Review: Superman Returns

“Why the world doesn’t need Superman”. That’s the title of Lois Lane’s Pulitzer winning article, an article fueled by the emotions felt after the inexplicable disappearance of the man she loved. It could just as feasibly be the subtitle of Brian Singer’s attempt at bringing the Man of Steel back to cinema screens. But what was Singer’s driving emotion?

Perhaps the bigger question is: Do we really need a new Superman film? Aren’t the original films iconic representations of a lost age of film-making? There’s no CGI, no bullet-time, and no attempt at the sort of epic set pieces that Singer tries to accomplish here. And they’re all the better for it.

That’s not to say that Superman Returns is terrible, although I know there are those of you out there that take that view - that’s what the comments are for. It’s just that it doesn’t feel like it belongs. It’s an attempt at recapturing the original film’s atmosphere, but with so much soulless CGI extravagance that it misses the point entirely. Comparisons with Ang Lee’s The Incredible Hulk aren’t entirely unfair: swap tedious psychological pondering with tedious melodrama and the two have a fair bit in common. In its over-long two and a half hour runtime, Superman Returns attempts to cram in the themes of lost love, fatherhood, trust, the meaning of life, and heroism, topped off with a hint of religious metaphor.

And while it’s unfair to say that none of the themes work on any level, they don’t carry the sort of depth that it appears the writers feel they’ve bestowed upon the film. As a final film in a trilogy featuring consistent actors, carrying the momentum through to its concluding final act and bestowing a greater sense of emotional attachment on the audience, Returns might have worked brilliantly. But in a time when cinematic rebooting of super hero stories are all the rage, it’s odd that this is the film that brings Superman back.

Which is the other problem: nobody wanted, or perhaps dared, to reboot the original franchise. Christopher Reeve’s truly iconic portrayal of Superman has a fiercely guarded place in people’s hearts. As an example, my wife refuses to see Superman Returns, disgusted as she is that this new film has been allowed to exist. Singer and co. are either obsessed with Richard Donner’s original film to the point of mimickery (as some reviewers suggest) or are so incapable of escaping the weight of Superman’s cinematic legacy that they feel unable to change things by too great an extent. The classic score remains, Marlon Brando’s lines of dialogue are featured heavily, and the opening titles are created to resemble those of 1978. Albeit with a large dose of CGI in the background.

Review: X-Men: The Last Stand

Dear Brett Ratner,

I owe you an apology. In the many months preceding the release of X-Men: The Last Stand I’ve said some very negative things about your film. At that point, you must understand, I hadn’t seen it, but rather made an assumption based on your past work. I’m writing you this letter in the hope that you’ll forgive me, and to tell you that I was wrong: You’ve done a damn fine job.

As I write this, I’ve not yet had the chance to re-watch that Singer fellow’s work. I’ve seen his films, but time can do funny things to your recollection of quality. At some point, perhaps when the inevitable boxed set is released, I’ll recap and decide which film is truly the best. At this point in time, however, I’m going to have to say that you’ve done the best job; X-Men: The Last Stand is the best film in the trilogy.

I realise, of course, that it’s not entirely your work. You’ve got an excellent script, which moves at an impressive pace and seems to waste no time on anything that isn’t essential to the story. Of particular note is the lack of any heavy-handed recap on the events of the previous film, or insulting explanation of the powers of each character. And rightly so - by this point, surely everyone knows why Magneto can throw Wolverine around - right?

Then there are the actors. And what a wonderful cast you had, Brett! May I call you Brett? Perhaps it’s best if I stick to Mr Ratner? First and foremost you’ve got Ian McKellen - a man I suspect is a mutant himself, gifted with a special ability that allows him to turn any piece of written text into a Shakespearean monologue. The man is incredible! It’s almost fair to say that McKellen is the lynch pin of your film, but that would be doing a disservice to the work of the three other impressive stars: Famke Janssen, Hugh Jackman, and Patrick Stewart.

Stewart is and always will be Professor X. Forget that Picard bloke, his shiny headed magnificence was born to play Xavier. It is his destiny. There’s really little else to say.

Review: Slither

They don't make films like Slither any more. Or perhaps more accurately, they don't make films like the ones that have clearly inspired Slither any more. At a time when every recent horror film seems intent on proving itself to be the most extreme film you'll ever see (a fact which Slither mocks in its trailer) James Gunn has created a bona fide, card-carrying B-movie, and it's more than happy to show you its impressive credentials.

Gunn's directorial debut comes with all your favourite b-movie trimmings and plays out in a style that's very reminiscent of The Blob (amongst others). Fans should have an enormous amount of fun spotting all the tributes to various genre classics; Slither is wall-to-wall with references, from Videodrome, Predator and The Thing, to the more obvious nods in the direction of Shivers and Night of the Creeps. Much like Scream's slasher movie handbook, Slither plays by the rules and stays faithful to it's genre. It's very, very funny in places - thanks to an above average script and the timing and charisma of its actors (particularly Nathan Fillion, who proves once again that he can hold the screen as well as anyone with the right script) - and its inability to take itself too seriously is a tremendous help. And yet for all of the jokes, it still manages to achieve moments of tension and provide some genuinely unsettling and uncomfortable images. Oh, and the whole thing takes great pleasure in being pretty disgusting too. Another item in the b-movie rule book states that some of the effects must be deeply crappy, and Slither is more than happy to oblige here too. Whilst the makeup effects in general are superb, and there are some great cgi assisted kills, there are one or two effects which look dire. I'm fairly sure this is intentional, but even if it's not, the feel of the film is such that you can easily accept a few crap effects. 

Doctor Who: 2 - 4: The Girl in the Fireplace

Steven Moffat wasn't a writer I associated with Doctor Who. I enjoyed Coupling, but I couldn't quite grasp how writing a sit-com about the lives and loves of four friends qualified you to write an episode of Doctor Who. That said, Russel Davies' previous writing credits don't exactly scream "TIMELORD!" Despite my concerns, Moffat's two parter from last season (The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances) are possibly my favourite episodes from Ecclestone's stay in the Tardis. They're unsettling and edgy, even for an adult audience, and the performances and effects are superb across the board.

The Girl in the Fireplace, Moffat's only episode this season, is every bit as good as his last two episodes but in a totally different way. The whole episode is one lovely juxtaposition of science fiction and period drama; taking place in both eighteenth century France and several thousand years in the future. The concept is one which is so genuinely baffling that it shouldn't work. The two time periods are so diametrically opposed that any attempt at blending them should result in an unwatchable episode. And yet this is such a compelling hour of television.

The responsibility for the success of TGITF lies with three people. The first is Moffat; without his script, concept, and skill as a writer this episode would be a confusing, laughable mess. David Tennant and Sophia Myles complete the trio. Myles is delightful as Madame Du Pompadour, conveying every emotion with enthralling conviction. The chemistry between Myles and Tennant is electric, although this should come as no surprise - back in the real world, the two are apparently engaged. Speaking of Tennant: He has arrived! Finally I am totally convinced by his portrayal of The Doctor. I have no complaints with this episode at all; he owns the role here and I can only hope that he's equally superb in future episodes.

Mickey and Rose don't get a great deal to do here, but as a result this is the first episode where I don't really mind Mickey. Their fire-extinguisher/rifles appear to be silver painted rolls of cardboard, and surely qualify as some of the worst props yet seen in new Who?

The villains of the piece are a strange mix of good and bad. Beyond the first appearance, they aren't the scariest of Who creatures, although I suspect anyone with a fear of clowns will be terrified. They are well conceived though, and when their mask is removed, the work of the design team is a wonder to behold. Where can I get one of those mechanical heads?

Doctor Who: 2 - 3: School Reunion

It's important to remember that Doctor Who isn't just for adults. There's a great deal for adults to enjoy, that's always been the case, but this is television that's not exclusively aimed at us so-called grown ups. Quite the opposite in fact. School Reunion, by grown up standards, isn't that great.

But that's missing the point, surely? Episode three of the second series of new Who clearly has the children in mind; Anthony Head plays an evil head master in a school where something odd is going on, and the unpopular child ultimately becomes the hero and saves a school that's over-run by bat-like aliens. Is this not a classic children's adventure story? But there's unquestionably something for the adults too - Elisabeth Sladen returns as Sarah Jane, and K9 isn't far behind - a creation which surely today's audience of children will find laughably poor. But then, did anybody ever really think that K9 was anything but poor?

This is an episode with much to enjoy if you can disengage your brain: Anthony Head is magnificently over-the-top, munching on all the scenery he can stomach, and having a fantastic time into the bargain. He gets some delightfully crap lines ("Bad Dog!"), gets to run around screeching like a bat, and provides more than his fair share of giggles. While part of me still yearns for a Giles spin-off series (imagine the wondrous things that the combined might of Joss Whedon and Russel Davies could achieve) and finds parts like this to be beneath an actor of Head's calibre, I can't help but lap up any cheesy villain roles he takes. It's also nice to see Elisabeth Sladen back, even if Sarah Jane's part is a little underwritten. There's some nice companion banter between her and Rose, but that's really as far as it goes. Mickey makes a reappearance here too, and I've still not managed to warm to this character. There's just something about him that I can't overcome - perhaps it's the way we're supposed to accept that he's become some sort of master hacker since his early brush with The Doctor. Another nice Torchwood reference crops up during Mickey's scenes, a thread that's nowhere near as subtle as last season's Bad Wolf, but is nonetheless well executed. And K9 is back, sadly. Still, he provides the material for a fair few gags, and is on the receiving end of Head's aforementioned "Bad Dog" line, so I can tolerate his return. 

Super-powered trailer

I had a bad feeling about this: I really did have my doubts as to whether this was going to work, whether Singer might have made a really bad choice opting for The Man of Steel instead of the mutants he'd taken care of twice before.

I think the trailer has dispelled most of my doubts. Most of them. My apathy is completely gone though; I have to see this now.

Maybe Kevin Spacey looks a little bit over-the-top though.