So yeah, George Lucas’ original Star Wars trilogy was one of the biggest pop cultural icons of all time. It was well-known early on that A New Hope, Empire and Jedi were part of a much longer story, so there were constant rumours that more movies would make their way to the big screen. Eventually came the announcement we’d all been waiting for – George Lucas was working on a new film, and it would be Part I.

Even if you weren’t caught up in it at the time, you can well imagine the frenzy this caused. Rumours ran rife. An army of Boba Fetts, an army of Wookiees, our first glimpse of their home planet of Kashyyyk, amongst numerous others. The first solid piece of news, as i recall, was that the first ‘all CGI’ character would appear, named ‘Jar Jar Binks’. Oh, how excited we were…

Anyway, without labouring the point, The Phantom Menace (Urrgh) was one of the most highly anticipated movies of all time. Yes, even more than The Dark Knight Rises (again, urrgh). So much hope, from so many people. Episode I could never possibly live up to all the expectation. As a result, it took as big a mauling as any movie ever released. Now, it comes to HD Blu-ray for the first time. Was it really the worst thing to happen a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away?

The galaxy is run by a republic of planets, all represented in a universal senate. There is, however, a dark shadow looming over the (relatively) peaceful galaxy. The usually meek Trade Federation have begun a blockade of a small, seemingly insignificant planet. The Jedi council have sent a couple of representatives to negotiate, but all is much more complicated and far-reaching than it seems on the surface. The Federation are under the orders of a Sith lord, and the Jedi are flying into a trap.

The Phantom Menace is, perfectly in keeping with the Star Wars tradition, a chase movie in essence. A young Obi-Wan Kenobi and his Jedi teacher Qui-Gon Jinn arrive just in time to escort the Naboo Queen Amidala to Coruscant, as the Trade Federation’ droid army invade the peaceful planet. Their journey to Coruscant to seek out a diplomatic solution does not go smoothly, however, as damage caused during their escape forces them to land on an outer rim planet, the desert planet of Tatooine.

That young Anakin Skywalker is an unassuming young man living out a dull existence on the same planet as his future son is poetic, though some complained it was all a bit too cute. It was important, however, to establish some canonicity with the original series. The vehicle designs in Menace are fantastic, but most are very, ahem, alien to fans of the original trilogy. A look at Tatooine, with some familiar locations and characters allowed the viewer to make that connection to Starwars and Jedi. The ensuing pod race is thrilling, if a little cheesy, and the character of Anakin’s master Watto is a great character addition to the universe. My biggest problem with the Tatooine portion of the movie is that whilst you can, just about, accept that Anakin’s force abilities enable him to fly his pod so well, too much obstacle is put in his way, making it that little bit too hard to swallow that he is successful. Having never even finished a race, and stalling on the starting line, it all just becomes a little too ridiculous, even for a Lucas movie.

The plot really kicks in on Coruscant, as Senator Palpatine’s political maneuverings and machinations begin to become clear. This is no simple tale of good and evil, the story is far more complicated than that, and whilst it is dressed up in and disguised by plasticine and slapstick, it is important to remember this. A film like Avatar receives great critical acclaim, but has a story that could be written by a Primary School child. The politics and subtle story set-ups in Menace are actually far more complicated, and intelligent, a fact that many conveniently forget.

Writer/Director Lucas clearly has to take some of the blame for this, of course, as that all then takes a back seat to the movie’s finale, which could almost be labelled an homage to Return of the Jedi, and has a fair amount in common with the afore-mentioned Avatar too. The more primitive indigenous population go to battle with a technologically advanced army, and though Jar Jar’s antics are cringeworthy, the battle itself is actually well choreographed, and the battle droids make satisfyingly disposable fodder, keeping your sympathies firmly with the sentient Gungans. It is Anakin’s antics in orbit above the planet that really grate, as he almost single-handedly wins the battle against the entire Trade Federation whilst seemingly being almost completely oblivious to it all. If his future arrogance had been hinted at from the very beginning,  and he had been shown to have been far more complicit with his own actions during the final battle, it would have been far more acceptable to the maturer members of the audience.

This is all probably so much more obvious as it is intercut with the best sequence of Menace, and the best lightsabre battle of the entire series, as Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan do battle with the best of the newly introduced characters, the awesome Darth Maul, and his double-ended lightsabre. Backed up by the sounds of Duel of Fates, the only memorable new piece of music from the entire film, the action is breathtaking, and the outcome, though predictable for the most obvious of reasons, does pack some emotional punch. There were complaints that the speed of this fight made those from the original trilogy look pathetic, but there is logic to this. Luke Skywalker’s training was much abridged, and Vader hadn’t needed to pick up a lightsabre in anger for many years, so clearly neither were on top of their game. Conversely, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are members of a very active Jedi Council, and Maul has been intensively trained by the most powerful Sith lord specifically for the events that are transpiring.

The Phantom Menace is not a great film, by any means, but in comparison to comparable movies of recent years, of which there are very few, it is actually very good. An interesting and surprisingly complicated political plot as the backdrop, some beautiful locations. A fantastical underwater city, a high-speed chariot race, queens, sword fights, aliens. It combines the best of the adventure blockbuster movies that Lucas loved as a child, and packs in far more action, pace and sheer variety than any sci-fi movie in recent history. The Phantom Menace, despite all that has been said about it, is actually a very good Star Wars movie. It just isn’t the Star Wars movie that WE wanted. When the main character of a story is ten or eleven years old, it should not be a surprise that the sensibilities on show are more geared towards an audience of a comparable age. There are very few movies that combine infantile and adult orientated elements well, and whilst the combination here can be quite jarring, The Phantom Menace does have a bit of something for everyone.

So what is missing? The Phantom Menace very clearly shares much of it’s structural and storytelling DNA with Return of the Jedi in particular, yet is much more maligned. For me, perhaps the biggest problem is that everyone is following the rules. It is clear at the outset, as the leader of the Trade Federation, one of the main villains of the piece, puts it. This blockade is perfectly legal. Maybe not completely true, but this idea of playing it straight continues throughout. Jar Jar is allowed free of the Gungan’s because their law demands it. The Jedi can only protect Amidala, they cannot fight a war for it, as that would be against their code. The sole reason for the journey to Coruscant is to seek a diplomatic solution, in accordance with the laws of the land. Anakin is freed thanks to a convoluted series of bets and bargains that, whilst pretty shady, are clearly in accordance with the Hutt’s way of doing business. The whole political subplot of the film, Senator Palpatine’s manipulation of the political system, show’s the biggest villain in the universe stretching, rather than breaking the rules. You could argue Darth Maul, the most interesting character, is the only one not governed by regulations, but even he is following the boss’s orders.

Conversely, whilst the original trilogy had the same mix of Jedi, royalty and political intrigue, the one character who really caught the imagination was the one to whom the rules didn’t apply. The Phantom Menace, and indeed the prequels as a whole, do not contain a character with the strength or appeal of a Han Solo. It could well be this fact, more than any other, that works against the popularity and draw of the prequels.

Like most, I was disappointed when The Phantom Menace was released. I still am disappointed by it, and it has, in tandem with Attack of the Clones, diminished my interest towards the entire franchise. That is, however, my problem, and I know for a fact that there is a new generation of Star Wars fans that love these movies just as much as we enjoyed the adventures of a farmboy, a Corellian smuggler, an Alderaanian princess, a crazy old wizard, a Wookiee, and two robots every bit as silly and annoying as Jar Jar. Whether you spend the money on the prequel Blu-rays is your choice, and I certainly would not urge anyone to do it. I do think it is time, however, to let the anger go, and allow the prequels to find their place with whatever audience is going to find and love them.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at

www.twitter.com/baz_mann

It has felt like a pretty slow year at the box office, but that has changed over the last several weeks. Fast Five and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides have both made huge amounts of money, but this weekend a box office record was broken. To be fair, we are not talking about a record as noteworthy as The Dark Knight’s highest ever opening, or Avatar’s highest grossing movie of all time.

For the team behind  The Hangover 2, however, it will be a good feeling.

With a Friday to Sunday total of $86m, The Hangover has broken the record for highest grossing opening for an R-rated comedy. More than that, it also beat the highest grossing opening weekend for a live-action comedy, and has the second highest opening for any R-rated movie, behind The Matrix: Reloaded. This is clearly a huge achievement, and everyone involved will be hoping it can go on to break the record of the first Hangover movie, which two years ago became the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time.

So why would we have needed a cure for The Hangover? Reading through these facts, something struck me. The previous highest opening for an R-rated comedy was held by Sex and the City 2. Let’s see, SATC2, The Matrix Reloaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides? It is not a cure for The Hangover we need, it is a cure for inferior sequels.

In theory, a sequel should naturally improve on its predecessor. With a first film, valuable time is required to introduce characters, set-up their backgrounds and motivations. In a follow-up we already know, and hopefully like these characters. Without the need to win our sympathy or empathy, the characters should have more time and freedom to grow, to live, to develop. Also, thanks to the wealth of criticism now aimed at all movies, the screenwriters and directors should have a clear idea of what worked in the first film, and what didn’t, using this information to craft, ideally, the perfect movie.

Unfortunately, as we all know, sequels nowadays tend to be financially motivated, and not necessarily put together to capitalise on a great idea that has been fully developed. The Hangover Part Two comes two years after the first movie. Considering that bringing a movie project together from development to screen takes, usually, at least a year, it is clear that the latest film was a cash grab, brought to theatres as soon as possible before interest in the property was allowed to die down.

It can be argued, though, that the new Hangover film was an attempt to give audiences exactly what they wanted. The first one took everyone by surprise. No-one expected great things from it, much of its eventual audience had never heard of it when it was released. Great word of mouth for this unique and original comedy gave its box office performance long legs, and the money continued to roll in long after its opening weekend.

The problem seems to be that The Hangover Part 2 has followed the formula of the original too closely. Where the first film felt fresh and original, by all accounts the second is a lazy retread, the same characters doing much the same things, with very similar jokes. The budget has increased thanks to the first films success, allowing bigger action set pieces, but giving a film bigger, louder, more extreme treatment is not always the answer.

It is hard to see, of course, what really could have been done differently. The audience went in expecting more of the same, it was pretty clear from the trailers that this was what was on offer. So in this case, what is the solution? If a particular film is not really begging of a sequel, what is a studio to do? The obvious answer is to leave it alone. Some films are meant as a one-off piece of art, and maybe should just be left as that. We cannot expect a studio to take this view. The movie industry is just that. an industry. Filmmaking is a business, and that business is making money, as well as entertaining people. If there were no big tentpole films like The Hangover Part Two, Pirates of the Caribbean or The Matrix: Reloaded to bring the studios massive profits, they would not be in a position to take a gamble on more considered, critically acclaimed works that, as sad as it is, very often make a loss.

I’m interested to see what The Hangover’s drop-off is like next weekend. The film was obviously critic-proof, but where the first film’s financial power gathered steam thanks to great word of mouth, will the poor reaction to this new film put people off of going to see it? X-Men: First Class is enjoying a great critical reception, and is aimed at a similar demographic. It has the potential to make a lot of money, and with the underperforming Kung Fu Panda 2 looking to make amends this coming weekend, it is possible that The Hangover will take a big tumble.

The reasons for sequels like The Hangover Part Two are clear, and they are absolutely necessary for the industry wheels to keep on turning. Without them, we may never have got the first Hangover, which with a $35m budget and then-unknown cast would have been considered a financial risk itself. I just wish more time was put into these movies, waiting for genuine inspiration to hit rather than rushing them through to a hastily enforced schedule. More than anything, the first Hangover showed that if a film has real appeal, it will find an audience, whether that audience recognises the franchise or not.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The Dark Knight Rises, one of the most highly anticipated movies (at this point) of all time is released next year. Director Christopher Nolan is, by his very nature, a very secretive filmmaker. He likes to reveal as little as possible about his projects, which leaves his fans desperate for the barest snippets of information.

So when the first piece of major viral marketing for the movie was released, the Internet went into meltdown. In keeping with the marketing we have seen previously in Nolan’s Batman series, it was a bit of a game. A website was set-up with the name of The Fire Rises and featured a black page with chanting in the background.

Now, I have no idea how long the team behind this idea were expecting it to take for someone to solve, but it was mere minutes. Some bright spark ran the chanting through a visualiser, which revealed a hashtag, #thefirerises. This lead to a Twitter account called @thefirerises, and a process by which you could use the hashtag to reveal the first image from the forthcoming The Dark Knight Rises. We were treated to our first look at Bane, as played by Tom Hardy, and it was a pretty significant look, showing much of his facial apparatus and costume.

Clever stuff, and no doubt only the first salvo in a viral marketing war to be raged upon the internet community. My problem with these events is the timing. The Dark Knight is released in July 2012 – a full 14 months away. It is obviously important from a studio’s perspective to get people excited for a film, but the problem is, in this case, they are not trying to get people excited for The Dark Knight Rises, they are trying to keep them excited, and this is a level they are going to struggle to sustain.

Think about it. When did the excitement start? For some, it started the minute they walked out of the theatres after watching The Dark Knight. We have of course had Inception since then, so for many others it will have been the announcements of the project, and confirmation that Nolan would be directing it. Then came the casting rumours, the reveal of the movie’s name, and then the first solid casting confirmations. More rumours would follow, then more casting. Character names began to be revealed, and speculation was cut back once the main characters had all been announced. This process took place over the course of a year.

So excitement has been building for a long time. the problem is, once all these details have been confirmed, the long shooting period begins, and with a secretive Director like Nolan, there is very little information to come from the process. So after getting the fans all excited with character and cast information, Warner Bros were rightly concerned that it would all be pointless, as things went pretty quiet for the next 12 months.

To counteract this, we were given our first visual clue from the movie, even though some cast names are even now only just being revealed. To release this kind of marketing so quickly into the movie’s production smacks of desperation. Unfortunately, it gets worse. Rumour has it the first trailer for The Dark Knight Rises will be attached to Warner’s other tent-pole franchise, the final Harry Potter film. A trailer, just 3 months into production? It will obviously be merely a teaser, as there will clearly be precious little footage to cut from, so you have to question what the point is?

There is a danger, in these circumstances, of escalation. You release a picture, then a trailer, and there is still twelve months before the film’s release. What do you offer next? There is no way, after this effort has been expended to keep up audience anticipation that things will go dark, so to speak. So there is a very real danger that more puzzles will be offered, and solved, and more precious information will be released. Now, the internet community is pretty smart, and will jump on every tidbit they can find, to try and extrapolate how what is being revealed fits into the Batman continuity, and subsequently the upcoming film. The marketing wizards may think they are being clever, but there will always be someone more clever on the outside, and there is a real danger of something big slipping out.

In this new age of social networking and millions of blogs, with the best will in the world it is impossible to stay spoiler free. Remember, of course, that Nolan himself is probably against all this information being released, and there is always a possibility that if too much information is gleaned by the public it could be a distraction to Nolan from the task at hand. Nolan is pretty powerful nowadays, but the studios will always believe they know best, and this could give rise to some inner conflicts.

I may, of course, be over analysing it all far too much. Only time will tell what the PR gurus have in store, if anything, for us over the next few months. Fans will see the recently released image and teaser trailer, if there is one, as just reward for their continued interest and commitment, and by no means do I think it isn’t deserved. I just hope the right level of caution is exercised by all involved, as it would be a damn shame if we all go into Christopher Nolan’s final Batman film knowing just that little bit too much.

The filmmaker’s work always involves some twists and turns, making it more of a risk with his pictures than with many others. The biggest laugh of it all is that such intense marketing isn’t even necessary. The Dark Knight broke box office records, and when he Rises he may well break more. I will, of course, try and avoid spoilers as much as possible, and my biggest hope is that The Dark Knight Rises, when it finally does hit our screens, is something truly special to behold.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The weekend box office estimates are in, and against all odds Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides has achieved the highest opening weekend total so far this year. It just managed to squeak past previous highest Fast Five’s total, with an estimated $90m according to Inside Movies at EW.com, and sets a big target for the rest of the summer blockbusters to aspire to.

The question is:  how is such a tired franchise continuing to make so much money?

This opening total is down on the previous Pirates films. Black Pearl, an unknown quantity at the time, only opened with $46.6m, but Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End opened with $135.6m and $114.7m respectively. They also, however, got progressively worse. Starting with Black Pearl at 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, the review aggregates went down to 54% then 45%. The latest, On Stranger Tides, has managed to undercut them all with an appalling 34%. This doesn’t seem to have dampened the audience interest, however, and it is looking at this point like Pirates of the Caribbean is one of those franchises that is almost critic proof.

Let’s face it, Johnny Depp is the reason the series has been so successful. His Captain Jack Sparrow routine is what drew audiences in for the first movie, and the stories have been built around Depp and Sparrow throughout. The problem with this is that the movies are suffering as a result. Relying on his schtick to carry the films through means we are not being offered anything fresh. After the last two movies received such a critical mauling, the smart move would have been to either pack it in, or hire a screenwriter known for their quality storytelling. Instead, Disney seem to have just gone for the easy money, and put the weight back on Jack Sparrows shoulders, perhaps having too much of their attention divided by other projects.
The thing that amazes me is that we are in a cinematic period where people are complaining about too many sequels, bemoaning the lack of original material. Yet we are still paying good money to see unimaginative retreads with these financially motivated sequels. The clear truth is that, in fact, the majority audience love sequels.So many people are afraid of change, and if you go and see a well established, though well worn, franchise you know what you are going to get. We may be only sporadically entertained, but hey, it’s better than taking a risk on the unknown, right?

Despite such poor critical reception, and star Depp recently saying he’d like to see a little time go past before we see a Pirates 5, with the money On Stranger Tides has made both domestically and globally it seems likely Disney will be keen to press on with a fifth installment. It will be very interesting to see what would happen if Depp did indeed decline to come back. Would they press on regardless with new characters? Would this actually be the key to increasing the quality of the overall product?

Tron: Legacy did not go down too well with critics, but the general public seemed to quite like it. It was also financially successful, so a third movie is on the cards. As long as movie goers are happy to return for follow-ups, the studios are, quite sensibly, more than happy to provide them. It is, obviously, much easier to put a sequel to an existing movie together than to come up with a concept from scratch. Don’t forget, Pirates of the Caribbean was initially a gamble on adapting a theme park ride to the big screen, so inspiration is clearly pretty thin on the ground. If we don’t think a film is up to scratch, but go back for more punishment anyway when the time comes, we really have no right to complain when we are let down again.

We are stuck in a cycle of sequels. This year sees a record total of them at cinemas, and whilst I am not against sequels as a rule, there needs to be more care taken with them. If a compelling and entertaining story does not come naturally to them, it means they are not justified. Some movies are just meant as stand alone pieces of art, and no matter what we might like to think, the memory of any great movie is watered down by its legacy. All we, the audience, can do is vote with our feet. Because in this industry, money talks. And, right now, the money is saying we want recycled trash. I don’t. I want great movies, and so far this year I haven’t seen enough of them.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

By now, you’ll have heard about the successful Toy Story 3 Oscar nomination campaign, and seen some of the fantastic posters. If not, you can read about it here. It is certainly hard to argue with the strength of the campaign. If any film can claim to be 2010′s big success story, it is easily Toy Story 3.

Last year, Toy Story 3 became the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Not really a massive surprise, considering it was based on one of the best loved animated film series in cinematic history. Pixar scored big with the first two installments, and in the last few years have raised the bar for animated movies with the critically acclaimed Wall*E and Up.

In fact, it was just last year that Up transcended its genre and became the first computer animated movie to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. It was perhaps a fortunate beneficiary of the decision to expand the number of nominees for Best Picture from 5 to 10. With the Oscar nominations recently announced, maybe Toy Story 3 will go one better and win the Gold statue. After all, it received almost unanimous reviews across the board. Why stop there though? If an animated movie can be considered for Best Picture, surely it’s possible that an animated character could be nominated for Best Actor?

This would have sounded crazy to me a couple of years ago. I was never a huge fan of animated films, and though I appreciated the brilliant mix of child-friendly action and adult humour inherent in animated films nowadays, and the Toy Story series particularly, I still wasn’t able to take them seriously enough. This past year however I have watched both Up and Wall*E as part of the HeyUGuys IMDb250 Project, and my eyes have been opened to just how poignant and affecting an animated story can be.

It was because of my experiences with these two movies that I found myself for the first time since childhood actually looking forward to going to see an animated film, and went along to watch Toy Story 3 in a theatre. Whilst the storyline isn’t necessarily anything groundbreaking or original in comparison to the previous two movies, the themes explored and the way they are written are beautiful, provoking a genuine emotional response. I found the journey of these fictional, animated characters truly affecting, and must now finally concede that an animated movie can be just effective, if not more so, than a live action picture.

So far this year, we have seen very few obvious Oscar contenders. The traditional season for the Academy Award hopefuls has been and gone, and it was hard to pick many movies other than Toy Story 3 from the first three quarters of the year as definites for the shortlist. As for the Best Actor category, I have not really seen any performances yet that I think are good enough to be recognised by the Academy either, and I honestly feel that so far the best performance I have seen could be that of an animated character – Buzz Lightyear. Over the course of a 90 minute movie, Buzz plays hero, villain, amnesiac, Spaniard, soldier and, most importantly, family man. Lightyear shows fantastic range, and versatility, and is perfectly believable throughout. He displays a vulnerability, and an inner strength, that show as much humanity as any man or woman has managed on screen so far in 2010. He makes you love him and, in one particular scene at the movie’s climax, touches your soul with just one simple look. I felt an emotional connection to the character possibly greater than i have felt in any other film I’ve seen this year.

I got to thinking seriously about this because it was in stark contrast to the feeling that i got watching Leonardo Di Caprio in Inception. I loved Inception, and Di Caprio is undoubtedly one of the best actors around right now. He is certainly no stranger to awards season. In Inception, however, I just did not feel the same emotional connection to his character as I did with Buzz Lightyear, a fictional toy. I’m a big fan of Di Caprio, and realise that I’m being a little unfair. He wasn’t given as much to work with as he has had in his previous roles, and that I bought his character’s motivations and relationships at all are testament to his ability.

As much as anything this situation pays tribute to how far the animators in the industry have come. The biggest stumbling block to an animated character like Buzz Lightyear winning an actors award is that it could not be attributed to one man. Tim Allen voices Buzz, but as a voice actor Allen is only half of the story, if that. It is the team of animators behind Lightyear and the other Toy Story characters that give them life and soul, and whilst i am sure they will win some technical awards in March it would be a shame if they did not receive some formal recognition for the way they have enabled a computer graphic to provoke such a tangible emotional response.The director and writers have clearly played their part too, making one of the year’s best performances a real collaborative effort.

I realise that it is highly unlikely that Buzz, Woody or any other animated creations are going to be honoured at the Academy Awards. I do feel, however, that at this rate, with the fantastic work by Pixar and the lifelike creations of James Cameron and his team on Avatar, we are fast reaching a point where some kind of recognition is going to be required to reward the increasingly great work that is being done in the field of artificial character creation. Technology is advancing, the ambitions of those that use it are growing, and it must surely be only a matter of time before the performance of a computer generated character is held up as being comparable to that of some human actors. I now find myself looking forward to that day. Of course, when it does happen, we are one step closer to Judgement Day…

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

One of this past year’s hidden gems was Gareth Edward’s Monsters. Despite the overt nature of the title, the ‘Monsters’ in question only made the briefest of appearances, with the main crux of the story concentrating on the developing relationship between the two protagonists.The sci-fi element of the plot was really more of a backdrop for a more personal drama.

News came through this week that Edwards has been signed up to direct Legendary Pictures’ Godzilla reboot. The last Godzilla movie, Emmerich’s big budget destructathon was criticised for poor plot, weak characterisations, and, well, was lacking everything that Monsters did well.

Gareth Edwards, then, is the perfect choice to take the reigns. On the face of it at least. However, looking deeper, it looks to me that it might be a mistake, on both sides.

There are several different scenarios here. The first is that Edwards has been selected because the makers are hoping to put out a much more measured, dramatic relationship driven piece, much like Monsters. I have a couple of problems with this. The first, is that if this is really the case, if they are effectively asking for a remake of Edward’s own film, what is the point? The film already exists. Edwards did a fantastic job, and to ask him to do the same thing again is ludicrous.

It may be that they feel that not enough people saw Monsters, and that with a healthy budget Edwards can improve upon the formula, and the name value of the franchise can draw in the audiences that Monsters did not get. Fine in theory, but when the mainstream movie going public go to see a Godzilla movie, they want destruction and spectacle. Those that did not enjoy Edward’s debut were the people that went in expecting exactly this spectacle, that left disappointed at what they felt was a slow, boring film that did not live up to its promise of the title creatures.

It is certainly possible that Edwards can come up with a balance of the two elements, which would be the ideal, but remember he has only made one film. It takes a lot of skill and experience to craft the perfect action movie, and this would be a big ask for the first time filmmaker.

It could also go the other way of course. It is possible that the reason for the focus on the characters in Monsters, and the developing relationship between them, was purely due to financial constraints. With a big budget behind him, there is nothing to stop Edwards going crazy with an overblown disaster movie much like the last incarnation. This will most probably will not be the outcome, but the point is that Edwards is untested. One great movie does not make a great filmmaker. Donnie Darko was a universally praised debut from Richard Kelly, but his work has flopped since. Would a Godzilla movie be too much pressure to put on a fledgling feature director?

My biggest fear is that the choice is a cost saving exercise. It may be that the producers saw how well Edwards did with a minuscule budget, and are hoping he can work financial wonders with Godzilla, crafting a masterpiece at a fraction of the sum of the usual Hollywood action/disaster film. If this is the case, it could end in disaster.

As I said earlier, the wider cinematic audience go into a Godzilla movie expecting to see the monster, and plenty of him. Edwards could use every trick in the book to keep the costs down, and could well put together a fantastic, dramatic film. This would however leave a large percentage of the audience disappointed, and could well end up damaging Edwards’ reputation. You can make the most interesting of films, but if audiences leave angry and frustrated because they feel they were mis sold, it can do damage to reputations.

Of course, this is all very negative. Legendary Pictures have offered a promising, talented young filmmaker the chance to show his work on a much bigger stage. They could have made a lazy choice, employing a Michael Bay-like director of brainless action movies, so they should be commended for making a bold choice. I think we are starting to see producers and studios put a bit more thought into who they get to work on their revenue drawing franchises.

We’ve recently seen Darren Aronofsky named as director of the forthcoming Wolverine film, and Michel Gondry’s take on The Green Hornet will be released very soon. It is good to see more cerebral directors charged with restoring respectability to big budget blockbusters, and I’m looking forward to more choices like this being made. Also, with Edwards’ visual effects background, he is the perfect director to assist his actors in visualising a behemoth that isn’t there on set.

I don’t necessarily think Gareth Edwards is the wrong choice for the Godzilla movie, but there are a lot of factors involved. It depends greatly on the studio’s motives, what they want from the movie, and how much they will interfere with Edward’s work. If they do give him a big budget, they will be under pressure to produce a blockbuster movie that appeals to a large audience. If they leave the director to make the film that he wants, it may not be the one that the demographic audience for a monster movie wants to see.

I was a big fan of Monsters, and very keen to see what Edwards would come up with next. I can’t help but find myself disappointed that he has agreed to this particular project. a Godzilla movie can be great, and Edwards definitely has the potential to do a fantastic job. I think, though, that I would rather have seen him approach something different, a smaller project without the microscope effect of the awaiting fans and media. With a franchise as famous as Godzilla, there will be a lot of anticipation for what is coming. When a filmmaker approaches that difficult second movie, this sort of pressure can greatly cripple creativity and enthusiasm.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope Edwards is allowed the freedom to do what he does best, and manages to craft a film that satisfies the ravenous monster movie fans at the same time as providing the same kind of compelling, emotional storytelling that i enjoyed so much in Monsters. It’ll be very interesting in the coming months to see what kind of budget Godzilla will be set at, and what kind of scale they are pitching the movie at. Godzilla is a big name. It’ll be very difficult to contain the most famous of all the monsters in a small movie.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

As has been widely reported, Harry Potter made a massive impact at the box office in the last few weeks, and continues to do so. Success was inevitable, and the level of success predictable. Harry Potter is one of the most popular book series of all time, appealing to fans both young and old. All previous installments in the Harry Potter movie series have made hundreds of millions of dollars, and with the finale in sight, anyone with even a passing interest in the boy who lived wants to see how it all ends.

The success of Harry Potter financially, particularly in the case of Deathly Hallows, is also however part of a much bigger movie trend. We have seen, in the last year particularly, an apparent rise in the popularity of the family movie. Whilst in the past it has been big, effects heavy action movies that have been the big hitters, it seems there is now just as much interest, if not more, in family orientated, action adventure movies, in both animated and live action form.

It started at the beginning of the year with Alice in Wonderland. Directed by Tim Burton, and starring Johnny Depp, it was always going to have elements that would appeal to both children and adults alike. The novelty of the 3D experience was also just starting to become wildly popular thanks to Avatar, resulting in Alice setting the box office bar high early on in the year.

Then along came How to Train Your Dragon. The year’s first big animated movie, the original nature of the storyline, not based on a recognisable property, meant that How to Train Your Dragon started reasonably slowly at the box office. This Dragon however had long legs, and the combination of the 3D factor and fantastic word of mouth meant that it became a massive box office success.

The trend continued throughout the year, particularly with animated movies such as Shrek Forever After, and the big gun Toy Story 3. Toy Story 3 broke records to become the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Despicable Me enjoyed moderate success, and just a few weeks ago Megamind helped set a record for box office figures on the opening weekend of the Winter period.

There have been less live action success stories, but Prince of Persia broke the $100 million mark. With the recent success of Harry Potter, and the inevitable big money openings we can expect from the latest in the Chronicles of Narnia series and Disney’s Tron sequel, by the end of the year live action family movies will be nearly on a par with their animated peers financially.

Why, then, have family orientated films exploded in popularity recently? One factor that may have played a part is the recent global recession. Yes, you would expect that in a depressed economic climate, financial success would be more unlikely. However, with families forced to tighten their belts over the past couple of years, a lot of the entertainment budget for a typical family has been put to other uses. Now, instead of Mum and Dad going out for dinner, or on nights out with friends, and kids being taken to clubs and sports and the like, a family trip to the cinema looks to actually be a cheaper prospect. A £7 cinema ticket is cheaper nowadays than two pints of beer, or a bottle of wine, so is far more economically viable per person than a night on the town with friends. Combining everyone’s leisure time also means they can spend more quality time together.

Another part of the reason is that family movies are far more appealing now than they used to be to a lot of adults. Where once animated films were seen as childish and aimed solely at children, this perception has changed thanks in large part to the original Toy Story. Animated movies have become far more sophisticated. Pixar successfully combined adult humour with kid friendly slapstick action, and all the other studios began to follow suit. Now, it isn’t unusual for a an animated movie to be written with adults in mind first, and the kids second. Wall*E, for example, was actually quite boring to many young children, and achieved its popularity thanks to the appreciation of its adult audience.

With CGI now becoming more affordable, and available, live action family movies are also better equipped to sell to a broad audience. The action in family movies used to be confined to slapstick and pratfalls, but more affordable computer effects mean massive worlds can be used to entice adults and children alike. Films like Harry Potter would have been very difficult to make in a realistic way years ago, and the animatronics and plastic sets would have probably looked far too cheap and silly for a lot of the grown up audience to contemplate paying money to see. It is now far easier for the mature audience to buy into the worlds being created, as fantasy figures and locations are able to look much slicker and more realistic.

In the case of Harry Potter, it is also very much the themes explored and the richness of the original source material that have made the movies a must see experience. Adults were already engrossed in the novels before the first film was released, and in many cases the parents were looking forward to seeing the films as much, if not more than their offspring. This success has lead to similar types of book series being written, and adapted, like The Golden Compass and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. It has also seen older works like The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe dusted off to capitalise on this newfound interest in magical family adventure.

Only time will tell if the family movie boom will continue on for an extended period of time. Certainly, there are many external factors that influence cinematic tastes and trends. A major upturn in the economy, another massive global event, or even just the introduction of a new favourite source material amongst movie makers could all change the dynamic overnight. For now, however, family films rule the box office. With Harry Potter and Megamind still going strong, Tangled now on release, and Voyage of the Dawn Treader and Tron: Legacy imminent, it is going to be a family affair in theatres this Christmas. Maybe that’s just as it should be.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last weekend saw the latest installment of the Harry Potter franchise surpass all the previous movies’ performances at the box office to lead the weekend with a US opening of around $125 million. This was a massive success for Warner Bros, making them the leading box office performing studio so far this year. With only Tangled offering any real competition the following weekend, the success is sure to continue.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is part one of a two part adaptation of JK Rowling’s source novel. Splitting one film into two parts has become an increasingly popular habit in recent years, and with part two of Deathly Hallows sure to match its predecessor financially, it looks like a winning decision. However, I have to ask the question – is this recent trend an attempt at providing the right platform for epic tales to be told, or is it a shameless cash-in employed by greedy studio execs?

There are clear reasons why using this technique is a good idea, particularly in the case of Deathly Hallows. It’s important to point out that as a film (or films) primarily aimed at children, there is a necessity to keep Harry Potter at a reasonable duration. The stories appeal to children as young as four or five. Expecting children of this age to sit still for an epic of Lawrence of Arabia proportions is unrealistic, and would even be irresponsible. Deathly Hallows is a very long book, and whilst adaptations of novels are frequently condensed for cinematic adaptation, as the last installment of the series there was a responsibility to the fans to encompass the whole of the source material.

The problem occurs if there is not a natural stopping point in the middle of the book. Chopping any coherent story halfway through the middle presents a very real problem. Books, like movies, tend to be written in three acts. By making a film based on the first 50% of a novel, you risk creating a movie with an unbalanced structure. If there isn’t an exciting cliffhanger somewhere around the midway point, as well as a tangible sense of character progression, a part one movie will end with a whimper rather than a bang. This can be very much subjective though, and depends on what your idea of a good ending for a first part is. Do you want to be left hanging, desperately wanting more? Or do you want some form of resolution to the events of the story up to this point? The ideal is, obviously, some combination of the two.

Cutting a movie up, or specifically choosing to make a particularly long movie so as to show it in two parts, can be far preferable to the ‘cash-in’ sequel. With Harry Potter, the filmmakers could be confident that the movie would be a big draw, so there was no financial risk involved in making two movies. It is a lot harder to make this kind of decision with an original property. You can have no real assurance that a single movie will recoup costs, so to spend the extra money on a longer shoot, and all that is involved, is a major risk. This is how we end up with the cash-in, the inferior sequel. All the good ideas are encompassed in the first movie, and a satisfying conclusion is provided. Then, when the movie experiences big box office success, attempts are made to tack more of the same on in a follow-up or two, as in the Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean series.

I would much rather see a great idea split into two parts, thoroughly exploring all the different facets of the story, than be subjected to a mediocre attempt at a sequel. There is also a very practical aspect to shooting two films back to back. The sets, locations and cast are all in place, and well organised principle shooting can be completed in far less time than two full shoots would add up to. This makes it far more cost effective, and also helps avoid the inevitable continuity problems. Warner Bros have been very canny in producing the Potter films in short order, meaning the principle actors have not aged too far in advance of their characters, and therefore been able to portray their parts (reasonably) believably.

I think it is fair to say that the most prominent examples of ‘double dipping’ have actually been honest attempts at effective management. Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill was originally conceived as one movie, but being Tarantino, the screenplay ran very long. This led to the producers making the decision to show the film in two parts, so as to let the whole story be seen without audiences being put off by a butt numbing duration. The reverse was true with Tarantino’s Grindhouse collaboration with Robert Rodriguez. Originally meant to be shown as a double feature, Death Proof and Planet Terror were released separately in the end.

The story of Mesrine, the infamous French gangster, was wisely made in two parts rather than one movie, allowing sufficient length to tell as much of the man’s fascinating story as possible. The resulting Killer Instinct and Public Enemy No 1 were fantastic examples of cinematic storytelling. One film that could have benefited from being split into two parts was Red Cliff. The full feature is over five hours long, and was shown in its native land in two portions. Here in the West however we were given one movie, with an astonishing 90 odd minutes cut out to ensure that audiences could endure it. I would have much preferred to see the full story in two parts, as in Steven Soderbergh’s Che Parts One and Two.

Harry Potter has been very successful at the box office, and the vast majority of fans have been ecstatic with the quality of the movie. They will be overjoyed that they still have one more Potter film to enjoy, and will be eagerly looking forward to the final, final installment. I think that the decision to make two movies instead of cramming a rich and popular concluding story into one overlong film was the right decision, and one that was made for the right reasons. There is definitely a place for the two part movie, and as long as the technique is not overused, which up till now it has not, then I will continue to welcome this method of epic filmmaking.

Bazmann-You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last winter saw some unseasonably big box office numbers. Big budget disaster movie 2012 made over $700 million worldwide. Twilight: New Moon matched it. However, it was the Christmas period that was the big surprise. Sherlock Holmes surprised everyone with a great opening and long legs. I need not, of course, mention Avatar, the highest grossing movie of all time.

This winter kicked off with a record breaking weekend, as the triple threat of Megamind ($45 million), Due Date ($30 million) and For Coloured Girls ($20 million) combined to produce the biggest box office weekend opening for a November. Megamind carried that momentum through into the next weekend with another $30 million, meaning this looked to be just the beginning of a Winter that could almost be as hot as a traditional Summer.

The box office magic continued for the boy that lived, with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. The Potter franchise has been a box office juggernaut, running on the massive popularity of the book series and Warner Bros expert handling of the movie adaptations. Sequels have come regular as clockwork, meaning interest has never been allowed to die down, and the original cast have been able to effectively work right through the saga. There was no reason to think Deathly Hallows would be any different, and as part of the final installment, it was unmissable for a large number of movie goers. The decision to abandon 3D will hit the film’s final box office haul, with the extra revenue for the inflated ticket prices and the extra interest the format still draws capable of adding around a potential 20% to gross profits. The template for Harry Potter’s box office performance has been $70 million opening weekend, and a $300 million final domestic gross. Deathly Hallows shattered this with a US opening weekend of $125 million.

The next potential big hitter is Disney’s animated Rapunzel spin, Tangled. Animated family movies have made a killing this year, with How To Train Your Dragon, Shrek Forever After and Toy Story 3 doing particularly well, making hundreds of millions between them. Toy Story 3 on its own made history as the highest grossing animated movie of all time. Disney will hope to carry on the current trend, and build on the success of their last solo animated effort The Princess And The Frog. There’s no reason to think that Tangled won’t manage a similar opening to the aforementioned Megamind.

The third installment in the Chronicles of Narnia trilogy, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, should at least match previous outings with an opening of around $50 million. There is also the potential for the combined star power of Jonny Depp, whose profile helped lift the Pirates series to a billion dollar franchise, and arguably the biggest female draw in Hollywood Angelina Jolie to make The Tourist this year’s big box office surprise. To be fair, this is probably fairly unlikely, and an opening that rivals Salt’s $35 million can be seen as a success.

Next up will be Disney’s much hyped, over publicised Tron sequel. This is a really interesting one. Disney are trying desperately to match the success of their Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. They were only partially successful with Prince of Persia earlier in the year. The brand power of the videogame on which it was based didn’t prove strong enough to push it into the realms of their Pirates movies, as a reasonable opening led to a huge drop off. Tron is a sequel, so they will be hoping that the mixture of nostalgia, flashy effects and a huge promotional campaign will make Tron: Legacy this year’s Avatar. On the downside, their is no real star power attached, Jeff Bridges is a great actor but doesn’t have that box office cache. Add to this the fact that the original Tron was, in truth, actually not very good, and the outlook for Tron is hazy. It could fizzle out like Prince of Persia, but also has the potential to make similar numbers to the year’s first big box office hitter Alice in Wonderland.

Rounding out the year will be the Ben Stiller vehicle, Little Fockers. The third installment of the Meet the Parents series, Fockers could well match the £50 million + performance of its predecessors. Another comedy, Gulliver’s Travels starring Jack Black, has a chance of making an impact, but based on the performance of Black’s previous few movies hopes look pretty slim.

As we come towards the end of the traditional ‘Oscar contenders’ portion of the year, it certainly looks like the run up to Christmas will be a jolly period for the big studios hoping to cash in on peoples good cheer. There were only a few big winners financially speaking in the Summer, and this Winter has the potential to produce just as many, which will undoubtedly help give Hollywood producers a warm feeling inside during the cold snap.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Skyline was released last weekend (read Dave’s rather comical review here), and only just made it into the box office top five. This weekend, it is all set to disappear, and will fast become a distant memory. I hope, however, it does not get so easily forgotten by aspiring filmmakers, or even the current movers and shakers in the business. You see, I think there are valuable lessons to be learnt from this experiment in cut-price filmmaking.

For years, we have been screaming out at Hollywood that big budget effects do not a great movie make. CGI heavy movies though do tend to make a big noise at the box office, so can be considered very effective. The likes of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen have championed big computer animated set pieces at the expense of competent acting and coherent plot, and continue to get away with it. The sizable budget usually extends to a big marketing push, which seems to be half the battle for box office success these days. We now seem to have reached a new level however. Skyline had the expensive looking effects, but didn’t even have the marketing push behind it. Consequently, it failed.

Except it didn’t. Sure, it has received a critical mauling, and the movie-going majority are avoiding it like the plague. But with a budget reported to be around $10 million, and an opening of $11 million, the movie is already set to make a profit, and on that basis can be considered (moderately) successful. To put it into a bit of perspective, I think it is important to point out that Skyline’s opening weekend total earnings matches almost exactly that of another much maligned alien invasion movie. The difference is that 2000′s Battlefield Earth cost a staggering $73 million to make, resulting in a $50 million loss. When all is said and done, Skyline could almost double it’s money. So what can we learn from the story of Skylines’s ‘success’?

There is a popular, and woefully misguided, belief that writing a science fiction movie is easy. On the surface, it does sound easier than writing a story confined by known physics and logic. If you create your own world, you can create your own rules, and therefore do anything you want. As a writer, you can let your imagination run wild, and no-one can queston the concepts you create. The reality, of course, is that to write a compelling sci-fi movie that audiences can buy into can be considerably harder than in other genres. It’s all very well designing fantastical alien ships and otherworldly beings, and casting them against a contemporary Earth setting, but if the logic of your character motivations are flawed, your actors are unconvincing at best, and the plot is nothing short of tedious, it is a massive waste of time.

You can see where the people involved were coming from. They clearly saw movies like Cloverfield and District 9, low budget sci-fi movies that made a big splash, and felt that with their effects background they could do just as good a job. The effects are good, but no consideration has been given to any of the other necessary elements. The characters in Cloverfield perhaps weren’t that likeable, but they at least had a plan, a motivation. The story had a good pace to it, the plot was structurally sound, and the overall effect was very entertaining. District 9 had very deep ideas at its heart, a fascinating political statement mixed with some laugh out loud humour and genuinely exciting action sequences made it the surprise package of last summer.

This, in a broad strokes, is the difference between a movie like Skyline and far better conceived films of the same genre. The starting base for any movie should be story and plot, and when you have gotten that right, only then can you add the shock and awe. It is a real shame, too, because the theory behind Skyline is actually pretty sound. Computer effects are getting cheaper and more accessible. It isn’t necessary to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on massive sets and overpriced actors. If just an extra $10 million had been spent getting better actors, polishing up the screenplay and building a couple of extra sets, Skyline could have BEEN this year’s District 9. It may have been panned by 99% of its audience, but Skyline does show that it will be possible for more talented and experienced filmmakers to make great looking action movies without a huge budget.

I hope, for this reason, that potential filmmakers are not put off of trying their own lower budget genre films. If the right level of effort is put into getting a compelling story laid out, and more thought is put into sketching out believable, likeable characters, independent filmmakers could start to rival the likes of Paramount and Sony at the box office. We’ve seen cheaply made movies like Paranormal Activity go supernova thanks to unconventional filmmaking techniques and the contagious buzz of viral marketing, and hopefully we will continue to see more of this kind of inventing filmmaking.

It will be a struggle. Inexpensive films like Buried can get all the positive reviews in the world, but without the marketing budget of more expensive studio pictures, the awareness just isn’t there. That is part of the importance of movie blogs like HeyUGuys. We help to bring these smaller films to the attention of the public. As more and more consumers make a habitual use of the Internet, our reach will increase, meaning we can hope to make more of an impact on movie going habits.

This only works, of course, if the films get screened for critics, and are actually good. Skyline fell down on both of these elements, and as a result is destined to the bargain basements of this world.

Tell us your thoughts in the comments section below…..

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

For six seasons, womanising Charlie Harper, his anal retentive failure of a brother Alan, and Alan’s problem child son Jake have entertained us with a selection of pee, fart and masturbation jokes. In every man’s life, however, the time comes to grow up. At the end of season six, Charlie had hooked up with the woman of his dreams, and popped the question. Does season seven, then, see the drunken playboy reformed?

The biggest problem that faces any sitcom that extend beyond three or four seasons is that of development. There is only so long that the same dynamics, relationships and personality traits can carry a show before it becomes repetitive. In the past we’ve seen comedy shows like Friends and Fraser forced to bring foreshadowed relationships to fruition. With Two and a Half men, the title is the sum of its principal cast, so whilst the sentiment is the same, they’ve had to ship the characters in.

Maybe this is why the relationship between Charlie and fiance Chelsea just doesn’t sit right. Without the years of character development and story arch behind the character, Chelsea comes across as very much the interloper that Alan must feel she is. Appearing out of the blue, she has captured the central character’s heart. A difficult sell for any series, but when it is serial shagger Charlie Harper, you can’t help but feel it would take someone special to tie him down. The biggest problem with the opening third of Two and a Half Men is that Chelsea isn’t it, or at least doesn’t come across as such.

For someone with the history of Charlie, the woman he finally falls for has to have a certain spark, and unfortunatley Chelsea not only lacks this, she doesn’t even come across as a particularly charismatic or even likeable character. This makes it hard to easily accept Charlie’s new outlook on life. The caring, committed Charlie is like a neutered dog. Robbed of his potency, half of the joke of the entire series is lost. Whilst this could be a good opportunity to freshen up the show, and use their relationship as a way to explore different life issues, it ends up being an avenue for slightly different puerile humour.

Two and a Half Men does not have the ambition or sophistication of the aforementioned Fraser. When Charlie has a Colonoscopy, it is used not as a way to explore mortality, or facing the loss of true love when you have spent so long looking for it, but as five minute gag when he uses the procedure as an excuse not to spend time with Chelsea’s family.

This probably sounds overly harsh. The foundation of the show, the pee, fart and masturbation jokes are still there, and are still funny. The strength of the show is in the dysfunctional relationship between Charlie and hapless brother Alan, and it is the character moments and banter between these two that are the best parts of the show. Charlie Sheen and Jon Cryer are very good at what they do, and bounce off of each other wonderfully. Angus T Jones as Jake does a decent job of a very one-note character, having lost his second note with the weight that has been jettisoned over the last few seasons. Thankfully, the character has reached such an age that the eating jokes have found a ready replacement with the inevitable dating jokes. Yes, the tubby little kid from season one has become a hormonal teenager, and with two male role models with relationship histories at either end of the pole, it looks like being a bumpy ride.

As the season progresses, and Charlies forthcoming nuptials become inevitably uncertain, the season begins to lose its way. We witness a wedding, a couple of arrests, and more than a few break-ups. Having lost its purpose, season seven meanders somewhat to the end, with the highpoint of the climax the introduction of a new love interest for Alan. Courtney Thorne-Smith’s Lyndsey, a poster child for bad mothers, is a breath of fresh air. Outrageously dismissive of her son’s emotional wellbeing, a great performance by Thorne-Smith shows that it is possible to introduce new female characters, with personality, successfully.

A strange season really. Beginning with great purpose, but fizzling out towards the end storywise, the bedrock of laughs is nevertheless still there, and Two and a Half Men continues to be one of the best conventional sitcoms on television. With Charlie Sheen’s continued involvement looking increasingly unlikely with each subsequent season, it could well be that Two and a Half Men’s days will soon be numbered. No bad thing really. It is a very entertaining show, but without the great ambition of a show like Fraser, it is hard to see how the same contained little world of Charlie, Alan and Jake can continue to exist in its current form. With Jake now coming of age, if it isn’t careful the show could find itself being rename Three Men before the plug is pulled. And as we’ve seen so many times, a spin-off can only ever shame its parent show. (That last line would have been so much more effective if i hadn’t used Fraser as an example several times…)

Two and a Half Men – Season 7 is out now.

Bazmann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest Internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 39th update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) – 8.7 No. 18

There was a lot that was fresh about the first Indiana Jones movie when it was first released. A white night in shades of grey in Harrison Ford’s rock ‘em sock ‘em archaeologist, the feisty female love interest, a winning mix of slapstick humour and thrilling action. In the intervening years, however, it has weathered a bit. Much of the action is a little too tame. The spirited Marion Ravenwood pales in comparison to modern day action heroines.

The finale, too, though showy and gruesome, is a little bit of an anti-climax after some of the action that has leads up to it. Class is class however, and it is the presence and great comedy timing of Ford that makes Raiders just as watchable as it was all those years ago. The hand of Lucas can be seen throughout, but there is enough darkness and intrigue to make up for the silliness that Lucas instills.

A bit tame in comparison to modern day action/adventure movies, but the original still holds enough charm, and one of the most iconic characters in cinematic history, to stake its place in the IMDb list.

Goodfellas (1990) – 8.7 No. 14

With Goodfellas, Martin Scorsese got the mix of old fashioned gangster story and more contemporary thriller almost perfect. What could have suffered from being a little slow, and a little dialogue heavy is brought to life by Scorsese’s snappy direction and editing. The manic scenes towards the end particularly, as Ray Liotta’s Henry Hill races around town trying to avoid the eye in the sky of the FBI are thrilling.

Liotta, of course, is the man who makes the movie. Alongside heavyweights like Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci, who would both go on to far more successful careers, Liotta somehow shines. He shows a great amount of on-screen charisma, puts in a powerful performance, and his narration is surprisingly compelling.

It is performances as much as direction that make Goodfellas one of the best movies of all time. The story isn’t actually all that interesting, but the conviction of De Niro and Pesci, and a surprising amount of humour carry it through. A deserving listee, and a personal favourite to boot.

Casino (1995) – 8.0 No. 178

Where Scorsese scored with Goodfellas, the apparent attempt to recreate the chemistry fails spectacularly for me with Casino. With a story even less inherently interesting than Goodfellas, the directors mix of dynamic cinematography and snappy editing aren’t enough, and are not used frequently enough. What results is an overlong, and rather disjointed narrative as Robert De Niros Ace Rothstein makes his way (slowly) to the top of Las Vegas strip, only slide down the other slide at an even more meandering pace.

The performances by De Niro and Pesci are good, but they have far less to work with than in Goodfellas, or Raging Bull for that matter. Where Liotta’s narration genuinely aided the story in Goodfellas, De Niro and Pesci’s voiceovers are draining and tedious. Sharon Stone puts in a surprisingly great performance, but thanks to the mediocrity of the story, I found it difficult to care.

There are some great moments, and when Scorsese turns it on, his filmmaking is second to none. Unfortunately, i can’t help but feel that the great director became as bored as I did, and the movie as a whole fails to sparkle. Casino really has no place in the IMDb list, and I can’t help but think if it wasn’t for the name power of De Niro, Pesci and Scorsese, Casino wouldn’t enjoy anywhere near the reputation it currently does.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994) – 9.1 No. 1

Throughout the project i have marvelled at how some movies that are predicated on a great twist, whilst great upon first watch, suffer greatly when re-watched without the all-important element of surprise. Thankfully, Frank Darabont’s masterpiece is genuinely great long before that awe inspiring ending.

Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman are the names over the door, but in actual fact, every performance is great, and it is the work of every single actor involved that makes this a perfect film. The story at its heart, that of hope and friendship, is deceptively simple, but it is the believability of the character’s actions and behaviour that make them so affecting. That ending, of course, is the icing on the cake, and neatly draws the narrative together for a truly heart warming finale.

It is hard to fully describe just what a joy it is to watch The Shawshank Redemption. In many ways, it can probably be considered a surprise that it tops the IMDb list. There are so many films with arguably a much bigger reputation, but Shawshank has very quietly become one of the greatest films ever made. It easily deserves its place on the list, and it is difficult to imagine another film that could ever hope to surpass it.

Taxi Driver (1976) – 8.5 No. 40

Its a bit like Scorsese week, and Taxi Driver is a prime example of why there are so many of his films in the upper reaches of the IMDb250 list. A chilling character study of a fairly average New Yorker, whose perception of the world around him drives him to mental instability.

Travis Bickle is an ex-marine, suffering from extreme insomnia. With nothing better to do, he takes a job as a cab driver, driving the worst streets of New York at the most ungodly of hours. The constant grime and sleaze that he exposes himself to on a nightly basis take their toll on his psyche. He looks to be trying to make the best of his life, but a bad break-up and an obsessive personality lead him to delusion.

Robert De Niro is brilliant as the psychologically damaged Bickle. His gradual descent into madness is frightening, and oh so compelling. The ambiguity of his motives is what makes Taxi Driver such a fascinating movie. In the end, when the situation reaches its tipping point, the violence is shocking, and shot completely without glamour. Bickle ends up as a hero of sorts, but if events had gone a different way he could well have been the most heinous of villains.

Scorsese shows some great cinematic techniques, and even this (relatively) early in his career shows a true greatness as a filmmaker. A masterpiece of cinema, Taxi Driver is at times difficult to watch, but it is even harder to turn away. Every bit as deserving of a place in the list as the likes of  Citizen Kane az#nd The Seventh Seal, Taxi Driver is a true classic.

Come back next week for update 40. You can follow our progress at   www.twitter.com/baz_mann and   www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 37th update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

Blade Runner (1982) – No. 109 8.2

When four human form ‘Replicants’ go off the reservation, a world weary Blade Runner by the name of Deckard is reluctantly pressed into service to hunt them down. During his investigation, he meets a Replicant by the name of Rachael, who astonishingly is initially unaware of her true nature. As Deckard’srelationship with Rachael develops, his hunt raises more questions about the nature of humanity, and whether artificial human beings are less sentient than their creators.

I’vewatched BladeRunner so many times over the years, it has become hard to re-assess it afresh for this type of review. As far as an exercise in world building, BladeRunner is incredible. The mixture of compelling visuals, incredible musical scoring and the combination of contemporary lifestyles withfuturistic technology combine to make the world in which Blade Runner takes place so realistic that it is easy to completely immerse yourself in it. So many movies set in the future, such as I, Robot, Minority Report etc.. display it as a very sterile, white plasteel environment with flawlessly pristine technology available to all. Deckard visitingdingy shops and noodle bars in a flying car, chasing human form robots. The contrast between the progressive technology and the continuing poverty and decay of a big city is used to great effect to create a realistic vision.

The story, on the other hand, comes across now as a little mundane. The tale of a human chasing down artificial intelligence gone wrong is no longer fresh or original, and regardless of whether it was when the film was originally released, it makes it harder to get excited about now in the present day. The philosophicalquestions posed, about humanity, self-awareness and playing God, are very well posed however, and combined withthe unique atmosphere of the created world givea very unique feeling to Blade Runner that has never been surpassed.

For me, the performances aren’t great. Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty is clearly unhinged, which just about justifies his larger than life performance, but everyone else just come across as adequate. Even Harrison Ford, though displaying great screen presence, and a vulnerability refreshing for a male lead, doesn’t sparkle in the same way as he does in the Indiana Jones movies, for example.

I’ve never really been sure if i like Blade Runner all that much. I clearly enjoy watching it, as i have done so more times than i can count, but there does seem to be a simplicity to the sequence of events, leaving me wanting that little bit more on every viewing. For its unique atmosphere, and the thought provoking ideas behind the story, Blade Runner is definitely still one of the true greats, and despite my misgivings i can’t really argue with its position in the IMDb250 list on that basis.

The Green Mile (1999) – No. 96 8.3

The Green Mile follows life on the Green Mile, a death row section of a penitentiary. The prison guards are there to make their charges last days as comfortable as they can reasonably be, but the status quo is upset by bloodthirsty guard Percy Wetmore, the arrival of ‘Wild Bill’ Wharton, and gentle giant John Coffey, who it is discovered holds a very special gift.

The Green Mile has a very odd feel to it. Most of the movie is set within one very small set, and whilst it doesn’t necessarily look cheap, it does create a very contained atmosphere. This doesn’t detract from some very good performances, particularly from Sam Rockwell as Wild Bill Wharton and Doug Hutchison as Percy Wetmore. The story doesn’t suffer from it either. The Green Mile is a touching tale really, of a simple man suffering for God’s work, and of good men trying to make the best of a job essentially working as caretakers of monsters. Hanks as Paul Edgecomb and David Morse as Brutus Howell come across as genuinely likable, personable characters.

My problem with The Green Mile is that there is a dark, sinister edge to it, which seems at odds with the lightness and charm of many of the characters. Every story needs a villain, and Wetmore does display some truly reprehensible behaviour, as does Wild Bill. But the ending they both meet, due to the actions of a man doing ‘God’s work’ seems to contradict the message that all men, regardless of their behaviour, deserve a degree of civility that is threaded throughout the rest of the story. The wardens show great care and sensitivity towards their charges, making their final days as comfortable as reasonably possible. We seem to be being told that all men deserve respect, even if they are on death row. Then we are shown the vengeance wreaked by Michael Clarke Duncan’s John Coffey, and those final actions seem so out of character with the rest of the movie.

These macabre events, combined with the botched execution that leads to them, lend a grotesque tone to a story that starts out so genteel. This may be a completely intended switch, but it leaves the film feeling very off balance. It also means that when we witness Coffey’s final moments at the end of the movie, the impact is dampened by what has gone before. The Green Mile was perfectly watchable, but nothing more. Having now seen it once, i don’t imagine a scenario in which i’ll choose to watch it again. For me, not deserving of its place.

Fight Club (1999) – No.17 8.7

A white collar insomniac finds his Ikea-loving lifestyle turned upside down when he meets shady soap salesman Tyler Durden. They start up an underground fight club, a group therapy session that allows the common man to de-stress after a hard day at the office. The insomniac discovers, however, that Durden has grander ideas, and as events quickly spiral out of the narrators control, he finds that the biggest shock has been saved til the very last.

From the outset, it is not obvious what kind of movie Fight Club is. Comedy, drama , thriller? It starts out as a truly odd tale of a man who cannot find his place in the world. As you follow Ed Norton’s ‘Narrator’ through his adventures at support groups, and his first meeting with Marla, it is impossible to tell where the story is headed. Then Norton’s world is blown to pieces, literally, and things just get weirder.

Throughout Fight Club, you’re never really sure whether to laugh or be appalled. Norton’s character isn’t really likeable, and is actually a bit of a jerk, particularly with regards to his interactions with Marla. Brad Pitt’s Tyler Durden has become an icon of cool, but really, he isn’t any more likable than Norton (which i guess actually makes perfect sense). Still, you feel hopelessly compelled to continue watching the car wreck to see the outcome.

Really, it isn’t the characters that you find yourself rooting for, it is the story. The anti-establishment, anarchic ideas of Chuck Palahniuk’s writing are what makes the story relevant and vital. The mischief and mean spirit of Durden’s army should be abhorred, but he makes a convincing argument. Sadly, by the end of the film, its biggest failing is that you can’t really care what fate befalls the protagonists. Whilst Durden’s rage against the machine is compelling in theory, the reality is that no real face is put on the villain of the piece, meaning that when his plan comes to fruition, it can only be seen as senseless. He has effectively waged war on an anonymous evil.

Are we supposed to sympathise with either Durden or Norton? You’d have to ask director Fincher. The talented director’s filmmaking ability is beyond question. The soundtrack and visuals are unique and striking throughout, and the stellar cast mean that you never question the believabilityof the madness that unfolds on screen. The only real issue with Fight Club is that it leaves you feeling emotionally cold. A story of reprehensible characters watching their lives unravel, there really is no emotional anchor to it. An entertaining film, by one of the best directors of his generation, but lacking that intangible something that would make it great. A good movie, but one whose reputation far exceeds its skills.

The Wages of Fear (1953) – No. 177 8.1

In a rundown South American town, the large mob of unemployed denizens are given the opportunity of a lifetime. The chance to drive a cargo across country to a remote oil field for a huge payday. The catch? The cargo is dozens of barrels of highly unstable nitroglycerin, and the vehicles are not built to withstand even the smallest pothole in the road. There are two trucks, and the first to safely reach its destination will win the big prize. It is the most lethal of races, but there are no shortage of men willing to take the chance for a better life.

The Wages of Fear starts off so slowly, that you’d be forgiven for giving up early on. The story of paupers in a run down town, with nothing better to do but make nuisances of themselves isn’t greatly compelling, and in truth this period of character establishment runs far too long. By the time the offer of a job, literally career suicide comes along, you find yourself desperate for a bit of pace. Strange, then, that the slow deliberate journey the protagonists embark on turns out to be one of the most compelling, sizzlingly tense tales ever told in cinema.

Four men, two trucks, and a whole lot of nitroglycerin make The Wages of Fear one of the greatest action movies of all time. The set pieces are inventive, and the performances are pitch perfect as the desperate men risk it all for the promise of a route out of the miserable poverty they live in. None of the characters have shown so far to be particularly noble or nice, but you can’t help but pull for them, even with the cruelty they so often show towards each other, as they race to be the first to get their payload to its destination. Some fantastic shocks, that in retrospect are all obvious but never feel so at the time, and perfect pacing of the second half of the movie make watching the wages of Fear an unforgettable experience. One of the best films i’ve watched for the project, it is just a shame that many have probably given up a third of the way into the movie. It is works of art like this that are the reason i took on the project, as i probably wouldn’t have seen it otherwise.

Memento (2000) – No. 27 8.6

Leonard suffers from a rare condition that means he is unable to create new memories, the result of an assault that left his wife raped and murdered. Despite his handicap, Leonard follows the trail of the man responsible, using a unique method of notation to piece together his investigation as every few minutes his short term memory is wiped. He thinks he has the perfect method to keep track of his situation, but we discover that Leonard is in fact very confused, and at the mercy of the people around him as they make use of his circumstances for their own benefit.

From the opening scene of a Polaroid developing backwards, Memento catches your attention, and arouses your curiosity. The unique decision to unravel the storyline backwards perfectly complements the memory bending storyline. In truth, with a little bit of re-jigging, the movie would have worked if it had been played forwards in sequence. The story is interesting enough to captivate you either way, as the story of Leonard’s quest, and the discipline he shows as he tries desperately to keep track of his investigation compel you to continue watching. It helps that, despite the fact that Leonard is a vengeful, violent character, Guy Pearce’s charm and sympathetic portrayal makes him a likeable lead character. That is the brilliance of the backwards chronology – you’re pulling for Leonard all the way until the end (or beginning), when you find out exactly who he is, and what he has done.

Having watched Memento several times, the gimmicks don’t hold up quite so well on repeat viewing. Each scene overlaps, showing part of the same scene in the next so you can see how it links up. a useful tool, but it starts to feel very repetitive upon subsequent views. The same problem also exists as with any film that relies on a twist. Though the subtle humour and intricacies of the plot shine through when watched again, by knowing how it all ends, what the big finish involves, a big part of the pull of the movie is taken away. On first watch, Memento is, for me, one of the best films i have seen. It is just a shame that it suffers so much the second, third or fourth time. The curse of not being unable to unsee a movie. A curse, i guess, that Leonard never has to fear…

Come back next Monday for update 38. You can follow our progress at  www.twitter.com/baz_mann and  www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

When the recent list of contenders for director of the forthcoming Christopher Nolan produced Superman reboot Superman: Man of Steel was revealed, I found myself very uninspired.

Of the men named on the list, I only really found myself interested by the prospect of Duncan Jones’ Superman film. I immediately discounted Tony Scott, who really was the red herring on the list. I couldn’t really judge Matt Reeves, having only seen Cloverfield, which has a very definite style to it that doesn’t really carry over into any other type of movie, let alone a superhero one. Jonathan Liebesman’s name didn’t even register, to be honest.

Zack Snyder? I looked down my nose at his name, and had him down as a possible for the job, but for me, an unwanted one. I wanted Darren Aronofsky, a name I mentioned for the job eight months ago, and one that was subsequently mentioned as an addendum to the recent news story. This really did have me excited, and I pegged him in my mind as the man for the job.

Imagine my horror, then, this week when Snyder was confirmed as the chosen one. My voice screamed out in terror alongside so many others, as I immediately decried him as a terrible choice.

Then, I had a bit of time to think about it. What did I have against Zack Snyder for the job? A lack of substance in his back catalogue? An inability to get good performances out of his actors? An over reliance on digital trickery and slow-motion action set pieces? Well, yes. However, thinking through this list logically, I have not only come to terms with Snyder’s appointment, not only accepted it. I now find myself very excited about it.

Superman is the biggest comic book character in the history of the medium, and a global icon. Make no mistake, this news story is huge, and a Superman movie done the right way has the potential to be one of the highest grossing movies of all time. But what is the right way? What do we want from a Superman movie? The answer is, that we all want something different, which is why it is such a difficult property to handle.

There are those that want it to be faithful to the original comic. These people are split into sub-sections. Those that want it faithful to the actual original comic, those that want it to adhere to the period they enjoyed most, and those that want it to be faithful to what they think the original comic was, but is actually what was laid out in the original movie.

Which leads onto those that want it to follow the tone and canon of the original movies. Or the first two at least. Among these people you can count Bryan Singer, who actually provided the perfect example of why a new Superman project should NOT follow on from Richard Donner’s much loved films. There are also many still screaming out for Brandon Routh to come back. Seriously, no. You think he did a good job. He didn’t, he was blander than dry bread, and his lack of presence was a large part of why Singer’s misguided homage just didn’t work.

Considering as well that the biggest gripe about Snyder’s Watchmen adaptation was a slave-like adherence to the original source material, i think it is safe to assume that he will constantly be keeping one eye on the Superman mythos, and I am sure there will be plenty of nods to the character’s history. It will be a fresh film, but from what we have heard about Goyer’s screenplay it will remain true to the essence of what Superman stands for.

I think at this point it is important to remember that Superman is a comic book character. A medium which, by its very nature, is wholly visual. This is the first tick in Snyder’s column. He is known for visual flair. Singer’s muted colour schemes stripped away one of the essential elements of the comic book world. Superman is a primary coloured American hero. Comic books are all about bright flashy colours, and the thought of a Superman movie drawn in Watchman’s bold, stylish colour palette very much appeals to me. However much you dislike Snyder’s perceived over reliance on slow motion techniques, some of Superman’s powers will be best illustrated using this, and other digital techniques that more practical effects wouldn’t be able to match up to.

The biggest criticism I have heard in relation to Snyder’s appointment is the style over substance argument. I think that it was partly the substance within his Dawn of the Dead remake that made it one of the better remakes of our time. 300 was, by its very nature, lacking substance. It is difficult to build more into an action heavy swords and sandals epic, and even a filmmaker as talented as Stanley Kubrick was, for me, only partially successful at this in Spartacus. As far as Watchmen goes, it was an almost panel for panel adaptation of the graphic novel. Everything from the original story was there, so i don’t think you can blame Snyder for any shortcomings in story. I feel he did a very good job with it. It’ll be interesting to see what he has done with Sucker Punch.

I think that will give us a much better idea of what he can do with a story. Remember, the story was conceived by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, not Snyder. Nolan, whatever you think of him, has attained a great reputation with his films, and if he has chosen to guide this project it means he really believes in the story that Goyer brought to him. It is Nolan’s reputation on the line just as much as Snyder’s, and i don’t think he’ll be happy to sign off on a shallow action movie.

My biggest concern with Man of Steel is one of emotional core. As a collaboration between Nolan and Snyder, two men not known for putting genuine emotion on screen, there is a real danger that a possible overabundance of story and action will mean that the emotional throughline of Superman’s story will not be suitably explored. Very little concrete information is known about the plot, but there are rumours that it involves a globetrotting Clark Kent. This makes sense as far as matching Nolan’s James Bond movie-style tendencies, and does suggest that personal human (or extra-terrestrial) drama may well be swept up in the kinetic nature of the story.

Now that a director has been named, there will now be the inevitable flood of casting rumours. Snyder’s appointment means that now there will be more fuel on top of the fire of the ‘usual suspects’ linked with any Nolan movie nowadays. So as well as Di Caprio as Lex Luthor we are probably facing rumours based around Jeffrey Dean Morgan as Zod and Jackie Earle Haley as Brainiac. There has been a lot of criticism of Snyder’s ability to get the best out of actors, and taking Watchmen as an example, there were some very wooden performances. The work by the two above-named Watchmen actors as The Comedian and Rorschach respectively does however suggest that if you hire great actors, their ability will shine through. One of Nolan’s biggest strengths is his ability to put a stellar cast together, so assuming the process between Producer and Director is collaborative in this respect, i don’t think this will turn out to be a major issue.

I am still in two minds about Superman: Man of Steel and Snyder’s appointment, but at the same time I find myself cautiously optimistic. I really hope that I have managed to allay the fears of at least some of the naysayers. I think that Zack Snyder (assuming he avoids any love scenes) is capable of bringing a great Superman movie together. If you do still feel distraught about the news, i have a couple of words of consolation for you – it could have been worse, we could have got McG.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

This month, the world’s favourite curmudgeonly doctor is back on DVD. No, not Doc Martin! When we left him, Gregory House had lost his marbles and checked himself into the loony bin. We return to find him not at the familiar surroundings of Princeton-Plainsboro, but going cold turkey at the Mayfield Psychiatric Hospital.

In fantastic 2 hour season opener Broken, we follow House’s (mis)adventures as he tries to get clean, get his act together and regain his license to practice. House being House, of course, he doesn’t do things the most efficient way. Brow-beating both patients and staff, he tries to bully his way out of the hospital. When that doesn’t work, he tries instead to trick his way out. It is only when one rare kind act ends in tragedy that he comes to realise he needs to do things properly. In two hours of television, House shows more emotion, poignancy and brilliant writing than most shows can manage over an entire season as the grumpy medic re-evaluates his existence, falls in love, makes a new best friend, and eventually wins his freedom.

The problem with such a strong opener, however, is that what follows inevitably looks a little… ordinary. When we return to the drama of the diagnostic department at Princeton we are confronted, instead, with altogether too much melodrama. Patients and cases take a back seat as we are exposed to more dysfunctional relationships than House’s favourite Hospital soap could ever hope to provide. The romance between Foreman and 13 hits the rocks first, perhaps unsurprisingly, as the two actors Omar Epps and Olivia Wilde show an alarming lack of chemistry considering how close they are to the dispensary.

We also bear witness to the marital woes of Cameron and Chase, as things come to a head following, for me, the worst episode of the season in Tyrant. The episode attempts to question whether the value of one life can be weighed against the lives of thousands and, conceptually, it is not a bad idea. The execution, however, is poor and more than a little clumsy. Unfortunate then that the reverberations of Chase’s questionable actions are felt over the course of several episodes.

One new relationship blossoming occurs between Cuddy and Lucas. You remember Lucas, he was the likeable comedy-relief (if it was needed) in season 5, as House’s hired private eye. Clearly brought back because he proved popular, the character doesn’t unfortunately work so well in a serious storyline. Lisa Edelstein however continues to be great as Cuddy, particularly evidenced in the Cuddy-centric episode ’5-9′ as we follow the extreme difficulties faced by single-mother career women. To round out the relationship case studies, the saga of Taub and his fragile relationship with his wife comes to a head as temptation once again rears its ugly head.

Whilst the trials and tribulations of those around House are given much screentime, it is obviously the brilliantly flawed doctor that is the headline story. Whatever is thrown at the viewer, it is always House’s House-isms, his personal vendettas and his squabbling with best friend Wilson that are the most watchable thing on screen. The writers are clearly in a quandary. Despite having been through rehabilitation, going clean and trying to take a new approach at life, the character is still just as arrogant, obnoxious and self-involved as ever. Whilst this doesn’t provide a great deal of real character progression, a happy and well-adjusted House just wouldn’t work.

Season 7, however, may provide us with a, dare i say it, happier and more satisfied House. As we leave Season 6, the finale offers a glimpse at the possibility of House enjoying a meaningful, committed relationship. As with every show that goes on this long, foreshadowed storylines must come to pass, and it’ll be interesting to see how this changes the show’s dynamic for the coming season.

Overall, House Season 6 is a great watch. Even during its low moments, it is still one of the best shows on TV. Also one of the most self-aware shows around, the writers are clearly aware that it is an intrinsically formulaic show. They both embrace this, and find ways to add variety. There perhaps aren’t as many ‘different’ style episodes this season as in some past ones, but episodes like Broken, Baggage, character-centric shows like 5-9 and Wilson, and the gripping finale Help Me break up the patient of the week formula enough that you never find yourself tiring. The extras, including a very well produced original short ‘Before Broken’, a special look at the Mayfield set and a commentary for the season opener help highlight just how well put together the show is.

House Season 6 is released on DVD and Blu-Ray in the UK today.

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 35th update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991) – No. 24 8.6

A rookie FBI agent is assigned to try and bargain information out of notorious cannibal Hannibal Lecter, who is kept in a maximum security prison. Lecter, once a respected psychiatrist, is asked to give insight into an ongoing case following a serial killer at large, a man who is skinning his victims.

Lecterplays cat and mouse with young agent Starling, getting into her head and earning her trust. In the end, he provides Starling with some of the information she needs to bring down ‘Buffalo Bill’, but it comes at a price. Whilst Lecter has gained too much respect for Starling to set his sights on the inexperienced agent, he seizes the chance to gain revenge against those that have incarcerated him for so long.

A bit of a strange one this for me. I’ve seen Silence of the Lambs on numerous occasions now, and always find myself bored by it. There’s no question of the brilliance of Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter. A very well written, fascinatingcharacter brought to life by an outstanding acting performance. Thanks to the mythology built up around him, and Hopkins perfect delivery, this diminutive figure trapped behind a wall of glass comes across as terrifying, and it is this element i believe that is the reason for the movies inclusion on the list.

Jodie Foster does a decent job as rookie FBI agent Starling, but it is only really her exchanges with Lecter that provide the best moments of the film. The rest of the story, revolving around the serial killer Buffalo Bill, and the puzzles Starling follows to track him down, is actually pretty tedious. The movies tense finale is gripping, and allows the tale to end on a high note, but the details of the case are the stuff of an ordinary CSI episode but for Lecter’s involvement.

Silence of the Lambs is only on the list, in my opinion, for the brilliance of Hopkins as Lecter. Whilst you could argue this is what the movie is about, the problem comes when he is not on screen. I haveto give props, though, to any movie that manages to get you rooting for a serial killer. In those final moments, you can’t help but cheer inside when you realise what Mr Lecter is going to do to his former jailer…

Vertigo (1958) – No 41 8.5

A former detective, retired due to his developing Vertigo,  is hired by an old friend to investigate his wife Madeleine’s increasingly odd behavior. She believes she is the reincarnation of a woman who died many years ago. The detective  follows her and rescues her from an apparent suicide attempt. He gets to know her and falls in love with her. Whilst exploring her claims together, she tragically falls to her death from a steeple.

Several months later, the detective  meets  a woman who is the spitting image of Madeleine.  He tries to re-make her into Madeleine’s image by getting her to dye her hair and wear the same type of clothes. He soon begins to realize however that everything is not as it seems.

I haven’t really got on that well with Hitchcock during this project, and for much of Vertigo the same pattern was emerging. The relationship between Stewart’s detective Ferguson and the mysterious Madeleine was frankly a little too poorly sketched for me. That is, until the pivotal moment when he sees her fall to her death.

It is his subsequent obsession with her doppelganger, and his attempts to make her look  like Madeleine that make the brilliance here in my opinion. The genuinely creepy way in which Stewart pushes her to change her appearance is brilliantly played out, and fascinating to watch. The subsequent climax is maybe a bit of a letdown, but overall a fantastic final third just about make up for an almost meandering first hour.

Hitchcock is considered one of the greatest filmmakers in history, and my inability to appreciate his work throughout the project concerns me a little bit. I can’t help but think the rapid nature in which i have been watching films is colouring my ability to truly enjoy some great movies, and it is Hitchcock’s work that i will revisit the most once the project is over.

Forrest Gump (1994) – No. 39 8.5

Village idiot Forrest Gump stumbles through life with low intellect, but his big heart and his knack for being in the right place at the right time see him making huge achievements, figuring in some of the biggest events of American history. All these great periods of his life, however, are meaningless to him, as he spends his time thinking of the love of his life, childhood sweetheart Jenny.

I had forgotten in recent years how much i like Tom Hanks. Whether it be the dull as dishwater Dan Brown adaptations he has appeared in, or the fact that he hasn’t really done much else, i can’t be sure. It wasn’t until the last few months that my appreciation for his work came flooding back.

Hanks does a brilliant job of portraying the running fool that is Forrest Gump. At no point was i seeing Hanks, which meant i genuinely accepted the character of Forrest Gump for the moron that he was. My problem with Forrest Gump is not in the performances. Robin Wright is good as the self destructive Jenny, and Gary Sinise is brilliant as the grumpy Lieutenant Dan.

For me, the problem with Forrest Gump is that it provokes in me no emotional response whatsoever. The story is just a patchwork quilt of several peoples different lives woven together as one mans. The jumping from sketch to sketch destroy any hope of believability, but it took me the whole movie’s duration to realise exactly what it was that was leaving me cold. It was in the final moments, when i actually felt some sympathy for the characters, that i understood the problem. Forrest Gump is so stupid, so unable to grasp the gravity of events in his life, that he cannot be attributed any responsibility for any of his actions. This means that despite the great things he does, the moments of great kindness, or achievement, he cannot be praised for them. Whilst he may be inherently good, his acts are not of bravery or compassion, but an ingrained sense of right and wrong that his poor Mother instilled in him. Almost like a computer programme written to provide the correct responses.

That is why it is only at the very end, when Gump meets his son, that any emotional connection came. He seems to grasp the situation, realises he cannot be a functioning father, but still wants to meet and get to know his son. This is an uncharacteristic response that provides the only real poignant moment of the movie. I can see what the people involved were trying to achieve, and i don’t think its failure is necessarily an indication of their inability. I just think that the experiment didn’t work, and the only response is to shrug and move on. Top 250 films? I seriously just do not get it.

The Grapes of Wrath (1940) – No. 169 8.1

Tom Joad returns home from jail to find his family and others kicked out of their farms, due to unprofitable conditions and subsequent foreclosures. He catches up with them on his Uncles farm, and together they must make a huge decision. With Oklahoma now little more than a dustbowl, they must travel to California, a land of promise.

The journey, however, is treacherous. When they do finally arrive at their destination, they find not a land of dreams at all, but an environment of hostility and exploitation.

As a look at the struggles of mankind struggling to adapt to change, of personal sacrifice, and great bravery in the face of overwhelming odds, The Grapes of Wrath is brilliant. From the opening scenes in which a young man discovers his whole life as he knew it has been destroyed, to the cruelty that is shown by those with towards those without, it is a beautiful and heart wrenching film. Every moment of interaction between the members of the desperate family has an emotional weight to it. The scenes showing the togetherness of the transient families as they try and help and support each other are genuinely affecting, and the constant roadblocks put in the way of a group of people fighting to survive genuinely infuriated me.

Perfectly understated performances, measured pacing and a touching, bitter sweet ending combine to make The Grapes of Wrath, for me, one of the best films i’ve watched for the IMDb250project.

Se7en (1995) – No. 28 8.6

When a man is tied up and found fed to death, it is intially put down to a crazy revenge/dispute killing. But as more murders mount up, it becomes clear to detectives Mills and Somerset that it is the work of a serial killer with a message to deliver. As the pieces of the puzzle are put together, the weary Somerset realises it is a murder ‘project’ meant to cover the seven deadly sins.

The detectives come close to catching the mysterious ‘John Doe’, but he manages to stay a step ahead. It is only at the climax that they realise that their involvement is no coincidence, and that they must play a part in the final part of Does murderous puzzle.

Whilst Seven will probably be best remembered for the big twist at the end, the film is much more than just that. Brilliant performances by Morgan Freeman by the world weary Somerset, and Brad Pitt as the ambitious young detective Mills bring the script alive, and they play off of each other very well.

The movie is well paced, and the unpredictable plot brings about many surprises along the way. The ‘puzzle’ is well constructed, with each horrendous death bringing new depths of horror. Long before the gripping finale, you’ve been put through the mental wringer, but even that isn’t enough to prepare you for the horrifying brilliance of the closing scenes.

Possibly the best crime/serial killer movie ever made, Seven keeps you guessing, on the edge of your seat, for every minute of its running time. A true modern classic of film.

Come back next Monday for update 36. You can follow our progress at www.twitter.com/baz_mann and www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

The IMDb250. A list of the top 250 films as ranked by the users of the biggest internet movie site on the web. It is based upon the ratings provided by the users of the Internet Movie Database, which number into the millions. As such, it’s a perfect representation of the opinions of the movie masses, and arguably the most comprehensive ranking system on the Internet.

It’s because of this that we at HeyUGuys (and in this case we is myself and Gary) have decided to set ourselves a project. To watch and review all 250 movies on the list. We’ve frozen the list as of January 1st of this year. It’s not as simple as it sounds, we are watching them all in one year, 125 each.

This is our 31st update, my next five films watched for the project. You can find last week’s update here.

So far, i’ve summarised the films i’ve written about for the project, but i’m not going to for the Star Wars trilogy. I appreciate there are those that haven’t seen them, but i imagine they’re in the minority. To be honest, so much has been written about the Star Wars movies i’d rather not cover them at all, but they’re on the list, so here are my thoughts on rewatching each film.

Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977) – 8.8 No. 12

The idea of Star Wars, and the mythology contained within, are undoubtedly awesome. Say what you want about George Lucas, but the concept of the force, what it is and how it works is a brilliant idea. It instantly adds a feeling of depth and spirituality to what otherwise would be a fairly straight forward space film. Luke, the young farm boy destined for greatness is not on its own an original idea, but transplanted to the star Wars galaxy, where he truly can effectively save the world adds a whole new level to the cliche. The introduction of Han Solo allows humour, as well as presenting a wild card story-wise. Solo is often likened to a cowboy type character, but is far more selfish and self-serving than those from tales of the old west, and you are kept guessing until the very end just what his motivations really are.

The death halfway through of Obi Wan, up to this point an integral character in the movie, is a shock and an unusually brave movie for a fantasy movie aimed at kids. It is pretty dark, and though i don’t remember the first time around, it must have been a blow to the system. Darth Vader and the Death Star are also fantastic works of George Lucas’ imagination, and are the real reasons Star Wars was so iconic. The pace is brilliant, with no wasted motion throughout. The race to destroy the Death Star is brilliantly constructed, and timed to perfection. There is a lot great about the first Star Wars, and to this day i can still understand why it has built up such a following.

OK, the dialogue can be pretty bad at times, but it is difficult to build exposition and background into such a fast paced story. Remember, it is a whole different world we are introduced to, and on that basis i think Lucas did a decent job. The droids ARE annoying. I can see why we loved them as kids, and i understand their function. I can see why Lucas became so enamoured by the idea of seeing such epic story from the point of view of the lowest class of beings, but i can’t help but be irritated when they go about their misadventures. It is the only time the movie slows down, and though i can’t imagine how the overall plot would work without them, i’d like to see a cut that diminishes their role as much as possible to see if the film actually loses anything.

Top 250? Of course. Special Edition? Not actually too distracting in this case, but ultimately pointless.

Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980) – 8.8 No.10

The ice planet of Hoth looks phenomenal, and the idea of the rebels hiding on an uninhabited, and almost uninhabitable, planet is really cool. The attack by the Imperials, and the AT-AT’s in particular, is probably the best sequence of the Star Wars trilogy, and to be honest, for me the movie suffers considerably from the subsequent slowdown of the pace. The cat and mouse game between the Millennium Falcon and Imperial forces is not particularly thrilling, though the development of the Han-Leia relationship adds a bit of emotional depth to the story. Luke’s visit to Dagobah, though amusing at times, is actually pretty tedious.

Events pick up with the visit to Cloud City. Billy Dee Williams adds some much needed flair to proceedings, and is probably the most charismatic character of the series. Over the course of the movie he shows depth,and presence, and his ambiguity adds some real interest. The big story is obviously the face off between Luke and Vader, with some awesome revelations that you really don’t see coming. The second lightsaber battle of the trilogy is exciting when it gets going, but does not involve quite enough action to provide a climatic finale to the movie.

The dialogue is, once again, pretty poor, and actually more obvious because the pace of the movie is so much slower than the previous one. People call Empire dark, but no major characters die, with Solo effecctively only being kidnapped. The open-ended climax, whilst providing some surprises, doesn’t really feel like a proper ending because it is so heavily aimed towards leading into the final part.

Best of the trilogy? Difficult to choose between A New Hope and Empire. Empire is probably the most well made, with the more in depth story, but as a stand-alone film it has no beginning or end, leading off of the first film and setting up the last. A New Hope is the only film set out as a beginning to end movie that can be watched in isolation, so on that basis it probably works better as a film.

Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (1983) – 8.3 No. 104

The problem child that nobody loves. The liberation of Han Solo is a bizarre set-piece really. Because of the time that has clearly elapsed but we haven’t seen, we’re met with a Luke that has powers we didn’t see him develop. The battle over Sarlacc’s Pit is exciting, with again some interesting new creatures and the cool sail barge, but feels a little rushed, and dare i say it easy? Jabba is a great character, but is killed off pretty quickly in the film,then we are immediately rushed off to the continuing battle with the Empire, leaving the whole exercise as a really odd feeling segue.

The second Death Star is a lazy idea. The presence of the Emperor at the vital time even more so. The whole battle to destroy it, and the impossible odds beaten in the process wrap up a well imagined story far too easily. The Rebels should have been annihilated, and the idea that such a small fleet of ships could survive dozens of Star Destroyers and an operational Death Star is ridiculous based on what we’ve seen over the course of the trilogy.

That a gang of teddy bears are the ones that facilitate it makes it all the more unforgivable. I don’t have the hatred for the Ewoks that some have, in principal at least. The idea that these primitive creatures can overcome the technology of the Imperial troops on Endor, and the almost slapstick way they go about it, is what really burns. James Cameron clearly bought that idea though…

It’s easy to deride Jedi,and some would say lazy. But it is two distinct stories glued together with more Dagobah tedium in the middle. The culmination of the Han-Leia lovestory is satisfying, and the revelation of Luke and Leia’s relationship is actually pretty cool, but on balance, Jedi is a complete misstep. A real shame, but i think the Star Wars series started going downhill a long time before The Phantom Menace hit our screens.

Saving Private Ryan (1998) – 8.5 No. 47

When it is discovered that a certain Mrs Ryan has lost three of her sons to World War II, the decision is made to send a team to try and bring her fourth and last remaining son back home from the front. Having survived the overwhelming odds of the Normandy beach landings, school teacher Captain John H Miller (Tom Hanks) is charged with leading that team through war-torn France.

Losing several team members along the way, Miller’s men search for the proverbial needle, experiencing the many horrors of war in the process. When they finally find the lost paratrooper, the soldiers are forced into a backs to the wall stand-off with a German patrol in a bid to keep Private Ryan alive long enough to escape to safety.

Steven Spielberg is accused of making movies that are too saccharine, often with a soppy happy ending. There is nothing sickly sweet about Saving Private Ryan. War is laid bare, with the effect it has both physically and emotionally fully explored, with very little respite. From the opening attack on Omaha beach, it is clear this is no fun romp. Spielberg leaves you in no doubt that the attack on the beaches of France was a suicide mission, with the Allied forces breaking through by sheer strength of numbers and blind commitment to the cause. There is no attempt to disguise the horrific casualties sustained, and the massacre is shot in a shockingly visceral style.

We’re given the chance to get to know Miller and his team as they journey across country, making the losses they enduring all the more affecting, and the savage behaviour they exhibit to their German captives all the more shocking.

I have seen Private Ryan before, and remembered the unflinching style of the opening scenes very clearly. I had somehow forgot how bleak and realistic the rest of the story had been. It was a brave movie for Spielberg to make, and a brave part for Hanks to take, as both are famous for sweet family movies with happy endings, and kudos to them both for using their profiles and drawing power bring the casual multiplex audience in and show them the true horrors of war. There are many war movies equally as effective as Saving Private Ryan at giving a flavour of what was endured by the brave soldiers that fought for our freedom, but Saving Private Ryan has probably reached the most diverse audience. For me, a pretty flawless film, and a must watch.

Strangers on a Train (1951) – 8.2 No. 121

Whilst on a train journey, tennis star Guy Haines meets a strange man by the name of Bruno Anthony. Anthony is both overfriendly and a little too interested in Haines’ personal life. He is aware that Haines wants to divorce his wife in order to build a life with his girlfriend, Senator’s daughter Anne Morton. Anthony reveals a plan he has concocted whereby he will kill Haines estranged wife, and Haines will murder Anthony’s father. Haines makes his excuses and leaves, somewhat bemused by the conversation, but Anthony mistakenly believes a deal has been struck.

Anthony carries through on his end of the bargain, but Haines is understandably shocked and scared when he is confronted with what has happened. Haines tries desperately to distance himself from Anthony, but the stranger begins to infiltrate Haines’ life, throwing threats and blackmail at Haines. Will Haines go to prison, or can he put together a plan to expose the deluded murderer and clear his own name?

The idea behind Strangers on a Train is pretty intense. It combines stalking as an art form, not such a common occurrence at the time, with a cold-blooded murder story. Anthony is deliciously unhinged, living in a complete fantasy land. You can’t help but feel for Haines. What would you do? It’s a hopeless situation to be thrust into, and you can genuinely feel his helplessness.

The reason the story is so disconcerting is the performance of Robert Walker as Anthony. His madness is portrayed perfectly, with a wonderful mix of mania and innocence. You can’t help but almost feel sorry for him for alot of the film. He is clearly unhinged,and that is conveyed brilliantly by Walker. This performance makes that of Farley Granger as Haines look pretty bland in contrast. His desperation is palpable, but Granger just isn’t the most charismatic of leads.

For me, Strangers on a Train has a very different feel to the other Hitchcock movies i’ve watched for the project. Whereas his other works have worked by either letting the tension build to boiling point, or using intelligently constructed plots to confound the viewer, Strangers on a Train affects you in a much different way. The situation is off-putting because it is both completely off-kilter, and theoretically plausible. Any one of us could meet the titular stranger on any train one night, and find our lives falling apart around us. A very compelling story to watch unfold.

Come back next Monday for update 32. You can follow our progress at www.twitter.com/baz_mann and www.twitter.com/gary_phillips_

Bazmann

Last week, Inception broke the $500m worldwide gross milestone. A big success story, to be sure, but after The Dark Knight’s $1bn+ number, it perhaps isn’t really a major surprise. It was even less of a surprise when it was revealed that Nolan would be at the helm for Batman 3 once Inception was done and dusted, but as the Inception train begins slowing to a halt, i can’t help but ask myself, was Batman 3 the right decision for Nolan’s career?

Nolan made his name with clever, twisting drama, and it is only his last couple of movies that have led to his being considered an action movie director. Films like Memento and The Prestige used human interest and intricate plotting to make an impact, and there is a risk that with his new action movie sensibilities, he could begin to lose what made him great as a filmmaker in the first place. This is one major reason why i feel it would have been wise to step away from the Batman franchise, but there are several more…

It’s a no-win situation.

As i said at the outset, The Dark Knight made over $1b worldwide. This makes it one of the highest grossing films of all time, leaving any attempt to top it financially virtually impossible. There will be much expectation, however, from both fans and studio. If it makes considerably less than the Nolan’s second Batman movie, it could be considered a failure.

The Dark Knight is also considered by many to be one of the best movies ever made, currently holding 11th place in the IMDb250 list. Again, this leaves expectation impossibly high, and it is highly unlikely Nolan can match it with the third film. This, again, could result in the movie being considered a failure. The Dark Knight’s plot was very well constructed, and complemented by some fine acting performances. A lot of elements came together perfectly, and the chances of Nolan experiencing the same fortune again are slim.

On the other hand, if he does top The Dark Knight financially and critically, he could be pressurized into considering staying on once again for a Batman 4. Whilst he has made it fairly clear that he doesn’t want to make more than a trilogy of films, if Warner Bros lean on him, and the fans scream out for another one, it will put the director into a very difficult situation. He could well find himself accused of turning his back on the franchise that brought him to the masses if he has to publicly turn down another Batman movie.

The actor playing the villain will be compared to Heath Ledger.

It’s unfair, and it’s inevitable. Heath Ledger carved out one of the greatest villain performances in cinematic history, and his presence, and the circumstances around it, were a big part of The Dark Knight’s success. The pressure will be on for whoever plays the principal villain in Batman 3, whoever it turns out to be, and whichever character they play. The fact that Ledger would have most likely reprised the Joker role in Batman 3 if he hadn’t tragically died will only make the scrutiny that bit more intense. With that shadow looming, it will be an almost impossible part to write and cast.

We have already seen the speculation around the next Batman villain undermine the build-up to Inception’s release. Whilst on the promotional trail for his latest film, Nolan was subjected to just as many questions regarding casting rumours for Batman 3 as he was to Inception based ones. With Joseph Gordon-Levitt and other Inception cast members inevitably linked to the follow-up to The Dark Knight in recent months, it is clear that there is somewhat of an obsession with which foes Batman will face next time around, and who will be responsible for bringing them to life.

He’d reached a good stopping point.

At the end of Batman Begins, it was made clear that there would be more. When Gordon revealed the Joker card that was being left at crime scenes, it was a message to the audience that there was to be a continuation to the story. At the end of The Dark Knight, there was no such nod to a sequel. Whilst you could argue that there were plot strands left hanging, like Mr Reese’s knowledge of Batman’s real identity, and The Joker’s incarceration but not death, the final scenes, with Batman riding off into the night, did not beg a follow up.

Batman knew that the people of Gotham would never truly accept him as their hero, no matter how much good he did, and that he was destined to live life as an outcast. This could easily be left as the conclusion of his journey, doomed to protect Gotham from behind the anonymity of his mask, a figure of mistrust and fear. A third film just isn’t necessary.

The biggest problem with following on from a film with so few loose ends is that any attempts to extend the plot strands seem tenuous, and if you start with a whole new story there is a danger of shifting the film’s tone from the previous one, leaving it feeling disjointed from the series. This actually happened to an extent between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, with Gotham looking almost completely different the second time around, which means that in this case it may not prove so much of a problem.

The franchise is too restrictive.

With Inception, Nolan has been able to craft a story completely from scratch, making up his own world, characters and technology. Whilst he has been able to make his Batman series unique to his own sensibilities, he is very much constrained by the logic and history of the comic series.

I have no doubts Nolan and his writing team can put together another compelling Batman story, but it will always be within a range of restrictions, which must be quite draining, and even frustrating at times. By casting off the shackles of Batman’s world, the talented filmmaker would be free to create original stories, exploring the themes and ideas he really wants to without having to keep grounded to a particular set of rules.

Inception was almost pure sci-fi, and Nolan set out his Batman stall by grounding it as much as possible in reality. This makes it difficult to be too inventive with the plot, and makes any science fiction based cheat such as the one seen in The Prestige much harder to get away with. Incidentally, this also makes a lot of the comic book characters difficult to realise on screen in the Batman world that Nolan has created.

He won’t improve on his weakest areas as a filmmaker.

The biggest criticism levelled at all of Nolan’s work is an inability to put genuine emotion up on screen. All of the characters that lead Nolan’s work are motivated by the same thing. Obsession. It is clearly a reflection of his own obsession with filmmaking, but the problem is that this type of character is not conducive to telling emotional, human interest stories.

This is made worse by the restrictions of the Batman character. Even Inception, despite a story revolving around a father trying to be reunited with his children, and the casting of one of the finest actors plying their trade today, did not have the emotional depth that truly great filmmaking requires.

The problem with the action movies that Nolan is now making is that they leave little time for personal drama, three-dimensional characterisation and exploration of character motivations. In order to improve his ability to work with this side of film, i think Nolan needs to concentrate on lower budget, character-led storytelling. Until he can give us perfectly crafted human drama, i think he needs to stay away from big budget blockbusters that demand great thrills and high action to draw in an audience and recoup their budget.

I understand that the reason Nolan was able to get a green light for Inception, his passion project, was his commitment to the Batman series, and its continuing success. I’m sure that by making Batman 3 he is once again ensuring that he’ll get to make the movie he wants to make once it is finished with. However, Nolan is one of very few directors that i can genuinely say i like every one of his films. My fear is that if he leans more and more towards the thrill-heavy action genre, he may well lose his filmmaking identity.

It would be a great shame if the director of great movies like Memento and The Prestige started making big movies that fell more towards the Transformers 2 end of the scale. This probably won’t happen, but there is a risk of getting carried away with a genre, and by making sequels to successful blockbusters, there is always great pressure to top the last installment by going bigger. We don’t want this from Nolan. He has given us one of the best, and most original movies of the Summer, and that is what we want more of, not franchise based popcorn fodder. I’m looking forward to Batman 3, and i will probably love it, but for the next couple of years i’ll find myself wondering what might have been, if Christopher Nolan had chosen to detach himself from Batman and make another original masterpiece.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last week it was revealed that Michael Goldenberg (who adapted Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) had been hired to pen a sequel to the forthcoming Green Lantern movie. When i say forthcoming, of course, i mean not until 2011, meaning the follow-up has begun development almost a year before the initial film’s release. This was followed up this week by a rumour hitting the ‘net that an Expendables sequel was also being mooted, again before the first film had even hit cinemas.

On the one hand, this is great news. All the movie-goers who loved The Expendables this week could enjoy it in the knowledge that they will get to see more in the future. For Green Lantern and DC fans, it shows that DC and Warner Bros are serious about making use of their licensed franchises, and that the super hero movie boom will continue on indefinitely.

For me, however, it instead felt almost like a slap in the face. To be clear, I am a fan of the Green Lantern, and DC characters in general. I am also looking forward to enjoying the dumb fun of Sly and his fellow action heroes raining hot lead on an army of bad guys. The reason i felt insulted was not because i don’t want to see these sequels, or the initial movies they are following on from, but because the people involved assume that i do.

That may sound a bit silly on first read, but think about it for a second. Use Green Lantern as the example, as it is much more presumptuous. There have been no test screenings of the movie. Shooting only wrapped just over a week ago. The studio do not yet know if it will be any good, but they are taking for granted that because it is based on a popular franchise, with a recognisable lead attached, that it will make a lot of money. They are taking the attitude that it doesn’t matter what the review scores are, or if turns out to be a coherent movie, that people are going to mindlessly spend money on it regardless of its quality.

There are two reasons this angers me. The first is the obvious, as i have detailed it above. The average movie-goer is seen by the studio as a sheep, and they think that by putting enough marketing power behind any film, or using a licensed property that they know has an inbuilt fanbase, they can influence people into going to see a movie regardless of its quality. Now, I’m not saying that Green Lantern won’t be very good, I’m saying that the studio doesn’t know yet if it will be, and yet are still banking on it making a healthy profit.

The other reason this situation frustrates me is that they are right. There is a rich history of very poor big budget blockbusters making huge amounts of money despite not being very good. The Last Airbender is a recent example. Huge amounts of money were poured into both Airbender’s production budget and marketing campaigns. This was done because it was believed that it would make a ton of money, and with many of the sets and props built, as well as fx shots created, they could then go on to churn out sequels at a lower cost. They were right, it did make a lot of money, despite getting some of the worst review scores in recent memory. It has not made enough yet to cover costs, however, so it is representative of what could happen on a much greater scale when sequels are put into development before the profits are known for the preceding films.

There is a danger, if production companies get too ahead of themselves, that they could end up in serious financial straights by biting off more than they can chew. With Green Lantern, writing a screenplay for a sequel isn’t going to cost a great deal, and so far as i know the Expendables sequel is nothing more than the root of an idea. However, the natural extension of what is happening is for companies to put sequels into active production before the release of the parent movie. If this happens, there will invariably be movies that do not meet their expectations at the box office, resulting in finances wasted on a movie that nobody wants, hours of wasted man power, and in extreme cases abandoned productions.

There have been sequels made back to back, and so far, it hasn’t resulted in huge financial crisis. As far as Green Lantern goes, i am willing to accept that yes, it probably will make a bucket load of money. The comic book movie era has not yet passed, in fact there seem to be more comic based movies in production than ever. Whilst it may struggle to perform as well at the box office as the more established Batman series, the recent success of Iron Man, a Marvel character with no previous big screen pedigree, has shown that secondary superheroes can still draw crowds in as long as the movies are well made and, perhaps more importantly, well marketed.

I definitely feel, at a time when the film industry should be counting the pennies along with the rest of the economic world, that this is a dangerous route that could destroy anyone who treads too far along it. I am not strictly against sequels, and like all the other sheep I’ll probably be paying to see Green Lantern. I just think it is important to take a realistic view of the future. As The Last Airbender has shown, if a big budget movie is God-awful enough, even a large proportion of the casual audience will stay away.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

OK, i’ll wait a minute for you to stop laughing. It’s understandable. Stallone has been considered somewhat of a joke by many over the past couple of decades. He doesn’t have the best reputation for range, choice of roles or quality of output but, when it comes down to it, he has been consistently one of the most popular personalities in the industry.

Whether you love Sly or hate him, the evidence of the impact he has had on Hollywood is compelling to say the least. You see, the success of The Expendables at the weekend wasn’t just a return to the star power-led successes of the eighties, it was a huge landmark in the history of the Silver Screen.

The Expendables won the box office at the weekend. This is special because it is the fifth consecutive decade in which Sylvester Stallone has starred in a movie that topped the box office in its opening week. That’s right, dating back from the seventies, every decade a Sylvester Stallone vehicle has opened in the number one position in theatres. This is a massive achievement, and Sly is the only actor to have done it.

It began nearly 35 years ago with Rocky. Now, there don’t seem to be accurate records for Rocky’s opening gross, so we have to skip to Rocky II which won its opening weekend with $6.3m in 1979. In the eighties, it was a handful of box office wins with Rocky III and IV, and First Blood and Rambo II amongst others.

Sly followed this up in the nineties with success in Cliffhanger, the Specialist, etc… with Cliffhanger the biggest opening at $16.1M. It gets a bit thin in the noughties, when Driven, despite being an awful movie, won its opening weekend before fading into obscurity. The Expendables makes up the fifth decade, but at Sly’s age, it is difficult to see him making it six decades in a row – he’ll be 74 in 2020.

I realise, of course, that you’re screaming at me by now, that success can’t be measured purely in monetary terms. How can he be Hollywood’s biggest star when he has been nominated for more Razzies than you can shake a stick at? You’re not wrong, and his biggest award success, worst actor of the decade at said Razzies in 1990, is not indicative of a great actor.

It is somewhat difficult to defend Stallone’s quality of work, but i’ll certainly have a go. He was nominated for Best Actor in a Lead Role at the Academy Awards in 1977 for Rocky, as well as for Best Screenplay. It has gone downhill since then, but there have been some really good performances over the years as far as i am concerned, with Demolition Man, Assassins and Cop Land particularly standing out for me.

I don’t think the man gets a fair shot a lot of the time, he has been tarred with the brush of talentless action hero, and whilst he has made some stinkers, i don’t think he gets the benefit of the doubt because of who he is. I think there are times when he does a great job, but people don’t see it, because they just don’t like him.

There is no doubting that Stallone has not made a genuinely good film for a long time now, and if he continues to pursue sequels like Rambo and Rocky Balboa, not to mention ‘original’ action movies like The Expendables, he is not going to change that. I’m hoping that as a result of The Expendables’ success this Summer, he might get offered some more diverse parts again, and get one last crack at showing the world that he does have some chops, and is not solely suited to shooting scores of extras with dozens of squibs for a living.

I am not a massive fan of Sylvester Stallone, and i don’t find myself particularly anxious to go out and see his latest action blockbuster. I did like him in Rocky and the underrated Cop Land, however, and if he gets to play some more interesting parts i would be much more likely to give him a shot one more time.

Whatever your feelings on Stallone, there is no denying that financially he has been one of the industry’s most successful performers, and regardless of the quality of his output to date, and whatever his future holds, he will always be remembered as one of Hollywood’s biggest stars.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann