her back, it's sent
And his loneliness is proof, it's sad

He will always love you, it's sad

 Written by Eddie Vedder

5 Shock Horrors

This blog is great for writing rants and general thoughts/advice etc. But sometimes it's nice to have the bigger audience, y'know? So scoot on over to Obsessed With Film (which has just become whatculture.com) and check out my article on Five Shocking Horror Film Scenes to Keep You Awake at Night.

It’s undoubtedly a bad day when you and your friends happen across a seemingly deserted house, only to discover a collection of human bones and a terrifying masked killer. But spare a thought for poor Leatherface. That’s what director Tobe Hooper demands of us in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Not two kills into his massacre, Leatherface panics when Jerry discovers Pam inside a freezer. Things were fine until those meddling kids poked their noses in. What can Leatherface do? He can’t let them get away! So more killing is called for. After which, he runs in circles and collapses onto a chair. He holds his head in hands like a man who knows he’s got himself in deep trouble. This very human reaction tells us that Leatherface is not some unstoppable monster or a crazed psychopath – this is a man, nothing more. It’s a very sobering scene that ultimately brings the film back to reality. A very bad day for Leatherface!

Keep reading.

Katie Wech interview

Here's a great talk with screenwriter Katie Wech, who has just broken into the biz with her feature Prom, having worked as a staff-writer on TV show The Dead Zone and as an assistant on Prison Break.

The vid annoyingly starts automatically when you load my blog, so go to MakingOf to watch.

Chocolate fart

Disclaimer: please excuse a young man's right to giggle.

Picture the scene.....

You're an innocent, twenty-something female out shopping with your boyfriend. You are also rather attractive (but this is irrelevant). You enter the local chocolate-selling establishment and peruse the shelves of sugary goodness. After a while, you choose your poison and head to the till, where the dashing, devilishly-handsome young gentleman (artistic licence taken) carries out his mind-numbing job.

What you don't notice is that your boyfriend has suspiciously positioned himself curiously close to the exit. He glances around, scanning the surrounding area like a casual Terminator. And then, just as you are about to hand over your money to the aforementioned devilishly-handsome young gentleman behind the till (artistic licence quota fulfilled), you hear this:

PARP!

A fart. So loud a fart, so obvious a fart, that it cannot be mistaken for anything other than a fart. And you know, at that exact moment, that your boyfriend, whose suspicious self-placement by the exit you failed to notice, has done the unthinkable. And then, to make matters worse, you turn around (no doubt to die of shame) only to find that your beloved has rabbited - he's already out of the shop and out of sight.

What do you do?!

The fart was so unmistakably a fart that it's impossible to accuse it of being anything else. And the devilishly-handsome young gentleman behind the till (artistic licence quota exceeded) has an expression that says "Your boyfriend just farted. I am now judging you. Yes, YOU!!!"

The point is - how a character reacts in this situation can tell you a lot about them. Do they say nothing? Do they burst out laughing? Do they pause.....then leg it?

Arnold Schwarzenegger would say something along the lines of "My giiiirlfriend farded! This is an ambarrasing! I must teach duh giiiirlfriend a lesson. I shall farder a child wid anuther female!"

Michael Bay would say "My god, man! That was, like, the most amazingest explosion ever, man! I gotta put that in a film. Man!"

Bruce Willis would say........nothing, cos he's way too cool to go out with someone who farts!

So what would your character do? What would you do?

For those interested, this is what happened in the story told above -

Attractive Female: My boyfriend just farted.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman (artistic licence quota shattered): Erm....yeah.

*Awkward silence*

Attractive Female: Here's your money.

*Awkward silence*

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Here's your change.

*Awkward silence*

Attractive Female: Good-bye.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Yep, bye.

*Awkward silence*

Attractive Female: Sorry. He farted!

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Right.

Attractive Female: It's going to smell.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: That's not improbable.

Attractive Female: I'm going to go.

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Ok.....

*Attractive Female walks away. Throws up a hand on exiting*

Attractive Female: Enjoy the smell!

Devilishly-Handsome Young Gentleman: Cheers.

Attractive Female (off-screen): You twat! You farted in there! And left me! Prick!!!!

The end.

Leon

A lesson, boys and girls, from one Mr Luc Besson - this is how you shoot a suspenseful, awesome action sequence:

Why you should all watch Ink (2009)

Ink is a 2009 US Indie film written, directed, edited and composed by Jamin Winans (no, I hadn't heard of him either). It's tricky to sum up, but IMDb says:

As the light fades and the city goes to sleep, two forces emerge. They are invisible except for the power they exert over us in our sleep, battling for our souls through dreams. One force delivers hope and strength through good dreams; the other infuses the subconscious with desperation through nightmares. John (Chris Kelly) and Emma (Quinn Hunchar), Father and Daughter are wrenched into this fantastical dream world battle, forced to fight for John's soul and to save Emma from an eternal nightmare. Ink is a high-concept visual thriller that weaves seamlessly between the conscious and the subconscious. Ink has been hailed as the new "it" movie and compared to cult classics Brazil, Donnie Darko, The Matrix, Dark City and Pan's Labyrinth.

Here's the trailer:

Looks good, right? So while I was really looking forward to it, I was also worried - the new Matrix? Really?! I was half-expecting one of those poorly-produced rip-off movies with no heart ,and style over substance. I was wrong.

Ink is probably one of the smartest films I've ever seen. Rather than being completely detached from itself, like No Country For Old Men (I liked that film, but the ending was just too anti-climax for my tastes), Ink cleverly straddles the line between realism and fantasy. No answers are given to you (as would probably be the case in a Hollywood-ized version) and you're made to work your arse off to keep up. You're constantly trying to work out the motivations of three characters (including the character Ink from the title).

There's definitely a low-budget feel to the film and some of the acting is a little hit-and-miss. But not only is it visually stunning (pay very close attention to some clever editing), with awesome special effects, the film tells a gripping plot with compelling characters. Forget the dream-warriors and scary monster people - at the heart of Ink is a story about a man who has become detached from his daughter.

So that's substance taken care of. And then comes the style (which is why most people are going to watch this film, let's be honest!). There's a bit of a Harry Potter feel to opening - ordinary world being invaded by the unusual, with dream-weavers appearing from nowhere in the middle of suburban streets. Then there's a stunning action sequence that makes sure you don't even think about turning off.

If you're so inclined, you might like to write an essay on it - I'd recommend an existentialist reading of the film (just to be poncy!). Point of view is very important and one character says something along the lines of "it's all about how we perceive ourselves." Exactly right in this film. Time is also a factor - what happens when etc. Indeed, does it happen at all? And while you're at it, might as well throw in a free will vs. determinism debate too.

There's loads to talk about, so if you like analysing films, it's for you. But despite its various levels, Ink never preaches to the audience. It says "here's a concept.....an idea....a question....we're not saying what the answer is, but we invite you to take a stab at it."

I don't describe many films as beautiful (to name a few - A Beautiful Mind, 2001, Blade Runner) But this one is, both visually and in its story. It's not for everyone, but I think you should all go off and watch it. It's a great example of what Indie film makers can do on a limited budget with just a strong story. Also make sure you check out the DVD commentary.

So if you give it a whirl, let me know what you think. Even if you hate it. Even if you think it's more brainless than Michael Bay's Recycle Bin and less entertaining than The Phantom Menace.

Stay shiny!

Review - X-Men: First Class (2011)

Let's forget about the comics - I love them, but this is a film. Obviously the biggest complaint is "this isn't Xavier's First Class at all! Grr!!!" Yes, I would love to see the origins of the X-Men with Cyclops, Beast, Ice Man, Angel and Marvel Girl. But I'm ignoring that completely. Alternate timeline, in a way.

So....X-Men: First Class. For the record, I'm a big fan of the first two X-Men films - I thought they did a good job of balancing comic book action with real-life, realist situations. I really didn't like X-Men 3 (too many characters not doing anything, too many issues not dealt with enough). And I hated X-Men Origins: Wolverine (absolutely terrible!). First Class is a mixed bag.

The film opens using segments from the first X-Men film - Young Eric in Auschwitz during WWII. Some clever editing shows evil mastermind Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who sees Eric's abilities and investigates further. The way Magneto's powers are explored and developed from then on is fascinating and compelling, with some dark shocks to really show the good-to-evil transition.

So it's a strong opening, the only downside being that it's a little disjointed, darting from one location to the next. But if you're half awake (and you will be any time Michael Fassbender's Eric Lensherr is on screen - he owns everything!) it won't be a problem.

Once the film gets into its stride, there's loads of fun to be had - Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) struts around Oxford chatting up the ladies by reading their minds and regaling them with facts about mutations (remind me try that one in a bar!). Meanwhile, Eric goes from country to country on a revenge mission (I won't reveal why). And it's dark - being able to control metal, ripping fillings out of people's mouths and diverting bullets is child's play. It makes for great viewing - you understand Eric's choices, but can easily see the seeds of Magneto trying to get out.

We get to see the meeting of Charles and Eric, which is nice. My only issue is that, whilst significant, it seems to be played down. And from that point, the film isn't quite as good. Eric's revenge mission takes a back seat. Granted, it's probably necessary to tell the story, but you can't help thinking there's a more compelling story to be told by following Eric all the way.

You'll probably notice that I haven't mentioned the X-Men at all. That's because they take a long time to enter. A montage shows Charles and Eric recruiting mutant after mutant. And it's in this scene where the film hides its shiniest moment - amongst these mutants, there is a cameo. I'm not saying who, but you will smile when s/he appears.

Once Charles' First Class is assembled, Sebastian Shaw's plan for nuclear war (after which mutants will stand victorious) moves swiftly along, as he manipulates both US and Russian military forces to get what he wants. So Eric and Charles leap into action to save the day.

Essentially, this is two films. The first half is about Eric and his revenge against Shaw, with Charles finding a bigger purpose in life. The second half focuses more on the young X-Men, with Havok, Mystique, Beast, Banshee et al getting some screen time. 

Mystique's story is probably the most compelling as we learn why she decided to throw in her lot with Eric. Beast's is obvious and a little cliche, and would have worked a lot better had Hank appeared earlier in the film. But it works. Havok, however, is completely irrelevant. He could easily be removed from the film without consequence and seems only there to make up the numbers. The same goes for Banshee. They both take up valuable time which could have been devoted to Beast's story.

Shaw's mutant henchmen are made up of diamond-edged telepath Emma Frost and teleporter Azazel. Azazel really is there to make up the numbers. But that's fine - he's cool and has some decent action scenes (he's the first film's Sabretooth). Frost however, is a wasted opportunity. Zero screen presence and none of the jazz the comics gave her. A huge shame, since she could have been a great addition.

So it's a mixed bag. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are both excellent and Kevin Bacon is fun too (maybe a bit more humour would have been good?). I was about ready to give this film a 4/5 rating until the younger cast appeared. They do their best, but unfortunately, they're not given enough screen time to do their jobs.

The most fun definitely comes from seeing Eric's transition to Magneto (complete with retro costume). Had the film focused solely on that (and forgotten the First Class), it would have been much better. A vast improvemet on the last Wolverine movie, but could have been better I feel.

Of course, there's huge sequel, so hopefully the new X-Men will be properly developed there. And they're missing a trick if they don't put Emma Frost centre stage!

3.5/5 - go see it, then wait for it to drop to £10 in HMV.

X-Men (2000) - 4/5

X2 (2003) - 4/5

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) - 2/5

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) - 1/5

X-Men: First Class (2011) - 3.5/5

'sKorned' facebook page

Howdy folks. My first feature film - sKorned, which will be directed by Darren S. Cook later this year - is now on facebook at www.facebook.com/sKornedmovie. We're trying to generate as much buzz as possible, so it would be beyond shiny if you'd take a minute to 'like' the page. The more people who know about the film, the smoother funding etc will be.

An action-packed, dark, supernatural revenge thriller with mortals and devils. And the odd morally-conflicted angel.

When Natasha Morgan was 15, she sold her soul to the devil in return for the power to take revenge on the gangsters who killed her parents. The price – when revenge is done, Natasha’s place on earth belongs to him.

Now, four years later, revenge is close at hand. But the closer Natasha gets to completing her mission, the closer Satan gets to taking over her body and mind. Meanwhile, best friend Dexter launches his own campaign to rescue Natasha from her self-destructive nature, turning to redemption-seeking Father Ronan, a mysterious priest with a dark past.

Natasha’s journey comes to a close in a climactic finale, as she battles not only her human enemies, but also the devil himself, who senses victory is close at hand.

Teaser trailer

We've also decided that once we get 100 'likes', we'll put the first 3 minutes of the script online for the world to see - that will be your chance to insult my work ;)

So please follow this link, or try the button/badge thingy at the top right of this page.Your awesomeness is, as always, appreciated.

Stay shiny!

Hopefully you'll take something away from this....

There's a reason Will Smith is one of the most skilled and successful actors working today..

Talent you have naturally. Skill is only developed by hours and hours and hours of beating on your craft.

If you're gonna be here, then there's a necessity to make a difference. I want to do good. I want the world to be better because I was here. I want my life, I want my work, my family, I want it to mean something. If you're not making someone else's life better, then you're wasting you time.

I want to represent an idea. I want to represent possibilities. I want to represent the idea that you really can make what you want. 

The first step, before anybody else in the world believes it, is you have to believe it. There's no reason to have a plan B, because it distracts from plan A.

Three, Skorned, Thor, Insidious

My slightly nervous and awkward first video blog.

http://threefilm.co.uk/
http://www.skornedmovie.co.uk/

Watch 'Three' online now!

Three - the first script I ever wrote, about four years ago at university - was directed by the uber-talented Darren S. Cook, starred Mike Sani, Tony C, and Dean Rees, and was written by yours truly. I'm very proud of how it turned out (everyone did a great job!) and I'm glad this was my first produced credit.

You can now watch it online on the official site, or enjoy below (click full-screen for extra shinyness):

Feel free to let me know what you think - I won't be offended.

Cheers,

Neil.

Positive reinforcement

Yesterday, I finally finished the three-page treatment for my latest featue script. For some reason, it was taking gorram ages to get done. That reason is probably what David said:

Writer's block is where confidence fails. The writer doesn't know their story or their characters or their world. Maybe they haven't done enough research. Maybe they haven't dug deep enough into their creations. Maybe they've lost confidence in their idea, their reason for writing the story, for writing in this genre or for this medium.

Although a big helping of my inability to get the treatment done is just darn laziness :(

Yesterday, I did get a surge of confidence in the idea, but what really got me through it (it only took me half an hour to complete) is the pomise of a reward. It's like that Skinner bloke said - if you have something positive to look forward to, the work will get done. It ain't rocket science (just behavioural psychology).

My promise - a book. I decided that once the treatment was done, I'd start reading Mike Carey's The Taming of the Beasts (it's been sitting on my shelf for months and I'm really looking forward to it based on what happened in the previous book!). It's sad, I know, but it works.

Now I must be off to finish redrafting a short film script. Maybe I can give myself a cookie once that's complete.......