Review of Wrath of the Titans

Wrath of the Titans is 2012 fantasy and sequel to the 2009 Clash of the Titans. The film stars Sam Worthington, Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson, Danny Huston, Edgar Ramirez, Bill Nighy, Toby Kebbell and directed by Jonathan Liebesman. It is well known that Clash of the Titans wasn't the greatest recieved film ever made, personally I enjoyed it, the action in it was fun, it was the pacing and story that let it down. The meaning of this film, is to bring back the audience and gather enough support to revive the franchise so that they can go ahead with the planned sequel named Return of the Gods.

To begin, I am just going to state that I enjoyed Wrath of the Titans, it was everything that the first film wasn't. The action was toned up, there are better characters, better villains, better story and much better 3D. However, it inherits the same problems as its predecessor, and these are poor pacing, poor characters development and poor story. Although the story was better than that of Clash of the Titans, but it was still a simple story, you never have to think about what's going on, and everything happens as you would expect it to, there was few surprises to engage the audience. The pacing was also too fast, just as in the first film, everything moves very fast, and although this keeps the action flowing almost constantly, and this results in poor character development.

On the subject of the cast, Sam Worthington was just as good as he was in the first one (plus slightly more likeable), Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are again both good as the Gods, they're both great actors and they work together really well in this project and the introduction of another great actor, Bill Nighy and also Edgar Ramirez into the God family, just builds up what was already a likable ensemble. The fast pacing of the film means that smaller, but still important characters, like Bill Nighy as Hephaestus, don't have enough screen time to develop their characters and make a lasting impression. If they do go ahead they need to slow it down, improve on the story and concentrate on the scenes that really matter.

Moving onto special effects, everything looks great, simple as (maybe with the exception one particular creature). The CGI blends in well with everything and the 3D was far far better than in Clash of the Titans. I mean there was actually jump out of the screen 3D, which is nice to see after so much rubbish 3D film which have been coming out recently.

There's a lot wrong with this film, so it'll be a struggle for them to gather enough support for a third installment, but there's also a lot that makes it a fun experience. Some examples of this being the action sequences, each one of them being difference, which keeps the film fresh throughout. With this type of film, story almost doesn't matter, the audience goes for the action, the gritty close quarter fights, man vs Gods and Gods vs other Gods. My main complaint with the action is that the final fight sequence with Kronos is almost too similar to that against the Kraken in the first film. I hope they do manage to make a third film, but they will have to rectify a few things in order to make it a success. When I consider the film as a whole given all its factors, I'd give this film a 7.5/10.

Review of The Hunger Games

Tonight I experienced the film adaptation of The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, starring Jennifer Laurence, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Hemsworth and Woody Harrelson. The film premiers in the UK on the 23rd March 2012. I have to begin with the fact that I have read the books and I am a massive fan, I was really looking forward to this film and I was very curious about how they were planning to adapt it so that it's screen worthy .

I am going to begin with how they have adapted the novel. Obviously with every movie adaptation of a novel, there are changes to the story, characters, settings ect, and with The Hunger Games, this is no exception. For those of us who have read the books, straight away we see that they have a major change to the story, which doesn't seem important in the first movie, but will become apparent throughout the next installments. Now the alteration of the origins of Katniss' Mockingjay pin is the first big change to the story, it gets rid of characters from the novel and changes the origins of the feeling of rebellion (which becomes more apparent in 'Catching Fire'), however I do believe that at the end they do recover themselves, but they will have make more alterations to the next installments in order to make them flow the same way that the novels do. Other variations include changes the way certain characters die and little bits were cut out, other bits added in, things like that. Personally I think people would enjoy this movie more if they haven't read the book, it's the same with the likes of Harry Potter and Twilight. I'm not saying that fans of the books will totally dislike it, because it does successfully capture aspects of the novels that connect with the readers and I had people behind me sobbing their eyes out, so they film makers must have done something right.

The best part of the adaptation is that they did not go with using Katniss' narration to tell the story like in the novel. In the novel this works really well, because the reader experiences everything she is going through, and understands her much better as person. It makes her more likable. However if they had used it in the film then it would have been two hours of listening to Katniss talk to herself. So I like how they tried to tell the story as much as possible through actions, flashbacks, general story telling ect. I especially like the game show commentary panel type thing that they use instead of Katniss' narration to describe the likes of the Trackerjackers, and showing us the game keepers control rooms so that we see them controlling the games, rather than just seeing things from Katniss' perspective.

Personally, I think it's the 12A rating that took away a very important part of the books, which is the violence. The violence is what makes the games feared throughout all the district, and in the movie, there's hardly even a speck of blood. I know for a fact that 7-9 seconds of the movie was removed because they thought it was too violent for the rating they wanted. They wanted that rating, purely so that they could increase their potential audience. Basically, it's the same situation as with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, anyone who had read the book was expecting a blood bath, with epic battles and deaths of long loved characters, but when the film came out with its 12A rating, pretty much all of it vanished, disappointing a lot of people. Even if The Hunger Games was given a 15 rating, it would have been so much better! They could have done the deaths properly, more vividly and make it much more entertaining. On the other hand, I can also understand why they reduced the violence and gave it a lower rating, and that is because the film didn't manage to bring in the attention of the public who haven't read the novels. From what I have seen over the internet, most who haven't read the novels, say they aren't interested in the movies, and probably won't go and see them. So giving it a lower rating, increases the chances of it being more appealing to younger generations and families.

Now it's time for me to move onto the film itself. It successfully establishes the order of the districts, showing that certain ones are better off than others and that each has a specific role. The tone of the film does begin quite slowly, it does take a while to get into the story. As for the casting, Jennifer Laurence and Josh Hutcherson work well as Katniss and Peeta, however they failed to present Katniss' confusion for Peeta's feelings for her in a  way which is simple for the audience to understand. Liam Hensworth doesn't really have the chance to prove himself as Gale, but we get more of a chance to see his character develop in the next installment. Woody Harrelson was a good choice for Haymitch, but I don't think he was presented well; you can hardly even notice the fact that he is an alcoholic (driven there by his horrific experiences during, and after, the games). We get a hint of the real Haymitch, but in the end it is overshadowed with scenes of him being the hidden savior, which although is an important part of the story, his alcoholism is essential to his character.

The games themselves, on screen, were much more condensed than they are in the book, which is a plus because it keeps the pace up. The chemistry between Katniss and Peeta develops really well throughout and the whole idea of them being trapped and controlled by a higher authority drives the story. Although I have complained about how it varies from the novels, the games themselves are really well done, and are easily what makes the whole experience worthwhile. In my opinion the ending is slightly anti-climatic, but I think I only believe that because I was expecting something more like how the games are ended in the book, I imagine that anyone who hasn't read the book, or who just has a more open mind than I do, will enjoy it.

There are a lot of cool scenes throughout, the whole films is a nice mash up of action/survival scenes, and scenes that tug at your heart strings. There is a lot right about this film, but also a lot wrong, and by that I mean that there are certain things that easily could have been rectified in order to create a better end result. Without taking its adaption from the novel, it is a highly enjoyable film, that no will create a large fan base similar to those that follow the likes of Twilight. Even though I have complained a lot about the way it has been made, I will definitely be going to see Catching Fire (which is currently in the writing stages) and Mockingjay (which is being split into two films, does that ring any bells...cough Harry Potter cough Breaking Dawn). 

I would highly recommend giving The Hunger Games a chance, it is something new and it's a lot of fun. 

I'd give The Hunger Games a 7.5-8/10 .

Review of 21 Jump Street

Before I get started on this review, I must make it clear that I have never seen the TV series that the film was based on from the 80s, so I went into the cinema with a clear perspective, and I wasn't comparing it with what it was based on, seeing it as it is in front of me.

I have to begin with the fact that this movie was perfect! I cannot think of anything in particular that stands out as being wrong with it (at a push I could say that there was a shoot out that didn't look too good, but I think that was by design to make it look like shoot outs from the 80s TV show). What seems like a shocking revelation to me is that this is the second film I have seen this year which stars Channing Tatum (I do believe I may be becoming a fan, although I just have to think about 'Dear John' to go back to disliking him immensely); the film also stars Jonah Hill, whom I have always enjoyed watching on screen, I think is is a very good actor in the genre of comedy.

Since I cannot really fault the film, I will just state what I believe was good about it; for starters, it had a decent enough story (very 80s) which was backed up with a modern day high school setting and a updated humour. I particularly liked a certain scene near the beginning when they make fun of the fact that they have made a movie based on an 80s cop show (won't go too much into detail as to not ruin it). Tatum and Hill have a great chemistry on stage, you could actually picture them working together in the real world, which makes the experience all the more enjoyable. Also due to some really good pacing, a great score/soundtrack and constant flow of new laughs throughout the whole experience, as a member of the audience you never find yourself bored, or feel like they are using the same joke too much. However, I must stress that this movie, like for example, 'The Inbetweeners Movie', is one of those kinds where it is only really funny the first time round. So with that in mind, I would highly recommend seeing it in cinemas with a group of friends, because I don't think waiting to watch it on DVD will have the same effect (also don't rush out to buy it if you have already seen it, for the reason stated before).

All in all, it is an excellent film, with some great surprises (one extremely good surprise), great cast supported by a fulfilling tide of laughs. A solid 10/10. Best movie I've seen this year, so far.

The Build Up To 'The Avengers' And Where To Go From There

Any fan of the world of Marvel has been looking forward to 'The Avengers' ('Avengers Assemble' to us in the UK) since as early as 2008. In order to make 'The Avengers' movie as much about the action as possible, the decision was made to do a series of films concerning the individual characters, so that they can deal with all the character development well before the Avengers hits the screen. This post is a chronicle of the journey from Iron Man in 2008, to the finished product of 'The Avengers Assemble' this year, and where they plan to go from there. I am first going to talk about each film, in the order that they came out in the cinema, and how they all link together. Then I will explain where each fits in on 'The Avengers' timeline.

Our Journey begins way back in 2008 with the release of 'Iron Man' directed by Jon Favreau, starring Robert Downey, Jr as Tony Stark/Iron Man. I'm not going to bore you all with a story synopsis, since I am guessing that if you are reading this, then you will most likely have already seen these films at some point. 'Iron Man' set the scene for future Marvel movies within what was to become the Marvel Extended Universe (or the Marvel Cinematic Universe), the film was given a more gritty, realistic appearance, taking it away from the comics, and into the modern world. A rather interesting fact is that the cast was free to create their own dialogue, because the focus was on the story and the action, which is probably what gives the films its flow and makes the characters appear more natural. Favreau signed on to direct three movies in this franchise, so within the first installment we see hints as to who might appear in the next. Obviously we witness The Iron Monger in this film, the main clue for the next installment comes with the hint of War Machine making an appearance. 

However, the biggest hint of what is to come in the future, came after the credits, when a cameo from Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury, the director of S.H.I.E.L.D (somehow Fury has turned from pale and ginger, to black and awesome). S.H.I.E.L.D had already made an appearance throughout the film, but this was the first insight into the future of the franchise, with Nick Fury wanting to talk to Tony Star about the 'Avengers Initiative'.

Moving on to 'The Incredible Hulk' released the same year as 'Iron Man', directed by Louis Leterrier, starring Edward Norton and Tim Roth. This film is in no way connected to the 2003 film by the name of 'Hulk'. This was a stand alone movie using the same character, but the film did benefit slightly as the origins of the Hulk is only briefly explained in this movie, say 'Hulk' ended up acting as an unofficial prequel. Again the film takes a realistic tone, relying as much as possible on realistic scientific theories to explain the Hulk and The Abomination. S.H.I.E.L.D are again referenced, but do not play a role, however, Tony Stark makes an appearance at the end, offering to assist General Ross in capturing the Hulk. This films was supposed to be the beginning of a trilogy, like 'Iron Man' and act as a forerunner toe the Avengers movie (the film includes an origins for one of the Hulks arch enemies, The Leader), however, after the first film, communications broke down with Edward Norton, and he did not sign on for another installment. Roth and Leterrier have signed on for another two installments, concepts were already completed for The Leader.  Mark Ruffalo begins his role as the Hulk in 'The Avengers' movie this year. Leterrier says a second  installment will be happening, and that 'The Incredible Hulk' was definitely only chapter one, but the next installment won't be happening until after the Avengers (I think with it being so close that that point is obvious).

Now we are back to Favreau and his 'Iron Man' franchise, with the 2010 sequel 'Iron Man 2', which introduces a new villain by the name of whiplash (played by Mickey Rourke) and Iron Mans side kick, Rhodey/War Machine (Don Cheadle replacing Terrance Howard). The film also introduces Natalie Rushman/The Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johansson). This installment concentrates more on Tony Starks development rather than the Iron Man suit like in the first one (although it does give us comic book fans a treat with the brief case suit making an appearance). Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D play a more prominent role in 'Iron Man 2', making their intentions clear for Stark and his alter ego. If you looks closely, near the end when Fury and Stark are discussing Iron Mans involvement in the Avengers Initiative, if you look at the screens in the background, you can see a news real showing footage from what looks like, the battle between the Hulk and the army on the University campus). There's a little treat of information for you. 'The Avengers' hint in this film comes after the credits, when we are taken to Mexico, and we see Thor's hammer in a massive crater (a bit of an obvious hint for the next Marvel installment).

So now we're at 'Thor' in 2011, directed by Kenneth Branagh, starring Chris Hemsworth as the mighty Thor, the God of Thunder. Out of all of the installments, this one was obviously the most difficult to make modern and realistic. There was so way that they could take the magical element out of this movie, so they attempted to merge science and fantasy into the same movie. This films reveals to us the main villain in the Avengers movie, Loki (played by Tom Hiddleston) and gives us a cameo from Jeremy Renner as Clint Barton/ Hawkeye. The film sets up the foundations for Thor wanting to protect earth, however, like in 'The Incredible Hulk', 'Thor' leaves questions that won't be answered until April, how do they capture Hulk? How does Thor make it back to earth? The hint at the end of this movie is that Loki is still alive and we see a mysterious energy cube (which in the same year, we find out is a key factor in 'Captain America: The First Avenger'.

Finally we are still in 2011, but we are at the final installment of the preparation for 'The Avengers', which is 'Captain America: The First Avenger', directed by Joe Johnston and starring Chris Evans as Steve Rodgers/Captain America. This film gives us an insight into a time before S.H.I.E.L.D, but Stark Industries plays a crucial role, with Dominic Cooper playing the role of Howard Stark (father of Tony Stark/Iron Man). Of course, the most important part of this film is the confirmation about what the mysterious blue cube was at the end of 'Thor' (it is apparent that it will play an important role in 'The Avengers'). We are also treated to a character whom, throughout the comic book world, is well known for being the most evilest of villains, Johann Schmidt/The Red Skull (played by the amazing Hugo Weaving, whom we will all remember from The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Matrix Trilogy). Another little treat is getting to see Tommy Lee Jones play a bad ass Colonel, always a pleasure see him in movies (although the way Men in Black 3 looks, that could be about to change). At the end of the movie we aren't given a hint like with the other installments (after the credits we got a small glimpse of 'The Avengers' trailer), since it is the last film before 'The Avengers' there was no need.

Alright, now is time to see where they all fit together chronologically. It starts off with 'Captain America: The First Avenger' at the beginning (obviously because it's set in the 1940s), then it is followed on by 'Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' (or Gold-Titanium Alloy Man, sorry, bad joke). Now it is up to debate, because 'Thor' and 'The Incredible Hulk' happen roughly around the same time, based on the Stark cameo, and S.H.I.E.L.D leaving for Mexico halfway through 'Iron Man 2', I'd say that the events in 'Thor' start occurring a few weeks before those from 'The Incredible Hulk' (remember by the end of 'Iron Man 2' we can see footage of the Hulk vs the army campus battle), but a lot of the time it appears as if they the events are happening side by side, which may explain S.H.I.E.L.D's absence from 'The Incredible Hulk'. 

So what do we know now? Well that we have a billionaire genius whom S.H.I.E.L.D are not sure whether or not they want to use, two agents with no super human skills, a 1940s super soldier who has been asleep for nearly 70 years by this point, the God of Thunder trapped in his won world and finally, an unstoppable beast that needs to be captured. On top of all that, Loki is alive, he's interest is an artifact of great power, he somehow has an army and he is more powerful than ever. Bring all that together and you've got one hell of a challenge.

There's no point in trying pick apart what will happen in 'The Avengers', because that will ruin it for everyone, so what can we expect from the future? Well, Jon Favreau didn't agree with way the 'Iron Man' universe was playing out (with plans for 'Iron Man 3' to be a direct sequel to 'The Avengers') so he has refused to return for a third installment. Obviously this is a massive blow, but however, it does have its flip side, and that is that since Favreau only planned to do three films, this new director may decide that he is will to do more, which is good isn't it? More of Iron Man blowing stuff up? 'Iron Man 3' is currently in the pre-production stage, hoping to start filing soon after 'The Avengers', aiming for a 2013 release date, with Shane Black scheduled to direct. It was recently confirmed that the villain with be the Mandarin, but instead of his rings of power being magical, they will be trying to give the character a modern day make-over and swap the magic, for technology. How this will turn out (or change the basis of the character), we do not know yet.

There have also been a few rumors floating around that the powers that be were discussing a S.H.I.E.L.D movie and a Black Widow movie. All just rumors, they probably won't get picked up since they aren't necessarily important to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Also, an extra who plays a judge in 'The Avengers' came out and stated that there was a trailer with the name 'Spiderman' printed across its door, suggesting that he will make a cameo appearance. I have to say, in my opinion, that we can probably scrap that piece of information, because for starters, Spiderman doesn't fit into this universe, and Sony own the rights to the Spiderman franchise, and they would never let another company use that character without a very substantial payment. On the other hand, they may want to use it as advertisement for 'The Amazing Spiderman', that will be released a few months later. Or he could just be mentioned, or seen on the news. All I'm saying is that it is highly unlikely that this information is true. It would be like Batman turning with the Justice League to say hello.

Here's something that'll make you all die a little inside, Joss Whedon has came out and announced that 'The Avengers 2', will be a smaller movie than the one we will all see next month. He says that the first movie is all about the action, whereas he wants the second one to be more about character development, taking each character to a darker place. Which I think is rubbish, because isn't that what the whole point of having the individual movies was all about? Also with more individual movies planned/announced, why would he need to put more character development in the cross over movie? Hopefully he will see sense, and realise that all we want is action his movies, leave the character development to the individual movies.

I have already talked about the hopes for a second Hulk movie, but there has been no news on that front for a few years now, most likely we'll hear more depending on how well the new Hulk is received in April. Apparently 'Thor 2' will have a different writer, they plan to put a more darker tone onto the move so that it will be taken more seriously. 'Captain America 2' has been confirmed for a 2014 release date, why they are waiting so long is beyond me. I would have thought they would want to begin straight away and ride on the inevitable success of 'The Avengers' and try and get the sequel out after 'Iron Man 3', around the same time as 'Thor 2'. This could suggest that they may aim for an Avengers sequel by 2015.


This next part is purely my own opinion, I believe that at the end of 'The Avengers', the Red Skull will make an cameo appearance to set up for the next movie. I believe this because at the end of 'Captain America' the Red Skull vanishes into what looks like another realm (that looks a lot like Asgard). A character as important as the Red Skull cannot be dead already. Even in the comic books, Captain America and the Red Skull met again to fight in the modern world (after both being trapped in the void). So there are still plenty of story lines for writers to play with.

That's a wrap folks. There is a good chance that I have missed something out of this that I will remember in a few hours a kick myself about, but I hope this clearly maps out the journey the makers of 'The Avengers' have taken in order to get to the point they are at now, which is with everybody waiting nervously and excitedly for April 26th 2012 (if you live in the UK). That's all from me for now, I'll see you all on the 26th. 

Review of The Vow

Now I've never really been a fan of this kind of movie, but occasionally you have to be kind and see something that your girlfriend wants to see. The fact that it's based on a true story, straight away makes it one of those films with depth and is more engaging to the audience.
I quite like Rachel Mcadams, ever since I saw her in Mean Girls, and although I am not a fan of Channing Tatum, I did enjoy The Eagle, so on that basis, you'd imagine it would turn out to be a decent movie. I'll put it simply, the story is solid for the most of it, the acting is moderate with a few exceptionally outstanding bits (mostly by Mcadams) but overall it turns out to be a fairly average outcome. This is because there are some parts of the story that just drag and the ending annoyed me. Although it doesn't follow the usual structure of a love movie, whilst the film builds up to an emotional ending, you don't get the satisfaction of that because it ends so suddenly! It ends before the story is over! That is a result of how the story played out in real life, so it is good that it stayed true to the story's origins, I can probably assume that the movie doe exaggerate many aspects of it. I'm sure many will like the ending, it's very give or take, like with The Grey, you either liked the ending or hated it.
Overall I enjoyed The Vow, a lot more than I expected, but I most definitely seen better, and I wouldn't have shed a tear over not seeing it in theaters. It is a good piece of film work and a good choice for a couple to go on see (I would highly recommend not seeing this by yourself if you are a man, you will not look good), but it is also the kind of film that can be enjoyed just as much being watched on DVD at home. 6/10, maybe a 5.5/10, I can't decide.