The Incredible Hulk - The Marvel shared universe’s ‘misfire?’

Thor.  Iron Man.  The Avengers.  It’s pretty impressive how the Marvel Studios can make one memorable hit film after the next.  And then you had the Incredible Hulk.  Somewhere.  Seeing as Iron Man, Thor and Captain America seem to have pushed themselves to the forefront of the Marvel Universe, sometimes it’s easy to forget that there was also a film dedicated to the big green grumpy fella!  Or maybe that’s because there were actually TWO movies, but we won’t really touch on that.

The Incredible Hulk movie was actually a remake of a similar Marvel movie only a few years before.  However, it totally bombed at the Box Office and was therefore quickly forgotten as soon as possible, especially when the Hulk was to be drafted into the same on screen universe as Iron Man and co.  It’s not a bad film, it just has problems.  One of which is the lack of originality.  It’s basically Iron Man (1), only with different characters.  The story is pretty much identical, only with a green star instead of a guy in a metal suit. 

Secondly, and this is more of a downside that’s applicable after the film was made, the Hulk’s human alter-ego played by Edward Norton, decided to leave the franchise.  Therefore, all Hulk-related scenes in everything from the Avengers onwards was taken over by Mark Ruffalo.  I think the studio was hoping that the Hulk would become more of a franchise in its own right, as there are plenty of little plot points in the film which aren’t resolved, clearly so that they can be addressed in later instalments.  I guess only time will tell if these will ever see the light of day, or whether the Avengers will take over and the Hulk will just be a background character in the overall story.

However, that was to come.  Judging the film on its own and it’s not that bad.  It has some pretty impressive action scenes which are fun to watch, but it’s main plus point is Tim Roth.  Yes, he’s the man tasked with bringing down the Hulk at any costs, but I was on his side.  He pretty much saved the film for me.  The Hulk (when big, green and generally smashing things) was fun, however Edward Norton (despite being a great actor) just didn’t really have much to work with.  Therefore it was up to Roth to steal every scene.

I know the Hulk is based on a comic book and the monster itself did (still) look pretty computer-generated, which was a bit disappointing as it looked only slightly better than its forgotten predecessor ‘Hulk.’

The Incredible Hulk doesn’t really feel that bigger part of the overall ‘Marvel shared universe,’ but it is a fun enough little jaunt that is worth a watch just for Tim Roth’s performance.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

The Dark Tower - In need of a 'shared universe'

It seems that every film studio is trying to create their own 'shared universe' in the hope of recapturing some of Disney's success with their Marvel superhero film franchise.  Most clones seem to fall at the first hurdle, let alone embark on a ten year run of dominating the Box Office. 'The Dark Tower' is a Stephen King adaptation that - not that you'd know it from the film itself - actually brings together many of his other books into - yes - a 'shared universe.'

Since watching the film, I've seen online that 'The Dark Tower's' source material spans numerous different horror stories and links them all together.  You'd think that the film-makers would therefore want to utilise this rich and expansive set of back stories to create something truly memorable and long-lasting.  What they did was produce a 'by-the-numbers' action/sci-fi film which lasts only about ninety minutes.

According to the opening scenes there's a big tower in another dimension and if 'evil' destroys it then the world (or worlds?) ends...  or something.  But, luckily, we're introduced to a boy (Tom Taylor) in our world who magical and one of those 'chosen ones' that films always have.  He has the power to... do stuff that will save us all.  He quickly meets up with Idris Elba's character 'the gunslinger' who is also on a mission to save stuff and kill Matthew McConaughey who wants to destroy the tower.

What follows is the writers condensing an entire series of books into less than ninety minutes.  It's like the film should have been twenty hours long and you're watching it on DVD skipping chapters and only watching a minute or so from every hour.  The story flies along and things just happen in order to get to the next action set piece.

Elba and McConaughey are both great with what they're given to work with.  I hear the film went through reshoots to 'flesh out' Elba's character.  I can only imagine what little amount of screen time he had BEFORE the extra footage was added!  The boy himself is also pretty good considering his age and he actually excels when he's called on to really act out a dramatic scene.

The special effects and fight scenes are also well done and, despite the obvious use of computer-effects are interesting and believable enough to look like they belong in a film with a much higher budget.

I didn't hate 'The Dark Tower,' but then I certainly won't be watching it again.  Maybe it was actually 'worse than bad' because it wasn't a terrible film, only frustrating.  It was hard to watch because I was sure that there was a great story in there somewhere, but it wasn't given the opportunity to flourish or given the treatment it deserved.  It's probably meant to have a sequel, but the lack of Box Office presence means that that will probably never happen.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Night of the Living Dead (1990) - What is this?  A remake that works!

It is fair to say that, in zombie movie terms, the original ‘Night of the Living Dead’ was a classic.  Not only was it pretty gory and creepy for its time (hey, it was still the sixties!), but it also carefully alluded to the racial tensions of America at the time.  Therefore, it not only cemented its place in the horror hall of fame, but also won praise for its daring social commentary.

How could anyone truly do the original justice by remaking it?  Well... perhaps one thing that may go a long way is by giving it back to the people who made it to begin with!

Yes, zombie overlord George A Romero returns at (well, near) the helm to make sure the remake goes smoothly.  If you don’t know... the film is about the start of a worldwide zombie epidemic.  While society crumbles a rag-tag bunch of people try to survive the night in an abandoned farm house, while trying to fend off seemingly never ending waves of flesh-eating ghouls.  Now, that synopsis actually describes both the 1968 version and the 1990 remake.  The latter’s first selling point is that it sticks to the original concept pretty tightly.  In fact, the story is basically a shot-for-shot remake (okay, not ‘shot-for-shot’ in that depressing ‘Psycho’ remake, but shot-for-shot enough to keep the basic premise constantly the same).

Yes, it has some changes.  First of all the remake looks better.  It has a higher budget and has a more ‘polished’ feel to it.  Plus all the actors really do play their parts well (some even being improved, in a few cases).  Basically, the original is so good, that a remake that simply takes everything that’s good at it and just updates its look and feel for a more modern audience isn’t such a bad thing. 'Candyman's' Tony Todd is the star and takes the mantle of 'Ben' this time round.  Anyone who's seen 'Candyman' will know he's more than capable of carrying a film and he's the perfect man to play the new lead here.  If you've seen the original you'll know that the 'female lead,' aka 'Barbara,' spends much of the movie practically silent and traumatised by the whole event.  This time round Patricia Tallman plays her a lot more 'up to date' and gives her character a far more 'multi-dimensional' feel to it.  However, no great film would be without an equally great villain.  Yes, of course the zombies are - technically - the bad guys, but Tom Towles plays 'Harry Cooper,' a man more dangerous than a dozen flesh-eaters - and someone you'll be dying to see get what's coming to him.  He's great, simply because you'll love to hate him and steals every scene, even from heavyweights such as Tony Todd.

Yes, the original was a classic, simply because it was – for want of a better word – original.  There had never really been anything like it before, therefore it’s stayed the test of time.  Yes, it was filmed in black and white (and the ‘coloured in’ version looked a little odd) so having what is technically a ‘properly coloured’ version of the same movie is no bad thing.

If you were to ask most (a) zombie purists and (b) film critics, they’d probably tell you that nothing could outdo the 1968 version.  And, to be fair, they may be right.  However, that doesn’t stop the 1990 remake being a decent enough little zombie film in its own right.  If you like your undead slow, creepy and relentless, give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

American Made - Watchable 'true' story

'American Made' is one of those films where I can't really think of anything particularly negative to say about it, but then I also can't really think of any major positives.  On paper, it all works - it's one of Hollywood's 'true' stories, which basically means it's loosely based on people and events that actually happened.  It has star-power, drama, high-tension moments and a good supporting cast.  And yet only a day after watching it, I'm struggling to remember anything really to say about it.

Back in the late seventies and early eighties an American pilot Barry Seal (Tom Cruise) started smuggling drugs for the South American cartels, but was subsequently 'recruited' by a CIA man Monty 'Schafer' (Domhnall Gleeson) to start double-crossing the drug dealers and gathering evidence for the White House.

Tom Cruise is no stranger to headlining films and therefore is the perfect leading man to root for.  There's no shortage of budget for the production and all the sets look like they're set in the appropriate time period, plus there are some dramatic moments which utilise the dramatic elements of danger associated with trying to doublecross organised crime.  Plus the story is - relatively - true, therefore it adds an element of interest knowing that this actually happened.  Yet I still felt a little unsatisfied.

I've checked other reviews online and it seems that I'm in the minority.  Most people seemed to really love it and think it was great.  I guess it was watchable enough, but not memorable.  Perhaps because I'm part of that 'older' generation, I've seen plenty of films such as this that are based on trues stories where one man is recruited by some law enforcement agency and has to infiltrate the mob.  It's like I've seen all this before and 'American Made' didn't offer enough that was new in order to make me remember it too well or even want to see it again.

If this is your thing, or you don't know that much about 'true' crime then you should enjoy it.  I did.  I just don't really think I'll ever bother watching it again.  For me, it was certainly one of those films where I'm happy to watch on an online streaming service, but would never bother buying on DVD.  At least it proved that Domhnall Gleeson can do more than just shriek and be the 'comedy bad guy' in those depressing new 'Star Wars' movies.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

22 Jump Street - The most ‘self aware’ sequel ever made (excluding 'Deadpool 2')

The first film, ’21 Jump Street,’ was a surprise hit.  How do we know?  Because the cast of ’22 Jump Street’ tells us as much in the script.  At first I wondered whether I was imagining it, but then I realised it was basically the ‘running joke’ of the movie that the film-makers were only too aware how lucky they were to get the chance to make a sequel.

In fact, the story is exactly the same as the first – two junior cops must infiltrate high school in order to catch the bad guys.  This could be considered a ‘weak point’ in the plot, yet the film happily exploits its own ‘failings’ in order to draw laughs from the fact that it’s basically the same as before.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum have really good chemistry as the two leads and their dynamics are what saves the film.  Ice Cube is also back as the duo's long suffering chief of police and he's used a bit more - and to better effect.  I didn’t expect to like the first outing and was as surprised at how good it was.  However, I did think that – despite the good, self-aware gags – it was less funny than its predecessor.  That’s mainly the middle of the film when it does tend to drag a bit.  The first and last third seem to play better when it comes to laughs.

If you liked the first film, I’d say you might as well see this one, too.  It’s not quite as sharp, but there are just enough laughs (besides the ‘self aware’ gags which - in my opinion - land every single time) to warrant a viewing, although I didn’t think it was as good as some critics have been saying. I heard a lot of people saying how it surpassed the original.  I wouldn’t agree with that, but it is okay, just not great.

'22 Jump Street' is at its best when it's sending up what it is.  And, for that, it's worth a watch.  Also, it's well worth staying for the credits as they are one of the longest moments of funniness you'll get in the movie.  However, the end credits are so good that they may well have (inadvertently?) prevented what would have been the '23 Jump Street' that a lot of people were waiting for.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Ghost Rider - Oh, Nick... where did it all go wrong?

Once upon a time, the name `Nicholas Cage' could be associated with setting the cinema box office alight. Then, after one weirdly-awful choice of film after the next, he's been reduced to this - 'Ghost Rider.' You can probably see what he was thinking... recently the `Marvel' stamp has been very lucrative, what with 'Iron Man, Thor, Captain America' and, of course, 'The Avengers.' Nicolas Cage probably thought this film would be spoken of in the same breath as them.

He was wrong. Poor old Nick - just his luck to pick the one `Marvel turkey.' 'Ghost Rider' is an example of a comic book character that should probably stick to the pages of a comic book. Nothing really works here, even though everyone does their best to make it happen.  But, more importantly, this is one of those Marvel properties that ISN'T part of the 'Iron Man' and co 'shared universe.' It's a property Marvel had to sell off during its less lucrative times.

Cage plays a motorcycle stunt rider who sells his soul to the devil (does it matter why?), only to be double crossed (surprise!) and forced to 'reel-in' the souls of the damned for all eternity (while having his head on fire - it's never explained why this is a necessity, but - apparently - it is).  One criticism of the 'MCU' is that it doesn't have that many memorable villains (besides Loki, of course).  Well, even the worst of their offerings isn't as bad as the couple of different baddies on display here.  They're the definition of cliche with no character growth or motivation, other than simply being 'evil.' The acting is average, with the actors doing their best with the lacklustre script. But the script doesn't give any of the characters much depth and Nicolas Cage just looks a bit embarrassed to be wearing a blatant hairpiece throughout.  He has all the other character-types there to aid/hinder him, i.e. the best friend, the mentor and the love interest.  Again, they're all pretty forgettable, although I did have a small fondness for the 'mentor' who was also once a 'Ghost Rider,' mainly because he had a really cool metallic/on-fire horse, but, just when he was really coming into it, they didn't bother using him to his full potential.

However, who cares about the acting if there's plenty of fun action to keep us entertained? Well... there isn't much here. When Nick changes into the `Rider' the flaming skull just looks bad and the set pieces of action don't really shout out to you that they're really that special.  I bought the game of this film on the PlayStation 2 and the special effects look about that level of quality.

'Ghost Rider' is one of those films that, if you have nothing else to do and happen to catch it on telly, then you might think it's okay. But that's all it'll ever be - okay. Although, saying that... if you compare it to its sequel - it's actually a masterpiece of film-making!

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

[Rec] Genesis - WARNING: very different to the previous two

The original Rec was a classic - one of the few `found footage' films that actually worked. It was no wonder it was not only remade (reasonably faithfully) for the American audience as `Quarantine,' but also spawned a sequel which was very similar to the original in look and feel (although not quite as good, but definitely passable).

How much enjoyment you get out of the third instalment will depend on how well you deal with the change (spoilers ahead). After twenty minutes of setting up the film as shot from the first person via a wedding video, it deliberately changes itself into a regular `third person' film. Not only do they do this to kind of surprise the audience, but it also serves as one of the indicative new main ingredients, i.e. some self-knowingness.

Rec 1 and 2 were both as serious as they come, whereas part 3 (Rec 3: Genesis as it's known) throws in more than a fair few moment of comedy and parody. Therefore it moves the film away from the familiar Rec territory and comes across more like a regular zombie/horror film that rolls along happily, never taking itself too seriously.

If this film was simply called `Genesis' and had nothing to do with the franchise, it would probably have got a better reception overall. However, the changes obviously was a gamble and not for everyone. Rec 3 never reaches the chilling heights of terror that its predecessors managed, but it is still an entertaining little yarn that you should be able to enjoy if you like your gore messy and plot holes easily overlooked.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights