The Matrix (1999)

IMDb Top 250 Ranking - #19

I’ve taken an extended hiatus from the film blogging arena recently, and this hiatus is the culmination of a busy few months. I started my second year of University in September and because of that became your stereotypically noisy alcohol-consuming 19 year old. Of course I also managed to get some studying done in between. The reason I’ve made a return to Film Rambler Extraordinaire is in part because I missed the freedom of getting all of my observations, joys and frustrations out onto paper, but also because I’m not sure when the blogging-bug will bite me next, so I should probably take advantage while it’s taken hold.

As you can tell from the obnoxiously large picture posted above, as well as the title of the post, I will be giving a quick review of my thoughts concerning the sci-fi smash hit The Matrix. I feel I may be able to lend a certain expertise to this review, as I did with Into The Wild, because we recently made a study of it in my Imaginary Worlds module.

There’s something extremely refreshing about studying contemporary works of art, especially when those works are of the cinematic variety (being a Literature student, it’s a rare luxury) - because your opinion is the pinnacle. There’s no referring to great literary theorists and borrowing the ideas of men and women whose ideas are far grander than your own, because it’s new, and therefore fresh territory. But enough with the nonsensical rambling, on to the review…

First of all, I’d like to address the elephant in the room. That elephant being my intense dislike for Keanu Reeves. Does anybody share this burning hatred? (Okay, I may be overstating myself a tad here). In my opinion his acting is wooden and emotional range almost non-existent. In every film the only expression he manages to pull off convincingly is one of quiet bewilderment, and frankly I think that’s only because his face is permanently frozen this way. Which is why, as I entered into my first viewing of The Matrix, I was prepared to be disappointed. You see I’ve never been a hardcore fan of either action or sci-fi (until recently), and these genres combined with Reeves made for an unpalatable experience upon initial impression. But oh how I love to be proved wrong! Surprisingly Reeves gave an excellent performance in his portrayal of Neo – a young man who discovers that his life is a part of a complex computer system called The Matrix, and that everything he has ever experienced has been a simulation created by ‘the machines’, who enslaved the human race and created this virtual reality.

See what I mean about that vague look of bewilderment? Its all I ever see and I apologize in advance if you'd never noticed, because now its all you'll ever see! Still though, Reeves pulls it out of the bag for this role...

Of course upon concept alone the film reaches epic proportions and as it unfolds quickly reveals itself as a classic of its genre. The films wide-spread popularity and cult-following lends credibility to its sci-fi roots. Once over the genre was regarded with nothing but general disdain and an association with less talented writers, readers and consumers. The tropes attached to the genre seemed far-fetched and ridiculous. After all, who really encounters flying spaceships and machines capable of time-travel? Ahem, that answer is NOBODY. However with the emergence of technology and the opportunities for advancement that it offered society came a looming evil that seemed much more convincing to audiences, and therefore much more terrifying. After all, we’ve all secretly wondered whether there will be a vicious robot-uprising that will enslave mankind, and if your shaking your head as you read this then you’re either lying or you suffer from a distinct lack of imagination.

This very real fear of technology is something the Wachowski brothers have picked apart and dissected to create a film that acts as a social commentary upon the very fabric that makes up our day-to-day lives. That fabric being our over-reliance on technology. It’s a strange dichotomy to acknowledge as a consumer, our reliance vs. our fear, and ultimately one the filmmakers make us choose between. The red pill or the blue pill – reality or illusion? The films concept is quite simple if you take the time to understand its message, which is layered with intertextual and religious reference.

In terms of the films aesthetic quality it echoes stereotypes associated with cyberpunk and horror – the film is layered in darkness even down to the clothing worn by the protagonists. This darkness is clearly a reflection of the society in which we live, which is filled with corruption and laziness, and adds a reality and visceral-quality to the action scenes in the film. To fans of this genre prepare to be pleased because the films fight-sequences are quite simply amazing. The speed, precision and strength of the characters is unbelievable and the films kung-Fu influences during the fight sequences between Morpheus and Neo, and then Neo and Agent Smith are evident.

Though the film is brilliant in many ways I do have one bone of contention – that being the final scene of the film in which we see our hero-protagonist fly off into the sunset. This seemed far too cliché for an otherwise well-rounded sci-fi film and left a bitter taste in my mouth which made me question the filmmakers intent. My other minor irritation is the lack of resolution at the end of the film. I know this was a deliberate move to pave the way for future sequels but still, I feel the filmmakers could have left the audience on steadier and more recognisable ground in terms of characterisation and “place” (by which I mean OUR place within this concept of a virtual reality, though I suppose this would have made for a much longer film!).

All-in-all very pleased with this film and its message, as well as the credibility it has lent to its genre.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this movie? To sci-fi lovers and action afficandos I offer a resounding YES. If your less into these genres but want to see a classic then I would suggest you give it a go, and perhaps think more about its underlying message rather than its overt cinematic techniques. You might find yourself pleasantly surprised.
A film rambler’s star rating?

That’s it for now folks…

The Cove (2009)

Hey again! Yes, I know it’s been a good long while since I've done one of these and I ought to have a darn good explanation for my extended hiatus. Maybe something cool like “I got into a motorcycle accident and had to stay in the hospital to recover”. Or perhaps, “I was whisked away on a month-long safari!”

Sadly, neither scenario fits the bill. You can put my absence down to good old fashioned writer’s block. Yes, even non-fiction blog writers get writers block. What can I say? It happens to the best of us. *cough* and-the-not-so-best (aka me) *cough*. But enough with my self-indulgent rambling! Let’s get down to business…

So if you've frequented my blog before you might have noticed that my posts tend to revolve around dramatic fiction rather than hard-hitting documentary, but that’s something that I’m determined to change. Partly because my tastes have shifted somewhat in the film-genre department and partly because it’s good to add a dash of variety here and there, that way you won’t get bored. So I start my foray into the documentary genre with a post about the heart-breaking and eye-opening issue of dolphin slaughter that the film The Cove exposes.

I heard about this from a friend after we had a discussion about our growing obsession for documentary films and was attracted to it not only because, as a kid, dolphins were my all-time-favourite animal (literally, I was obsessed with them!) but because I was genuinely shocked to find out that these beautiful and sentient creatures were being slaughtered, and that not many people were willing to do anything about it.

The film follows the efforts of the team behind the documentary which is led by long-term activist and former dolphin trainer Ric O’Barry as they set out to expose the barbaric fisherman in the small coastal town of Taiji, Japan who are responsible for the murder of 23,000 dolphins a year. It’s a shocking statistic and one the audience is repeatedly told, perhaps to drive home the reality of such a figure. However we have little time to acclimate ourselves to this fact before we are given further evidence of the sadistic events that play out in this town and witness for ourselves the torture that these creatures are forced to endure. The crew behind this film take us to “The Cove”, which is where the slaughtering takes place, and show us the method behind the madness. O’Barry explains to the audience that the vicious and mocking fishermen lure the animals in by using their greatest strength but also their greatest weakness against them – there sensitivity to sound. As we witness the herding of these animals to their impending doom a great sense of trepidation and futility takes over the already sombre tone of the film. The activists know they can do nothing to save these creatures and so are forced to watch. Just as we, the audience, are. 

Words can't really express the horror of this image nor the horrible reality that this is happening right now. 

What makes these events all the more tragic is that the organisation who should be making an effort to save these creatures, the IWC (International Whaling Commission – a governmental initiated project tasked with the conservation of whales and other endangered cetaceans), are in fact the ones ensuring there continued slaughter. Yes, I know a government organisation full to the brim with corruption. Shocker, isn't it?

Not only does the film show us the brutal murder of these creatures but it also offers various opinions from those concerned with the issue. We witness as various “experts” are questioned on the moral ethnicity and validity of these murders and see them shrug off these questions as if they are unimportant, which obviously strikes a great amount of anger. If government bodies and supposed conservationists are willing to shrug off dolphin murders then what else are they turning a blind eye to? Well The Cove answers that question for us too by exposing a well-kept secret amongst the general Japanese public – that not only are they consuming dolphin meat but also vast amounts of mercury, which in turn is resulting in nationwide mercury poisoning.

The facts that this film reveals are vast and almost terrifying to consider, but once you have seen the film and can understand the issues it exposes it is hard to turn a blind eye. If seeing the water turn red from the blood of so many innocent creatures being murdered is not enough to inspire our indignation, then surely the realisation that mercury poisoning is not only known but allowed on a nationwide level should? This, at the end of the day, is the films main goal. Awareness of both the cruelties and an inspiring encouragement from the filmmakers by the end credits that every viewer, young or old, can make a difference.

If my post has piqued your curiosity (I wouldn't blame you if it hasn't. I'm the first to admit that my film-blogging skills are a tad rusty!) then you can watch the film here. Hopefully you will come away as heartbroken and determinedly inspired as I did to help bring about a change, which you can do by visiting this site and signing a few petitions or perhaps even donating a penny or two to the cause (it’s as simple as that!).

To cut a long story short...

Would I recommend this film? Definitely. Though the images and actions that this documentary exposes will shock and terrify many I feel it is a necessary evil. After all, before we can help bring about change we have to first understand what needs to be changed. 

A film ramblers star rating? 

That's it for now folks... 

Into the Wild (2007)

Okay everyone, so I’m going to do something very special and show you a piece I wrote which was included in my summative portfolio for my Creative Writing module at the end of my first year of university. I haven’t done this before and I’m going to let you in on a little secret, it’s because of this piece which you’re about to read that I started my film blog in the first place. Technically I guess you could say that this is my first post. 

The purpose of my portfolio was to showcase my abilities to adapt my writing to different styles and I chose two styles to write in, the first being (needless to say) blogging while my second piece of writing was the written script of a graphic novel (aka a comic book). Both were such fun styles and really opened my eyes to my own self-expression. That sounded really corny but whatever.

Just so you know, I’m not going to show you the whole thing (some editing and tweaking has taken place) because it’s pretty long and, well… “ain’t nobody got time for that!”.

On with the show then… (Quick FYI: structurally this post is very different from previous ones, it’s set out into three different parts, but I’m sure you’ll soon figure it out) 

I first heard of this film from my older; cockier; and much more culturally ‘in-the-know’ brother. I remember the many times he told me how much he loved this film, how inspiring it was and how stupid I was for loving films such as Clueless (as any thirteen year old girl my age would, thank you very much!). Of course in my adolescent-induced-stubbornness I refused to watch the film, countering that it was boring and that ‘you’ve probably exaggerated how good it is anyway!’, though this didn’t stop me from researching the film plot and, subsequently, the person from which the whole film was developed – Chris McCandless.

I have a very clear memory of sitting in the car, while my brother sat in the front seat talking to my mother about McCandless, and telling her, while I eavesdropped in the back seat, about how he wanted to be like this guy. Immediately I shouted from my safe position in the back seat that it was stupid to want to be like him, after all he died, and ‘in such a reckless way!’. My brother didn’t appreciate the interruption of course, but he didn’t argue, which struck me as odd, and from my position I could see a fleeting look cross his face that very much resembled sadness. The thought that I had caused this sadness with my silly interruption was disturbing, so I let the subject drop, but that small and seemingly insignificant memory will remain with me; an anecdote to tell to my sentimental parents. Now, of course, with age and the honed-down inclination to irritate my brother, I understand why the look passed his face.

It was because I had misunderstood the whole point. About Chris McCandless, about who he was, about why he was the way he was, and, most importantly, about my brother. My brother wasn’t saying that he wanted to die lonely and alone, he was telling us that he wanted to live happy; that he wanted to be an adventurer and that; above all, he wanted to live for himself. This, to me, is what the film (and the book) is about – it is about every person who wants to be free.

THE BOOK 

‘Into the Wild’ is a non-fiction book written by Jon Krakauer in 1996 which chronicles the last few years of inspired-by-the-world adventurer Chris McCandless or, as he called himself, Alexander Supertramp. This book, which Krakauer spent the best part of three years researching, offers a unique perspective onto the life and beliefs of McCandless.

I read this book recently as an undergraduate student in English Literature and, rather fittingly, it was part of a module called Contemporary Writing. I say fittingly because this book explores the themes inherent in the modern and post-modern literature movement, and for those of you with no interest in exploring this somewhat infuriating movement, have no fear, I do not intend to include a thousand word diatribe on the importance of such readings. I merely bring attention to these movements to highlight how important this book is in examining identity and the culture of ‘what-is-‘society’?’ on a very basic and human level, through the experiences of McCandless.

Of course if you’re not interested in exploring the depths of the human soul, as this very real man McCandless was, then I wouldn’t recommend this book. Though it is a fantastic piece of literature, I would offer caution to more impatient readers as it sometimes feels slow, with parts of the book feeling forced such as the mention of figures throughout history with a similar story to McCandless’ – including the author himself.

The inclusion of an authorial anecdote, though forced in my opinion, gives the story a life and a presence. The reader can’t seek out the true hero of this novel, because he didn’t survive his journey, but they can seek out and learn to understand the author. This novel is more than just a story created with the intention of fame, glory and money, it is a manifestation of the American Dream. Though it does not represent any great success inherent in this dream, it does represent the truth, which seems a rather fitting message given the life McCandless sought and lived till the very end.

Despite its minor flaws, I couldn’t help but feel that this book is somehow essential, (especially for readers in their twenties) largely due to the huge cathartic release it offers. The book acts as an emblem for the tragic figure of McCandless in that it celebrates his beliefs and his fearlessness yet also castigates the reckless actions which led to his death.

THE FILM 

The film, much like the book, is beautiful and emotionally evocative. Praise must be given to Sean Penn’s direction of the film and his what seems like effortless splicing together of separate yet pivotal moments in McCandless’ last few years of life. I will admit though, that the film sometimes comes across as trying too hard to extol the virtues of McCandless’ life, and in doing so perhaps exaggerates the themes represented by the book, i.e. themes of freedom and happiness come across as too ‘artsy’ and ‘try-hard’ in the film (scenes of flowers blowing in the wind against a burning summer sky come to mind).

I will say one thing of the book and the film – they feel very different. When I finished the book, I came away feeling sad but also relieved to have made it to the final page without giving up. When the end credits came to the film I felt sad, again, but I also felt happy and, most importantly, desperate. Desperate for some happier conclusion to play out; for the ghostly smile of McCandless’ last, horrifying death scene to not be the death scene, but some trick ending. I think the difference is though, that McCandless’ story is a visual one. In the book you can imagine the vast and extraordinary landscapes but it feels vague and fleeting, you can’t quite get a grasp on what this character was thinking or feeling. In the film, however, we can see McCandless, we can see the beauty and the desolation and, because of the utter brilliance of Emile Hirsch, we can truly feel the pain and the loneliness. Tears of happiness, tears of desperation, and tears of rage – the audience feel it all. We are taken on a visual journey, yes, but we are also taken on an emotional one.

McCandless’ relationship with certain characters is represented much differently within the film. One such relationship is with the romantic interest of the film, played by a pre-Twilight Kristen Stewart. In the book a romance is never confirmed or given much prominence, and seems an inessential detail. In the film, however, the story of unrequited love seems important to McCandless’ tale, especially when he tells her in their all too brief encounter that she does matter and she is important. This scene seems a bittersweet moment of foreshadowing, because she is important, she is the last woman McCandless had any sort of romantic interest in. The last person he had a romantic connection with. Which is a horribly tragic fact to face within the film, but an essential one, which is where the strength of this film outweighs the weakness of the book – it seems to capture the important reality of relationships, whatever nature they take.

To end an overly long post I will again emphasize the mesmerizing quality of this film, which captures a time and a place perfectly, and most importantly, captures the essence of a character so completely independent from society. Yes, I now understand what my brother was talking about all those years ago on that hot and otherwise inconsequential day and I can’t help but share that hope. A hope that I feel is transcendent of almost anyone with the capacity to wish for a life that isn’t filled with a monotonous perseverance of day-to-day life. But maybe, like McCandless, I am a hopeless and naïve romantic…

So did you like it? I don't know if you noticed but its got a very different tone and style to my usual posts. Do you prefer this style? Also, back in the old days my star rating didn't exist, so technically I should deprive you all, but...I'm not that cruel.

A film ramblers star rating? 

That's it for now folks...

Project X (2012)

Project X is CRAZY. I’m sure there are a number of ways I could describe this film that would sound more elaborate and adverbially overloaded but I think crazy, or perhaps “BATSHIT crazy!” pretty much covers it. For a film with next to no plot and limited character development it does a pretty good job of keeping the audience on their toes and guarantees a reaction. It will either be an extremely positive reaction or an extremely negative one…but let’s face it, that’s what first-time director Nima Nurazadeh is going for. As for my reaction, even though the film defies the level of standards I have come to expect as a loyal cinephile, I won’t lie, it was pretty positive. If your one of those rare few who hasn't heard of this film then I’ll give you a brief rundown of the films plot: three awkward high school seniors (Thomas, Costa and JB) throw a birthday party to make a name for themselves and earn a reputation that isn't “nerd” or “loser”. As the night progresses though things spiral out of control and what was supposed to be a medium-sized “get-together” turns into the coolest party of the year with some jaw-dropping repercussions.

As a teenager it is my unwritten obligation to see this film and enjoy it. I have heard many my age admire the films scope and express a desire to imitate the shenanigans of Project X. Now while I have fulfilled my obligations to enjoy the film, any desire to imitate its events or even be present for such events is next-to-none. Why any teenager would put their bodies through the physical torture of excessive alcohol (I’m talking to the point where you lose consciousness) and drug-abuse just so they can say they did it is beyond me. Nevertheless the characters of this film do, and with an eagerness that clearly isn't outside the realms of possibility (the film is in fact based on a party thrown by Aussie teen Corey Worthington in 2008). As the film progresses its craziness increases and just as you think the crew behind this film can’t top the previous act, they do and with some serious panache. The highlights of this craziness include a scene in which we see some pissed-off and extremely intoxicated partygoers throw a dwarf into an oven, we then see said dwarf drive house-owner Thomas’ car into the family pool for revenge and one particularly memorable moment involving a flamethrower. This film should come with one of those “DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME” warnings.

I think these 3 may have over-delivered in there plans to throw the best and most memorable party of the year. Unless infamy is the new popular?!

The purpose of the party is like any other which is hosted by 3 geeks – to get drunk and have sex. That’s the motivational pull of the film and in this sense it resembles any other teen-centric cast such as cult-favourite Superbad, as well as the British TV shows The Inbetweeners and Skins. I've heard many resemble the film to The Hangover but on this front I would have to disagree, not only because both films show a completely different perspective of the dangers and pleasures of alcohol, but also because of both films’ respective cast and setting. Project X has one central location (the birthday boy, Thomas’ house) which increases the intensity of the situation and heightens the audience’s increasing-bewilderment. The Hangover, however, jumps from one location to the next and keeps us in the dark for much of its plot which means all of our reaction is pinned on its ending. I’m not passing judgment on either approach because at the end of the day both films achieve the goals they set out to achieve. I will say this though - Project X surpasses The Hangover in its shock factor and its impressive ability to draw out the events of a single party (believe me, “boring” is one word which will never be used to describe this film), however The Hangover is more enjoyable overall and doesn't require as much effort on the senses.

Now to address (or elaborate) on the positives and negatives of the film… Let’s start with the positives, shall we? First of all the 3 protagonists of the film, particularly Thomas (played by Thomas Mann whom some may recognise from Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters) and Costa (Oliver Cooper) who are extremely funny in their roles as disillusioned and absurdly-naïve high school teenagers. One thing the film manages to do, despite the lack of a plot, is portray a convincing relationship between these three characters. I don’t know if I’d call it character development because none of them seem to learn from the events of the film, but we certainly see a sense of camaraderie play-out which is endearing amidst the drunken-chaos of the films events. The second positive is the style with which the film was made. Each shot is taken on a hand-held camcorder (the cast and extras were handed camcorders during filming and accumulated 10 hours’ worth of footage!) which heightens the films realism and places the audience within the party, to the point that when one character jumps in the pool so do we, the audience. I’m actually a big fan of this style after seeing its success from previous films such as Tonight You’re Mine and End of Watch, though it’s been a popular method since the 1999 horror The Blair Witch Project. What also heightens the realism of the film is the opening credits in which the audience read this text from the screen:

“WARNER BROS. PICTURES AND THE PRODUCERS OF THIS FILM WOULD LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTED FOOTAGE TO THE MAKING OF THIS FILM.

THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO APOLOGISE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF NORTH PASADENA, CA FOR THE EVENTS YOU ARE ABOUT TO SEE.”

This is a very crafty tool in perhaps duping some of the more gullible members of the audience into believing that this film is a genuine documentary (I doubt anyone did, but you never know…), but alas it is not. The fact that the film features a cast of unknown actors increases this pseudo-realism and, in my opinion, increases the intensity and visceral quality of the film.

Now onto the negatives of the film. I’m not going to go too in-depth with this because if I do then it will turn into a tirade and this post is becoming long enough. So, short and sweet – the treatment of the family pet at the start of the film from some of the party-goers is anger-inducing. Seriously, I was shouting at the screen for parts of it. Also, the lack of an actual plot is frustrating and at points I was sat wondering if anything other than shots of half-naked women, puking teenagers and happy-partygoers was all we were going to get but, alas, that’s what you sign up for with this film so I shouldn't have expected much more.

All-in-all though this film was pretty entertaining and left me satisfied for what it was (believe me, it ain't about to receive a bevy of Oscar nominations. But it does do a good job of entertaining the teenage contingency). I won’t lie, it’s a bit of a one-hit-wonder, but an extremely impressive one as one-hit-wonders go. The cast are funny and convincing (I've always thought it must be hard to portray a convincing paralytic-drunk, but these guys do it. In fact the whole cast does it, and it’s a big-ass cast), the set is impressive and the ending is one of the most jaw-dropping I've seen of this films genre.

To cut a long story short…Would I recommend this film? If you’re looking for a plot, then look elsewhere. If you’re looking for something to shock and entertain though, then you should give it a go.
A film ramblers star rating?

That's it for now folks...

The Croods (2013)

When I heard about this film I won’t lie, I wasn't that enthusiastic. My reasoning for this is mainly that I thought it would be a rehash of other pre-historic animations we've been barraged with in recent years. Now I’m not pointing any fingers *cough* Ice Age *cough* too-many-sequels *cough*…okay, so I am. But anyway I figured that there was only so many ways you can tell that “its-the-end-of-the-world” story to a target audience of mainly kids without killing (pardon the pun) the subject. After watching The Croods however, I quickly changed my mind, because the film doesn't just tackle this subject but a whole lot more.

The film tells the story of The Crood family (duh-doy!) who are living a simple and desperately frustrating life in a cave where there day-to-day routine consists of hunting and sitting in the dark listening to the same stories from family patriarch and all-round fuss-pot father Grub (Nicholas Cage). All of this changes however when an earthquake destroys there cave and they must travel across the new and fantastic planes of a land they have never explored. Along the way the Crood family pick up Ryan Reynolds’ character Guy who shows them that there is more to their caveman lifestyle than simply surviving and forms a romance with the adventurer of the family Eep (voiced by Emma Stone). This romance instigates the anger of a figure we all recognise and have faced at one point in our life – the over-protective father. The scenes in which we bear witness to Grub’s attempts to keep these budding young-romantics apart are hilarious and endear us to the characters’ situations – making them more real and giving the older members of the audience something to chuckle at (either from fond recollection or Fatherly understanding). Aside from the conflict that naturally arises from Grub’s determination to keep Guy and Eep away from each other there is also conflict caused by Grub’s prehistoric and ultimately futile lifestyle and the rules he ‘implements’ to ensure this lifestyle does not change. For example anything new is viewed as dangerous and must therefore be destroyed, darkness equals danger and my personal favourite - curiosity killed the cat (he doesn't say it like that, but you get my point). When Guy shows up though he interrupts the status quo and shows the rest of the Crood family that things can be different, that new ideas and using your brain over your brawn are good and that living that caveman lifestyle is no longer necessary. Not when you've got a genius inventor/entrepreneur such as Guy in the family anyway.

Guy's sudden and commanding entrance into the Crood family sets in motion a host of themes within the film which in turn allow the characters to develop and understand a new world they have never been exposed to. While they learn these lessons however the earth that they have had so little interaction with (prior to the events of the film) is crumbling and moving beneath their feet, even as they seek homage elsewhere. We in the audience of course know that the reason for this crumbling earth is the creation of the many countries that make up Earth today, but the Croods and their tag-along idea man Guy think that the world is ending and that there only chance for survival is to seek the Sun. In their journey to find the sun and a new home the Crood family are brought together through the many struggles that they face which highlights the films main message – the importance of family.

The trivial frustrations and family-dynamics that we're all so familiar with in our day-to-day lives has been captured rather convincingly in this film. I mean, just look at their faces - awkwardness and good-natured ribbing is plain to see (especially in that sneaky old grandma!).

The characters that make up this family are surreal in their realism…if that makes sense?! We've got the pre-requisite rebellious teen Eep, the understanding Mother (Catherine Keener) trying to keep the family together, the loud and opinionated mother-in-law that you love to hate (Cloris Leachman), the oft-humiliated middle child (ain't that always the way?), the kid sister and the over-protective father. The actors portraying this everyday family bring an hilarity and sincerity to their roles and really play up to the stereotypes attached to each archetype (Yikes...lotta "types" in that sentence!), to the point where you’re watching and thinking “oh-my-god. It’s like my family. In fact it’s so much like my family that it’s kinda scary”. The fact that these animated characters seem like real people is important in emphasising that heart-warming message of love and family that we are left with at the end, and also makes those funny family frustrations that much more hilarious. Not to mention how freaky it is that the animators and the cast behind the characters are able to dupe you (or me, at least) into thinking of the Croods as real people.

All-in-all this film is a fun family affair which will be sure to keep both the kids and the adults of the audience very happy. The lessons of love and family make it a heart-warming addition to the animation box-set, with the added bonus that the film does a good job at providing a fun history and science lesson. The films encouragement of innovation and teaching of the inevitability of evolution make it seem slightly smarter than your average animation movie. But, then again, each animation has an important message to offer. That is, after all, why we all love Disney and Pixar even as adults – they never fail to teach us something very important. And on that note, I’ll stop because I can feel myself getting cheesy, and nobody wants that.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Yes. Its kinda like The Flintstones for the kids of the 21st century and who would we be to deprive them of that awesomeness?! 

A film ramblers star rating?

That's it for now folks...

Veronica Mars - Can a franchise successfully transition from TV to film? (Part 1)

Many of you in-the-know fellow film-freaks out there might have heard on that delicious movie grape-vine that a much anticipated film version of the TV show Veronica Mars, which was cruelly cancelled after its third season back in 2007, has been green-lit for a movie after a Kickstarter campaign started by its director, creator and writer Rob Thomas. This caused quite a stir not just amongst the very loyal fan base of the cult-TV favourite but in the film world in general, because it got A LOT of people’s tongues wagging about how this could revolutionise how films are created and distributed. Being a fan-raised production means that the people making our beloved Veronica Mars Movie have more creative control over the content they are distributing and can therefore suck it to those big-bad-movie-bosses in the tall buildings who always want to tweak and “improve” and get there way, even if it compromises the work tirelessly created by those arty types behind the camera. Yep, Rob Thomas and the lovely people who encouraged this film such as its charming and supportive star Kristen Bell, have started somewhat of a film-revolution and people are already keen to jump onto this burgeoning bandwagon (Zach Braff of Scrubs fame has recently raised funds for a feature film of his own, using Kickstarter as his campaign tool). But Kickstarter isn’t a subject I’m here to discuss, though it might be interesting to look at it further down the film-blogging line. Nope, what I’m interested in is whether our feisty and beloved Veronica can make that transition from TV to movie screen without disappointing the fans who made this whole venture possible. Of course Veronica Mars is kind of breaking new territory so it might be wise to look at the success of other franchises as a reference point. Without further ado then…

As a 90s kid I'm a self-confessed fan of both the Buffy's, but if it came to a throw-down and I had to put my money on one these Buffy incarnations then it would undoubtedly be Sarah Michelle Gellar's Buffy. She kicks some serious ass all while keeping an out for her loveable band of geeks. Which Buffy would you put your money on?!

I’m going to start with a 90s fan favourite for many: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I’m not sure whether the film-version of Buffy is just a well-kept secret or whether I was the only person who actually enjoyed it but here I offer you a prime example of a franchise that succeeded very well in making that transition, though in this case the transition was from big screen to small. An important distinction between the movie version of Buffy and its TV version counterpart is the general tone of each, with the movie having a more comedic and slightly-ridiculous air while the long-running TV show had more action, mystery and general teenage-angst. As it is I've heard this was a deliberate move on writer and creator Joss Whedon’s part as he was apparently angered with how Buffy was handled on the big-screen. Evidently the regular hair-flipping and “Like, Oh. My God”-ing wasn't in Whedon’s taste. Not that I can blame him, because while I did enjoy the film, it does come off as a parody-movie waiting to happen.

This brings me to my first point in this “Will VM be successful?” question. I can’t help but wonder whether the tone of Veronica Mars will have changed from small screen to big. Will Rob Thomas stay true to that famous sharp-tongued wit we all know and love or will the years and responsibilities have weighed on our character and transformed her into a non-kick-butting grouch without a snarky quip to spare? To be honest, given Thomas’ assurances, I think the answer to that question is fairly obvious, because let’s face it - Veronica isn't Veronica without her trademark charming-smirk, and everyone knows it. The question is still an interesting one to consider though and I suppose that age-old saying “You’ll just have to wait and see…” is all we really have until we can see for ourselves. Of course a change of tone might not be the tragedy I have made it out to be thus far, because nearly ten years have passed since Veronica first graced our screens, and so some character development is expected, especially in the gap that has occurred in the seven years that we have been deprived of our once-regular Veronica Mars medicine. Hey, maybe that’s where the conflict in our VM movie will lie – Veronica losing her snoopy touch and then getting it back (I've heard rumours to this effect)… Guess I only have speculation at this point but either way a change of tone might be beneficial and necessary, so long as that famous sass isn't gone.

Would you rather the creators of The Inbetweeners had stopped with the TV series or did the movie fulfill your expectations and fuel your excitement for a sequel?!

Now that I've explored how this transition can have a positive outcome maybe I should offer you an example where the transition wasn't quite what the moviegoers of a particular “franchise” (is that the right word?) had been expecting. You know, for a well-rounded and un-bias as possible look at this issue. The example I offer is a British favourite: The Inbetweeners. The Inbetweeners was a very successful and sadly short-lived TV series which looked at the comedic hijinks of a group of awkward and run-of-the-mill teenage boys as they lived out the day-to-day pressures of experiencing what every teenager should. What made this show so brilliant and well-loved was its unique and truthful interpretation of the teenage experience as well as its lead characters, who all brought something “special” to their social group. Given the success of the TV show the creators behind it probably thought a movie would be a nice way to end our slice of Inbetweeners pie, however the movie lacked something the TV show had in heaps. It’s tricky to know exactly what that “something” is, because frankly I’m just going on my gut-feeling, but if I had to guess I’d say that the creators behind The Inbetweeners went with that “Go big or go home” motto and took it to the extreme with our beloved characters. I suppose the fan-expectation was a heady thing and so the creators thought the best way to satisfy the majority would be to give our characters everything they had hoped to attain throughout the TV series. However by caving into this pressure to provide a happy ending the tone of awkward hopelessness that made The Inbetweeners so unique and hilarious was lost. Don’t get me wrong, I love a happy ending, but not at the expense of realism.

This is where my segue into Veronica comes in, because the failures of The Inbetweeners Movie could so easily be the failures of our Mars movie. Will the fan pressure lead to a hasty and untrue ending on Rob Thomas’ part? Well frankly it is a valid worry, but not a hurdle I think us fans should worry about. Let’s face it, the guy has had six years to map out this epic comeback and I doubt he will cave into expectations of a happy ending or feel the pressure to provide a mind-bendingly original and genre defying plot. As long as we get some character resolution, which was stolen from us upon the premature cancellation of this show, I’m a happy chappy (chappette?). And yes, I know what you’re all thinking - we all want Veronica to get back together with Logan and see that big white wedding but, again, not at the expense of realism. Right? (I’m guessing half of you are resignedly shaking your head yes while the other half are vehemently shaking your head no). Still though, you can’t deny my logic. I mean don’t get me wrong guys, I’m as big a Veronica and Logan shipper as you can get, but I’m just saying what we all secretly know to be true. If Thomas can get these lovebirds together by the end without compromising the reality of the film then I would be very happy, but if he can’t…well then, he probably shouldn't  Besides, if enough conflict is left at the end of the movie we might even bag ourselves a sequel *fingers fervently crossed*.

So to bring this Veronica Mars themed ramble to a close I would like to express my excitement over this rather fantastic opportunity that we fans and backers have created (yes, I’m a financial backer of the Veronica Mars movie. I’m basically an executive producer. Get my name on IMDb asap! :P…). It’s because of us that this movie is possible, so let’s just pause for a moment and revel in how freakin’ cool that is!! This movie not only offers us our long awaited closure but also opens up a whole host of possibilities for other franchises that were ended too soon. I, for one, would like to see Freaks and Geeks brought to the big-screen, as well as the Gilmore Girls and last but by no means least - Community (six seasons and a movie people!).

A film ramblers star prediction? 

This prediction is based off of the quality of Veronica as a TV show which is something I’m sure will be carried over onto the big screen. Plus, based off of some of the rumours that have found themselves in the press lately, it looks like Rob Thomas has a few surprises in store for his fans (of the guest stars variety) which will only strengthen the star-rating (no pun intended) of the movie itself.

That’s it for now folks…

Blue Like Jazz (2012)

Many of you won’t have heard of Blue Like Jazz, unless you've read the book first (which I haven’t) or seen the trailer and decided to give it a go (which is how I found it). If you have seen the trailer then you'd probably be expecting some fun-filled story of coming-of-age that also answers some of those big questions about being young. Well, if these are your expectations, (like they were mine), then prepare to leave unsatisfied. This film isn't really about college life and becoming a new person, its more about accepting the person you already are. Which sounds like a big old stonking stereotype, right?! Well, truth be told, this film kind of is. The trailer might give the impression that you’re going to see something hugely original and I don’t want to mislead you, you won’t, but since when is anything truly original these days? Yep, this film is full to the brim of stereotype. But that’s okay because while the story is stereotype its direction and its cast are fresh and bring something to this film which makes you want to stay and pay attention.

The story centres around Don (Marshall Allman), a college freshman who comes from a strong Southern Baptist background and is disillusioned by his life and religion. To escape this former life of religious structure and a stifling parent he moves from Texas to a college (that’s university to us English folk) in the Pacific Northwest where religion is mocked and his life undergoes a drastic 180 flip. Don decides that the best way of forgetting his affiliation to religion is to join those who mock it and protest its existence, which involves an hilarious scene where himself and the college “Pope” (random guy who dresses like the Pope every single day and is apparently one of the most popular guys at his college…Yep, seemed strange to me too) put a giant condom onto one of the towers of the local church and a banner which reads “Do not let these people reproduce”. Tad excessive perhaps? Yep. Harsh? Yep. But of course, that’s kind of their point. Which is an aspect of this film that confused me immensely – I constantly questioned why, a: Don could go from the assistant youth pastor in his local church to a willing participant of church defacement and, b: why the people of this college hated religion so much? If you’re looking for an answer to this question like I was then you will be disappointed, because one is never really provided. I could only guess that it is borne from the generation in which we live that has built up an intolerance and disillusionment to religion and its politics and hypocrisy.

To the films credit it knows when to back off a little with the religion and knock it up a gear with the comedy and "romance".

You’re probably thinking at this point that the film is a huge middle finger to the concept of religion and religious faith but this is where our protagonists love interest and biggest “all-things-religious-and-morally-just” contender turns things up a gear and offers us a different perspective. This character’s name is Penny (played by Claire Holt whom some may recognise from The Vampire Diaries) and she is a formidable presence in Don’s life who constantly questions his motives and in turn makes him consider these motives and his own beliefs throughout the film. Though this character is necessary within the plot she sometimes comes off as high-and-mighty and frankly I find it hard to believe that a character like her could possibly exist in real life. At least not a 19 year old version embarking on the first (maybe second) year of their college life. I mean this character protests the social injustices of bottled water and its effects on the Indian economy, volunteers in foreign countries during Christmas break and has a freaking statue of Jesus in her college dorm room! Doesn't exactly scream realism now does it? But I digress… My point is that this character adds a depth to the film which stops it from becoming a one-sided debate against the relevance of religion in modern society and instead offers a perspective wherein we get too see the positive effects of religion (shitty politics aside) in modern society.

It all seems pretty heavy for a 108 minute feature set within the context of a religious-free college, huh? That’s exactly what I thought which is why I couldn't escape that thought in the back of my head which screamed and protested at how stereotypical and contrived the entire story is. Its overall message is pretty positive, don’t get me wrong, but the film as a whole is just stereotype after stereotype with a dashing of contrivance (the cherry to our sundae, if you will). For example, when first integrating himself into the unfamiliar life of a rowdy 19 year old freshman Don goes and finds himself a lesbian best friend. This lesbian friend then proceeds to give our loveable protagonist an edgy new make-over (because that happens every day *eye-roll followed by world-weary sigh*) and tells him to go in the closet with “the religious stuff”. Yep, a lesbian told this guy to “go in the closet”. Well I for one couldn't help the eye roll and slight disbelief as this scene played out. This is just one example where the plot felt contrived and slightly ridiculous, and I could probably offer you more but then I feel like I would be over-emphasising my point and perhaps giving the wrong impression of this film. It’s not bad per se; in fact for the most part I enjoyed it, especially the scenes involving some alcohol-involved embarrassment or an exchange between our star-crossed duo Don and Penny. Hell the film even got an enthusiastic laugh once or twice, despite the heavy subject matter. When I wasn't enjoying Blue Like Jazz though I was being pulled between the films two forces, both of which elicited different and rather negative reactions. The scenes showing Don’s mockery of the church inspired feelings of irritation and anger at his childishness and lack of consideration, while the scenes involving Penny and her do-gooder tendencies came off as a huge and unwanted guilt-trip on the films part.

Yep, these guys are in a fake pulpit and this fake Pope is hearing fake and drunk-induced confessions. This is at a party. This is how non-religious colleges have fun...apparently. 

But I’m going to move on from my irritations at this film and instead explore the aspects which I did enjoy and which redeem it from my dislike. Namely the fresh-faced cast and stellar soundtrack. The actor portraying Don gives a convincing performance as a disillusioned teenager experiencing a severe existential crisis and at no point did his performance seem false. Which I know probably sounds hard to believe given how much I extolled this films adherence to stereotype, but just take my word for it. Allman shows extreme talent in this role and the fact that he made me want to watch despite the many instances when his character irritated me is impressive. His leading lady was equally impressive and Miss Holt made a good job of a heavy character whom I can imagine in less talented hands could of come off as annoyingly self-righteous and broad (or more so than is called for in the script anyhow). Instead Holt manages to ground this character and leaves the vague impression that there might be a fire to this character that we just aren't privy to onscreen. As for the soundtrack, I’ll keep it short and sweet – the songs are cool and add a contemporary feel to the film which is very necessary given the subject matter. When things in the film get a bit too doom-and-gloom on comes a song and suddenly things don’t seem quite so hopeless. The contemporariness of the soundtrack also emphasises the intended audience of this flick (not that it really needs emphasised given the films setting and central protagonists) and keeps our interest, as well as making us feel more comfortable (on a subconscious level) with thinking about religion and its place within our young lives. 

About that title, Blue Like Jazz. Its noted early on within the film that “Life is like jazz, it has no resolution…” but I think what this film teaches us is that if there is anything in this world that has no resolution it is religion. It cannot and never will be resolved because it is a personal journey. I know, I know – I’m deep… (In case it isn't obvious I’m being self-facetious). 

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? It would only appeal to a minority of people and the films stereotypical handling of a heavy subject matter are off-putting features of this film, but if you’re open to the idea of pondering religion and getting a chuckle or two from the deal then yeah, I would recommend it. 
A film ramblers star rating? 

That’s it for now folks…

Dark Shadows (2012)

Dark Shadows sees the return of working-duo Depp and Burton in their 8th feature film together and like their previous cinematic jaunts we are given a weird and sometimes-wonderful slice of gothic pie. For those unaware this is based on the long-running TV show of the same name which aired from 1966-1971. In its time the show was a popular staple and its fans include Depp, Burton and Pfeiffer themselves, which perhaps explains why this adaptation was made. I certainly don’t think its Burton adhering to the vampire-fad that’s been seeping into cinema and TV since Twilight graced our screens. Indeed this film bears no similarity to the teen-fad that is Twilight, with Burton lending a dash of his trademark dark humour to the vampy proceedings.

Of course when it comes to gothic Burton is the unofficial King of the genre, with each film in his directorial past reminiscent of the stereotypes of the genre. In this film that gothic edge is brought to the forefront with hanging buttresses, hidden passageways and foggy settings contributing to the dark and gloomy atmosphere of the film, not to mention the pre-requisite crazy witch-bitch (It’s not really gothic without that last one now is it?). Said crazy witch-bitch is played by the talented Eva Green who brings a quirky-hilarity to the role of scorned and vengeful Angelique who has some serious issues when it comes to Depp’s Barnabus Collins. Angelique embodies that one ex you have who just can’t seem to forgive and forget and this is shown to the extreme when she kills Barnabus’ family and fiancé and curses him to eternal damnation by making him a bloodsucking vampire. To add salt to the wounds she sets the village locals on him on your stereotypical dark-and-stormy-night who chain him in a coffin where he stays put for 196 years (the devils in the details) until he is accidently set free.

His release into this new world that is the 1970s sets in motion a whole host of events which is set against the backdrop of Barnabus acquainting himself with the much-changed town of Collinsport, where our film is set. His confusion and reaction to this much-changed world is where much of the films hilarity is sourced and Depp is quite convincing as a disillusioned vampire with a biting (no pun intended!) determination to restore his crumbling families former glory. This modern-day Collins family is comprised of family matriarch Michelle Pfeiffer, rebellious teen Chloe Grace Moretz, haunted and disturbed Gulliver McGrath, and scumbag absentee-father Johnny Lee Miller. Each actor is well-cast in his or her role, yet I couldn't help but feel slightly disturbed by Moretz’ character who was highly-sexualised given her age. This just seemed a rather unnecessary attribute to Moretz’ character and was played with such a hyperbolic energy that I couldn't help but cringe slightly when the character came onscreen. I don’t know, maybe I’m just overreacting. After all this is the same actress who at 13 years old played the foul-mouthed Hit Girl in movie sensation Kick Ass, so maybe Moretz is just keen to avoid having that oh-so-innocent child-star quality in her films and on her resume.

Moretz' character is a somewhat bizarre one, even for a Burton production, and her subplot just feels like a clumsy last-minute addition to the screenplay.

In terms of this films enjoyability I think that might be somewhat hindered by its ‘all-over-the-place’ quality, with too many sub-plots confusing the films main purpose and too many characters vying for attention in this ambitious production. For example the film begins by introducing us to the Collins’ new governess “Victoria Winters” (played by Bella Heathcote) and so I assumed she would take centre-stage (alongside Depp of course) throughout the film, which was apparently a foolish assumption to make. Though this character does have a romantic link to Depp’s their relationship is never given enough screen time to feel authentic, nor is Heathcote’s character throughout the film in general, though as it turns out her genesis is vital to the plots cohesion. This lack of screen time was not only irritating but seemed clumsy on Burton’s part (she’s the romantic lead after all. It would be like a 2-hour Harry Potter film with only 30 minutes of said character being shown!).

To add fuel to the “random plot twists” fire there is also the case of Moretz’ character and her interesting…”progression” (for lack of a better word)…at the end of the film which was just a confusing and unnecessary addition to this already heaving film. The fact that there are so many subplots and character-dilemmas might be explained by the fact that the film is based upon a TV show, so it would be a fair assumption to make that the film takes its inspiration from one or two (or several) episodes, but since I've never seen the series upon which the film is based I can’t be certain (just idle speculation).

All-in-all the film is a relatively enjoyable one and certainly if you’re a fan of a Burton-Depp production you’ll derive some pleasure from this quirky comedy, but don’t hold out too much hope for a cohesive plot and direction. The film is slightly wacky but its overall look and tone is splendid and well-worth at least one viewing.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? I guess, but it’s more the kind of film that you’d watch on a Sunday afternoon when there's nothing else on. 

A film ramblers star rating?  

That’s it for now folks…

Amélie (2001)

IMDb Top 250 Ranking - #68

Many people will have heard of this film and many people have probably already seen it, so you might be wondering why I would bother to write a review on it to begin with. (Well, aside from my obligations toward “The Challenge” that is). My only excuse is that with regards to Amélie, I am late to the game. I have never seen this film and frankly I was always reluctant to. You see I’m not really one for foreign subtitled films and I know that makes me quite a bad “Film-Freak” but I’m learning from my past indiscretions. In fact Amélie has made me an outright convert for them. And if you haven’t been such a fan of them yourself than allow me to do you a favour, because this film is pure perfection and if you don’t see it then you will miss out on something quite important (don’t worry, the world isn't going to end or anything. Or, well I mean…it could. And all because you didn't watch Amélie, tut-tut. Shame on you!).

I was first convinced to give it a go when my seminar tutor showed us a scene from the film (one of the first scenes of the film where we are introduced to a grown-up Amélie and her work colleagues) and was discussing how films can subvert conventional narratives to create something new. This is certainly something this film does. I was really quite intrigued by the structure of the film and as my classmates discussed Amélie I quietly sat in wonderment that I had never given the film a chance. It was kind of an epiphany, which might seem clichéd or trivial (regarding the fact that I had an epiphany about a film, of all things) but nevertheless it happened and you can stop rolling your eyes, thank you very much! So anyway, months passed and I still hadn't seen the film despite my promise that I would. You know, life gets in the way. You have friends to socialise with and university assignments to write and submit. But enough with the life story, I have seen it now and as you can probably tell, it had quite an effect upon me.

So let’s begin, shall we?

The actual story is a simple one in the plain light of day, yet it is told in such a fabulous and complex way that you get caught up in the many narratives that evolve from Amélie’s tale. Amélie is a quiet girl living a life of seclusion in her one bedroom flat with a bunch of neighbours whose lives she finds herself entangled in rather unwittingly. It is because of this that many of our charming subplots are borne and as Amélie endeavours to improve these lives and the lives of her co-workers she finds herself caught up in a romantic journey which will have you believing in true love. I would defy even the biggest cynic to come away from this movie without that fluttery little feeling making itself known in your stomach. Don’t get me wrong though, this film doesn't portray love as something utterly perfect. There is no naiveté in the narrative, though there might be some in its main character played by the almost-too-perfect-to-be-real Audrey Tatou. 

This is one of the last scenes of the movie and personally one of my favourites. This scene has such an understated perfection to it which might be down to how these characters interact once they finally come face-to-face.  

As the story plays out we learn about our characters through an uninvolved thirty-party narrator, who introduces each character with personal details along with their likes and dislikes. This narrative construct is not only hugely distinctive but also helps to endear us to each character and is an apt way of knitting together various subplots which each add an element to this story that leads to its charming conclusion and feels like a necessary lesson in life. What these lessons might be is up to the individual, though I think taking advantage of life is a theme inherent in this quirky film.

Aside from its unique narrative form Amélie also boasts quite a distinctive visual quality, which is perhaps a product of the narrative. Warm colours and vibrant backgrounds adorn this films setting and elevate the atmosphere to parallel its charming protagonist. The films aesthetic style has a timelessness about it reminiscent of the old-black-and-white-classics that remind you of grandparents who bemoan modern cinema and talk about the good ol’ days “back when movies were good and proper!”. I can’t quite explain why I would make that analogy but it seems to fit with what I thought of the films visual quality from that gorgeous bob that Tatou sports to the understated glamour of her simple apartment and belongings. Something about this film just screams “classic”, and I’m not just saying that due to hindsight. I swear!

That feeling of timelessness might also be derived by the films lead character Amélie who is played by a perfectly cast Audrey Tatou (interestingly the role was written for English actress Emily Watson, despite the fact that she speaks not a word of French. Well, with all due respect to Miss Watson, I'm glad she rejected it and Tatou stepped into the revered shoes of this wonderful character). Tatou brings this shy and lonely figure to life with what seems like an effortless charm and captures what it is to live life on the side-lines, more of an observer than a participant, yet as her courage and willingness to experience life becomes more apparent in the film so does Tatou’s flare and quiet fire. I won’t keep going on because at this point I think I've made my point about this film and its characters. That point being that here the stars have aligned and brought us what I think is perfection in film form. If you don’t believe me then give it a go yourself. I promise you, you will not regret this decision.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Qui, c’est fantastique. A film ramblers star rating? 

That’s it for now folks…

Man of Steel (2013)

Man of Steel is undoubtedly the movie every person has been waiting for since we learned of its conception from producer Christopher Nolan (director of the Christian Bale starring Batman series) and director Zack Snyder (the guy behind Watchmen, 300 and Sucker Punch). If you know anything of these two it’s that they know how to make an excellent and action-packed feature, which is what we have in Man of Steel. Man of Steel has been highly anticipated by a plethora of individuals, all with a varying degree of insight into the importance of this feature and the DC universe. A lot of hopes have been hinging on the success of this feature so that Marvel doesn’t hold the crown for superhero awesomeness in film. The main reason being that every successful enterprise needs a little bit of good-natured rivalry so that it can stay on top of its game and here DC have accomplished this task. Competition is healthy, especially in the film business, because it prevents either from becoming stale and means that we viewers get the best of what both Marvel and DC have to offer. But enough with the logistics behind why this Superman franchise had to succeed (if you would like a more in-depth explanation then click this link HERE), let’s get on to why it did.

The story in Man of Steel is a cohesive one with very little plot-holes for the less DC-crazed of its viewership to get stuck in. The film starts with Kal-El’s (Superman’s Kryptonian name) genesis on the dying planet of Krypton where we learn the story behind his journey to Earth. Jor-El (played by a wizened Russell Crowe) realises that his planets only hope for survival lies within his new-born son and so he sends him (along with a funky gadget that holds all of his planets genetic coding called the codex) to Earth and into the caring and diligent hands of Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha (Diane Lane) Kent. As we watch the newly-christened Clark Kent grow into an awkward teenager struggling with his superior abilities we learn more about his reasons for remaining anonymous on the planet Earth. However this anonymity cannot last when Kent meets Lois Lane (played by plucky and head-strong Amy Adams) and reveals his superior abilities to her, along with the aircraft that once belonged to his now-deceased father Jor-El. Now that Lois knows that life exists beyond the human race she is determined to reveal this secret and tracks Clark down until finally she turns up at the farm where he was raised. As you can guess, however, Clark manages to convince Lois that revealing his existence is not something Earth is ready for, and the two form a quick alliance that develops as the film progresses.

Michael Shannon is excellent as the crazed General Zod yet even he manages to imbue the maniacal character with some purpose and if it weren't for the whole wanting to commit genocide thing then you might even feel sorry for the guy. As it is genocide is just a hurdle many can't make... Better luck next time pal (well, actually...maybe not!) 

The bad-guy in this stylish set soon makes himself known and when General Zod (Michael Shannon) demands that Superman give himself up to the only surviving members of the Kryptonian race Superman selflessly does so, thinking that his surrender will ensure the safety of his beloved Earth. This quickly proves to be a ruse however and Superman and Lois find themselves in a battle to save the planet and prevent General Zod from obtaining the codex and destroying the human race so that he might replace them with the Kryptonian one. This results in a series of action-packed fight sequences within the film which were seriously impressive, if not a little overwhelming in their frequency. If I could say one thing about the film then it would be that I would have preferred an emphasis to be placed on the relationship Superman has and forms with various characters, particularly Lois’. However when it is shown by Snyder it is portrayed very believably by the two actors whose sizzling onscreen chemistry was a highlight of the film. But back to the action sequences for a moment – these were quite extraordinary in their destructive force and must have taken a remarkable amount of CGI to achieve. Just picture for a moment a crumbling Metropolis with barely a single building left standing and a vast landscape of ruin in the wake of Earth’s battle against the Kryptonian race. It’s quite a vivid image and one which was painstakingly created by the talented makers of this film. To put it plainly the visual quality of this film is, in my opinion, award-worthy and will leave DC fans watering at the mouth for the already eagerly anticipated sequel.

These two played off each other beautifully which makes me very excited for the next in the franchise. Bigger and better things are what I predict...

As for the cast behind this mammoth-like production, all I can say is that I have no complaints. The man in that blue and red suit is the embodiment of the hopeful symbol that is Superman (hey, for those that didn’t know, that’s what the “S” stands for – hope) and any protestations that Henry Cavill makes that he “Just got lucky…” when he was cast in this role are, with all due respect, wrong. Talent earned him this coveted role and rightly so for he brings to it an endearing mask of strength and humility which perfectly capture the duality of playing a character that is superior to the human race he fights to protect and wants to be a part of. Amy Adams as Lois Lane sounds unconvincing on paper (or at least it did to me) but here she proves her worth in this strong-willed role and her intrepid nature is brought to life onscreen by Adams. For those who held similar reservations on this casting choice you need not fear, Adams does justice to the role. The supporting cast is equally as impressive as the main, with convincing turns from the likes of Costner, Crowe and a personal favourite of mine – Laurence Fishburne (Bobby, The Matrix). Each brings these comic-book characters to life with remarkable ease and adds an ounce of esteem to this already respectable production.

All in all Man of Steel is hugely impressive and an excellent addition to what I’m sure will be a lengthy and successful franchise – at least here’s hoping. Though it was a little action-heavy for my liking in parts the film did leave on a nice and highly suggestive emotional note for Clark Kent’s and Lois Lane’s characters, which left me satisfied for their future within the franchise.

To cut a long story short…
Would I recommend this film? Definitely, I’m very excited for the future of this franchise and especially impressed by the actors who brought these larger-than-life characters to life. 
A film ramblers star rating? 

That's it for now folks...

P.S. For all the Smallville lovers out there a member of this shows ensemble cast, Alessandro Juliani who played Dr. Emil Hamilton  makes a cameo in the film as an IT tech guy. He even shares a scene with the actor who has taken over his role within the film. I guess that's Snyder's way of saluting the long-running show and its fan-base, many of whom, needless to say, have been eagerly awaiting the release of a new Superman. 

P.P.S. For DC lovers who still need that superhero kick on the small screen you should check out the TV show Arrow, it follows a character those Smallville fans will recognise: Oliver Queen. Its a gripping addition to the superhero kick our screens are seeing lately...

Okay, that really is it for now folks...