For the Love of Film…

Prometheus both is and isn’t a prequel to Alien. It exists within the universe of Alien, and includes enough touch points to Ridley Scott’s original sci-fi classic, but it is also a film less concerned with being a prequel to Alien and more concerned with forging its own mythology and franchise. Prometheus feels more like the prequel to the prequel to Alien. A film which doesn’t end by setting up the original, but lays the groundwork for further films which can fill in the holes between 2093 and 2122 (when Alien is set). In this way the film is both a success and a failure.

It was always going to be difficult to create a satisfying prequel to Alien. Both Alien and Aliens are such beloved films and genuine masterpieces that any fan (and most people who go and see the films will surely be fans) will bring so many expectations and desires that Scott and his crew could only ever fail. That they have seemingly taken this into consideration and built a film which can stand on its own is both a blessing and a curse.

Prometheus is much more ambitious and epic than any previous Alien film. It’s closer in theme to Kubrick’s 2001 or Tarkovsky’s Solaris than it is to any film in the franchise. As a prequel it is not an origin story for the Alien, though it goes some way to explaining how the Alien was created. Instead Prometheus is an origin story for Mankind, as well as being an origin story for the fascinating Space Jockey from Alien (now called Engineers). For this Spaihts and Lindelof, who wrote the script, should be commended. Unfortunately, in doing so it not only feels adrift from the Alien franchise but also somewhat undermines it. The creation of the Alien (that which made the franchise so incredible) becomes a byproduct from another story, a story which could realistically have never been an Alien film at all. In fact, had they removed all traces of the Alien mythology from the film I believe it would have been a much more enjoyable and rewarding experience.

The story itself is rich, engaging, inventive and often deeply engrossing. But it also seems confused as to what it actually is. The opening sequence is gloriously shot and hooks you instantly into the story. It’s a breathtaking sequence which the rest of the film rarely lives up to. What it all means is never explicitly answered, though it proffers an alternate creation myth. Come the films final scene the film, its themes and the questions raised are barely answered it all ends up feeling a bit like a prequel to the inevitable sequel.

The cast is impressive, most notably Noomi Rapace as Elizabeth Shaw and Michael Fassbender as David, the ships Android (one of many definitive nods to the franchise). Fassbender steals the show both because his performance is so strong, but also because his character (ironic considering he’s a robot) is the must well defined and developed. David is also the strongest vehicle for one of the many themes. Rapace on the other hand is superb, but superb with much less to work with. Her character is tough, resilient and determined, but never to the degree of Ripley, with whom she is inevitably compared. She is often too passive, and with the exception of one stand out sequence, never really has to face up to any major threat.

The rest of the cast, from Charlize Theron’s corporate Meredith Vickers, Idris Elba’s Janek, Guy Pearce’s unrecognisable Peter Weyland and Logan Marshall-Green’s Holloway, are never given nearly enough character development or motivation for the audience to really care. What made Alien and Aliens work was that each film created characters we could relate to and that we cared about, as well as giving them clearly defined motivations and arcs. Therefore when their inevitable deaths began racking up we felt it, and characters were given emotionally rousing send offs. In Prometheus no character receives such treatment.

The crew of Prometheus is 17 large and most of them are just fodder. Add to this that almost every major action scene feels unmotivated and contrived and very rarely does anything in the film create tension or fear.

The major theme explored is between science and faith and the human desire to understand who we are, who created us and why. The problem the film faces is marrying this to the characters and to the prequel nature of the story. The “engineers” who may be responsible for Mankind are fascinating creatures, and some of the reveals in the story are spectacular, but too often the film fails to interweave these theme amongst the set pieces, and too often ideas are raised, dangled in front of us, then thrown aside for either another idea or an action set piece.

Prometheus looks stunning, as you’d expect from Ridley Scott. It’s ambitious, epic and intriguing throughout. The film is also disappointing, confusing and lacking in a clarity and exploration of theme. It neither works as a prequel to Alien nor as a standalone film in the same universe, instead falling somewhere in-between. With a clearer story, theme and richer characters Prometheus could have been a classic science fiction film. Instead it is an interesting, entertaining failure. But it is precisely because it is a prequel to Alien that its such a failure.

It all ends. The saga is complete. Harry Potter and his band of friends and followers made their last stand in the grounds of Hogwarts to fight off Voldemort and his Death Eaters. The most unique and one of the biggest film franchises of all time has come to an end. But was it satisfying? Did it work for fans of the books and those who only know the films? Did it leave out any major moments or ruin any great bits from the book? Was it the ending we all wanted and needed?

Harry Potter is arguably the biggest phenomenon is publishing and film since the turn of the century. Yes the Lord of the Rings trilogy might be considered better films. Batman, Spider-Man and all the other comic movies might have dominated summer screens for the past ten years or so but Harry Potter is entirely unique. Not only is it the only 8 film series (can you imagine any comic book movie running for so many films), but we have also seen its three principle stars grow up on screen. A few weeks ago I decided, rather ambitiously, to watch all 7 Harry Potter films back to back in a single day to fully prep for the end of a franchise, which despite the differing and questionable quality, has found a special place in my heart. It was tough, entertaining, arduous but satisfying and also strangely illuminating. Seeing Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint go from children to men/woman over ten years and 7 films was like watching a relative or a friend grow up. I feel I know these characters, love them and want to spend time with them.

And so when I went to see the final part of the franchise I was emotional even before the opening scene. And yet, as the credits rolled and I took a moment to take in the realisation that there would be no more Harry Potter films I was left to reflect on what remains and my feelings of joy were mixed with disappointment.

The final part of the franchise in many ways encompasses everything that is great and everything which is bad about the entire series. It’s difficult to go into too much detail without revealing spoilers but what I have always argued and applauded about Harry Potter, especially to fans of the books, is how film is different to literature and that how stories are told is different. You couldn’t take every page of Potter and plaster it on screen. It just wouldn’t work. So Harry Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves who adapted all but one (Order of the Phoenix was written by Michael Goldenberg) deserves plaudits for achieving what in many ways was impossible; creating film versions of Harry Potter which satisfied hardcore fans as well as those who had never picked up the books. For the most part he succeeded.

The decision and focus all along has been including everything which ties into Harry’s journey and including only crucial moments for other characters, but nothing superfluous to Harry’s arc. For the most part this has worked, in a storytelling way. Yet for me, in the final instalment the story should have opened up slightly. As a result epic moments from the final book are omitted or altered to make them fit with Harry’s story. What is lost is that Harry’s moments become everyone’s; that Harry moments are our moments and that cherished scenes from the book which don’t feature Harry are crucial to our emotional connection with Harry and the story. The death’s of certain characters, certain battles and moments which have been excluded or altered don’t seem to have been changed to improve on the story. The have been changed to fit Harry’s arc. The results see certain moments fall flat, or flatter than they should.

But despite all of this, Deathly Hallows Part 2 delivers in spades what the entire franchise delivered. Excellent, exciting action scenes with great visual effects and stunning character beats. Although, certain characters are given moments to shine, none are really given free reign like Rowling gives them in the book and as such the shortest Harry Potter film feels as though it could have been longer. Ironic for a series which in the early years was criticised for being too long. Perhaps that criticism has backfired unexpectedly.

The film almost feels to focused on getting to the end. Conscious maybe that audiences have invested the last ten years of their lives in this character and want a climax. It’s almost the opposite of what happened in The Return of the King, which wallowed in its ending, reluctant to finish. The Deathly Hallows Part 2 could have done with slowing the pace to enhance the tension and suspense for what is to come. For example, one of the stand out moments was a flashback. Usually considered a no-no as it slows the pace of the narrative, here the flashback was a welcome reprieve from the constantly speeding pace. A chance to fill in some gaps and take stock before the final onslaught.

What was also a shame was how some of the key emotional beats failed because of the acting. Radcliffe, Watson and Grint may have been at this for 10 years, and may also be surrounded by some of the best actors of all time, but in the fantasy genre acting can be very difficult. For Radcliffe especially, handling the emotional turmoil and inner demons and fears which this franchise presented must have been a constant battle. None of them have developed enough of their acting chops to really pull it off. That’s not to say they are not good. They have improved immeasurable since The Philosopher’s Stone, but with the characters as Rowling wrote them and with their limited experience and lack of natural ability all they could do was their best, and often it fell short.

Unlike The Deathly Hallows Part 1, which I feel is the better of two, where the great acting talent around them fell away and the three stars were able to carry the film themselves (with great success in my opinion), here Rickman, Bonham Carter, Walters, Smith et al served only to remind us how great they are and that that three central actors are not. Rickman delivered what may have been his best performance of the series, but then Snape is arguably the best character.

Of the other young actors only Longbottom (Matthew Lewis) really had anything resembling a central performance. And he has the best scenes. His transformation as a character makes him my personal favourite but Lewis handles his scenes brilliantly, never trying to be more than a young man out of his depth, but brave and courageous enough to stand up to the great evil before him.

The Deathly Hallows contains some of the series high points, it also contains some of the biggest missteps and so like all the other films, with Prizoner of Azkaban being the only exception, it never reaches the heights of the books. Yet I know I will crave revisiting Harry Potter again, spending time with these characters and immersing myself in Rowling’s uniquely brilliant world. As yet though I can decide if that will be solely with the books or with the films as well.

For the fifth film in Fox & Marvel’s franchise they turned to the writer/director team which reinvigorated the comic book/superhero sub genre last year with Kick Ass. Matthew Vaughn had originally been in line to direct the third X-Men, but stepped aside and let Brett Ratner helm the weakest in the franchise until Gavin Hood delivered the muddled, silly and pointless Wolverine. So with this prequel of sorts, writer by Jane Goldman and Vaughn deliver a fast paced, entertaining and intriguing X film which tells the story of Charles Xavier (Professor X) and Erk Lehnsherr (Magneto) and the birth of their friendship – and by extension the birth of The X-Men.

In many ways this is an inspired decision. The thought of seeing another X-Men with the same characters and setting fills me with a sense of apathy. Like most comic book franchises the most you can really expect to get out of it before audiences and storylines feel fatigued in 3 films. After which some rejuvenation and reinvention is required. Wolverine may have been the first attempt at standalone solo efforts from X-Men, but its failure has seen Fox return to the tried and tested waters of multiple X-men working together to fight a global evil.

By focussing on Prof. X and Magneto the film explores the backstory set up in the original franchise (and pre-existing from the comics) and in doing so allows not only a 60s set Cold War story line, but also the introduction of a host of new mutants and more entertainingly the writers deliver a healthy dose of explanation around things such as what really lead to Prof. X and Magneto’s friendship ending as well as many other little nods to the comic’s heritage.

The film therefore walks a fine line between over-familiarity and reinvention. Sequels will know doubt follow, and potentially even bring us up to the original X-Men film (although I somewhat doubt it). The introduction of some of the franchises most intriguing mutants and also incorporating enough of the original trilogy’s mutants (Mystique, Beast etc) makes the film feel like a sequel without ever feeling like a sequel.

The real highlight of the film, and its heart, are James McAvoy’s Professor X and Michael Fassbender’s Magneto. Stepping into the somewhat intimidating shoes of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen could not have been easy, for either the writers or the actors. They brought gravitas to the earlier films and helped ground the fantastical story. Here, as both are beginning we can see some of the roots of their later incarnations. Fassbender fares the better, not because he gives a better performance but because his character has more meat to chew on, as well as the better action scenes. As Lehnsherr was a victim of the holocaust his story immediately has more weight than McAvoy’s life of luxury and top class education. In fact, its hard not to emphasis with Lehnsherr as his belief that mutants are better than man is formed. If anything the story is too heavily slanted in his favour throughout, especially as most of the human characters are either afraid or wanting to suppress the mutant race.

The bad guys are a healthy blend of well known faces (hello Kevin Bacon – possibly the series most fun villain), January (Mad Men) Jones as Emma Frost, and new faces who together fulfil the missing mutant factor of a couple of the original trilogies interesting X-Men (Storm & Nightcrawler) though neither of them are as menacing or well explored as their forebears. To a degree this felt like a missed opportunity as more interesting and new powers could have been utilised. Jones and Bacon are the two stand outs, even if Jones does little more than look stunning (not hard really) and turn into ice.

The action scenes are well handled and generally quite good although they never quite reach the great heights of X-2, the finale is something to behold as the world comes to the brink of war and Vaughn manages to handle multiple action beats with style, pace and clarity. On a downside, often, with these types of stories, the vast number of characters and their abilities are often overlooked as major characters are pushed to the front (this is certainly true of the first 3 X-Men films), yet here, somehow each character is given a moment to shine and the characters powers all seem to come in handy – a slight contrivance of the plot perhaps, but that would be nitpicking.

In the end, X-Men First Class may not be the reimagining or re-envisioning or whatever they call reboots of popular franchises, but with a host of new characters, a period setting and two excellent central performances from Fassbender and McAvoy, First Class is well…. first class (if you excuse the glaringly obvious pun). As for sequels, do we need one. Could we not instead explore the many variations available from decades of comics.

First blog post from new contributor Luke Culverwell. The rather controversial and opinionated Top Ten Most Underrated Sequels of all time.
Enjoy

10. Jurassic Park: The Lost World – 1997
Don’t get me wrong, this is a deeply flawed film but it has its merits. I enjoyed its set pieces and how it pitted animal conservationists against animal hunters was entertaining. Right now I am thinking more of its bad elements (Jeff Goldblum’s clearly-completely black, BIOLOGICAL daughter? WTF?!) but I get caught up in the film every time I watch it.

9. Superman 3 – 1983
The one with Richard Pryor, who is pretty much the only reason this is so good. It’s goofy and really daft in places but it still manages to entertain (“both keys at the same time?”).

8. Batman Forever – 1995
Yes, that’s right I think it is still the best batman of the franchise (though Batman Returns comes close). I think it is fun, energetic and incredibly visual. But most of all I like it because it treated Batman how it is supposed to be treated – like a frigging comic book unlike the more recent, ‘The Dark Knight’ which treats something that is so overwhelmingly fantasy as something that is gritty and realistic.

7. Alien 3 – 1992
Like Godfather 3, it is unfairly compared with the first 2 (which are clearly excellent) but I still think this is a solid effort all round. I think it was an inventive continuation to send Ripley into a place which have very basic tools and no weapons, and also that she has to defend herself on a planet filled with murders and rapist prisoners. And the way the alien won’t attack her because she is carrying the Queen, which she sacrifices herself to kill – awesome.

6. Lethal Weapon 2 – 1989
“You can’t go to South Africa”, “Why not?”, “Because you’re bleck”.
A straight to the point ‘actioner’ with everyone’s favourite Catholic. And the fact that it’s so black and white when casting the South African’s as baddies, what, like two years before the LA riots? But because you’re bleck!

5. Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls – 1995
“shish kebab, Shawshank Redemption, chi-ca-go you’re outta here!”
It’s brilliant, come on admit it. When he crawls out the arse of the Rhino, when he gets in with the tribe, when he gets shot with the darts and when he almost gets caught wanking, brilliant, funny, clever, and easy going. Yes I am defo a Carey lover.

4. Die Hard with a Vengeance – 1995
I’ve watched this sooo many times (like that episode of Friends where the car breaks down at the public toilets – it’s ALWAYS on!!!) and I never get tired of it. You got Jeremy Irons being an evil German, his girl-friend as the psycho mute killer (she’s actually a Christian rock singer in real life – no really, her name is Sam Phillips) and I just love the momentum of it, an action flick when they used to be good.

3. The Godfather Part III – 1990
Yes pales in comparison with the first two, but if you can get past that what you have is still an excellent film. Sofia Coppola let the side down badly there and I’m not a big fan of Andy Garcia being the archetypal drippy eye-talian, but, the story is excellent, especially how it ties it in with something more Italian than Paolo Maldini – the Catholic Church. One last thing, I’m well chuffed Connie finally got to be the ‘Don’ – now that’s an ‘arc’.

2. Back to the Future: Part 3 – 1990
I think it was right to end the franchise with America’s favourite piece of history – The Wild West, and let’s not forget this story is all about changing history. Also the way it incorporates all different kind of elements of classic westerns is outstanding.

1. Wayne’s World 2 – 1993
We tend to disregard comedies in most lists but we forget how hard it is to do a good one. This sequel (and its predecessor) has been left behind as a part of the nineties but it is so ingenious; The YMCA scene (and the build up to it), Jim Morrison and the naked Indian, “I’d like to think I have an eye for detail”, the list goes on.