Classic Movie Review: The Phantom (1996)

Long before the current wave of superhero movies, but after Batman had appeared on our screens, there was The Phantom. Based on one of the oldest masked heroes in comic book history, this movie is fun mix of action and adventure. It's also one of the most 90s-ist (that's a real word) movies out there.

In the 1500s, a merchant vessel is attacked by the Sengh Brotherhood and the only survivor is a young boy who is raised by natives on the island of Bengalla. Four hundred years later, that boy survives as the Phantom (Billy Zane), a masked avenger who is seemingly immortal. Just kidding, the role is passed down from father to son, but don't tell the bad guys that. Quill (James Remar) is one of these bad guys, working for the evil Xander Drax (Treat Williams), and has been sent to Bengalla to retrieve one of the Skulls of Togunda. Whoever owns all three will become an immortal force. Along with the Phantom, comes Diana Palmer (Kristy Swanson) who is investigating Drax, as well as being the ex-girlfriend of the Phantom's alter ego, Kit Walker.

Now I'm going to be completely honest with you. I didn't pick The Phantom because it's a good movie. I picked it because it is a fun, incredibly cheesy action adventure flick. It almost plays out like a mixture between an Indiana Jones and a Robin Hood movie, with plenty of swords and gunplay. In fact the opening sequence is taken right out of Temple of Doom, with a rickety bridge being destroyed. The only difference is that this one is full of that awfully fantastic 90s CGI. The whole story of the skulls and the ancient pirate brotherhood is the sort of exciting story that sends chills down my spine. As for the Phantom himself, he's got enough exciting backstory told, but not so much that he still isn't mysterious by the end of the movie.

The performances in this movie are pretty cheesy, especially Billy Zane. His way of fighting people seems to be to flash his pearly whites and then shoot them, but it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's one of the best things. Treat Williams' Drax is such an over the top bad guy that it absolutely believable that he would have actually existed in 1930s New York. Catherine Zeta Jones' Sala is one of those old stereotypical femme fatales and she plays it so well. And as for James Remar, well he's Indiana Jones' evil twin brother.

This superhero is more Indiana Jones than Iron Man, but that doesn't stop it from being a more interesting one than anything that Marvel or DC are bringing out over the next couple of years. Why is that? It's just so 90s!

X-Men: Apocalypse

I really enjoyed the last X-Men movie. The decision to go back and explore different stories with younger versions of the characters has ultimately paid off, but even by their own admission, the third movie is never as good. That last statement is a bit of a lie. While Apocalypse may not be a high point in the series, it's still a pretty awesome movie.

In a pretty exhilarating introduction in ancient Egypt, we see all-powerful mutant Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) get buried under a collapsed pyramid. In 1983, CIA agent Moira McTaggert (Rose Byrne) witnesses his reawakening at the hands of a cult. Meanwhile in Poland, Magneto (Michael Fassbender) is living a quiet life with his wife and daughter until the townspeople discover what he is. Elsewhere, Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) is off looking for mutants and comes across Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), whom she decides to take back to Charles Xavier (James McAvoy). It's at this point that Apocalypse reveals himself to the world with his plan to destroy everyone so he can start the world afresh.

Okay, so after writing out that plot it does sound like the movie doesn't have a lot going on for it. The plot of the movie does take a bit of a back seat, but don't worry, it's not sacrificed for the sake of action. Rather the focus of this movie is character development. Although the majority of characters who we've seen before have already been established, we do get a better insight into their personalities. For example, the psyche of Magneto is explored and we can further see how he is torn between being good and bad. The new characters who are introduced are also given similar inner conflicts. Jean Grey (played by Sophie Turner) is shown to have an immense inner power that she is unable to control. This ties in nicely with the future we saw in X-Men: The Last Stand. 

The performances from the series regulars were solid as usual. The newbies however gave mixed performances. Kodi Smit-McPhee was a standout. He gave Nightcrawler the right amount of a comedic edge that helped lighten the dark mood throughout the film. That complemented the laughs given by Even Peters as Quicksilver well. Sophie Turner, Alexandra Shipp and Tye Sheridan came out okay, but they still need some more time to find their footing, which is okay with a franchise like this as they have plenty of time to do that. I was really disappointed with Oscar Isaac's performance because he is my favourite actor and he was misused so much in this film. I think it primarily had to do with the fact that the character of Apocalypse wasn't all that menacing for me and none of the power that he supposedly had came through.

I know it seems like I'm skirting around whether or not to say this movie is good or bad, but I have to commit to something. I guess I thought it was a little bit better than average, but the lacking plot and Superman level of destruction in the action sequence at the end dragged it down.

Captain America: Civil War

I really enjoyed the last Captain America movie. The Winter Soldier was a spy movie and it was breaking the mould of what a superhero movie could be, whilst still having the familiar elements that everyone enjoys. Civil War on the other hand takes it all away and punches you in the face instead. It wants to make you certain that this is a balls to the wall action movie, but for me it didn't stand out against any of the other superhero movies that I've seen recently, which is really disappointing because it has Spiderman in it. Spiderman!

Captain America (Chris Evans) and his team of Avengers are facing public backlash when they accidentally kill a large number of aid workers in Nigeria whilst trying to stop a villain who has stolen a biological weapon. This leads to the United Nations proposing a policy which would bring the Avengers under their umbrella to be used only when they deem it necessary. Endorsing this deal is Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) who urges the other superheroes to sign, as they must do so voluntarily or else their actions are considered illegal. Captain America still refuses to sign, especially because his old buddy Bucky Barnes (AKA The Winter Soldier) is being accused of a variety of crimes that Cap believes he has no involvement in.

I saw somewhere that this movie is basically Avengers 2.5 and that's true. Instead of focusing on the hero of the title, it cuts between both him and Tony Stark, making me think a much better title would be Captain America V Iron Man, but that's too much of a mouthful. There are definitely parallels to be drawn with the latest Superman movie, but they don't drag this film down as much. While there are definitely way too many characters in this movie, they have been set up in other films and that fives us an opportunity to be able to focus on the two new ones. But just because you don't need to introduce every single character that doesn't make the film less confusing. I found it hard to track every character's motivations in the film because they're all important to the plot.

The plot is definitely the weakest part and I know that it's a superhero movie so what am I expecting. Well, Civil War is essentially two movies. On the one hand there's the Avengers being split up and having to fight each other and on the other is a Captain America movie with Bucky being framed for crimes he didn't commit, so he has to clear his name while dealing with someone who wants revenge. I would totally be happy with the latter because you could shuffle some plot points around and drop a lot of the extra characters while still introducing others. But people want to see that shot where the two groups meet each other in the middle of the screen. I wasn't really impressed with the way the final fight between Cap and Iron Man played out. It seemed very out of character for both of them.

Since we've spoken ad nauseam about all the actors who've played these characters before, I'll quickly talk about the new and expanded upon parts. Chadwick Boseman is introduced as Black Panther and I really liked his arc. Boseman's performance was solid considering his character is not that well known to cinema audiences and he's up against characters that have been well known for almost a decade. Tom Holland was absolutely perfect as Spiderman. They nailed his non-stop talking and genius way better than both Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield and it's very disappointing that he wasn't in the film for long at all. Daniel Brühl was criminally underused as the movie's bad guy and he really just felt like 'generic German villain'. I really appreciated that Emily VanCamp's Sharon Carter was expanded on because that was sorely lacking from the last movie. Finally, Paul Rudd slipped into the main group with ease and he has great chemistry with everyone else.

I know I've already compared this to Batman V Superman but it's pretty hard not to. Did I enjoy it more than that movie? Yes? Is it the best Marvel movie so far? I don't think so. There were some shining moments which I enjoyed, but I mostly felt ambivalent throughout. I know that it's leading to brighter things in the future though so I'm hopeful.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I figured out while watching this movie that the story I really want to see is the love story between Thomas and Martha Wayne (Batman's parents) because maybe I'll actually feel some emotion after seeing them get shot for the thousandth time. But alas this isn't that movie. It's a movie about Superman, so let's get to it.

Set two years after the events of Man of Steel and America is still reeling after Superman (Henry Cavill) destroyed Metropolis City while trying to defeat General Zod. Several people are upset about this and none more so than billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck). As his crime fighting alter ego Batman, he is dedicated to find a way to show people that Supes is not the hero that everyone wants him to be. Meanwhile, Clark Kent is also trying to write a story showing that Batman is a reckless danger on Gotham City. Between the two dynamos is Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who is plotting for each hero to bring down the other, all the while doing research in both metahumans (AKA future movie heroes) like Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) and finding a way to turn the people of the world against Superman.

As you can probably tell from that description, there's a lot going on in this movie. And that's a huge problem that is endemic to a lot of these superhero movies. The studios feel as though audiences are stupid and have to cram as much as possible in a single movie to sell movies that have not yet even been written. Batman v Superman has this in spades, introducing every future superhero in the DC Universe, even if it's only for two seconds at a time. These other hero cameos also just serve as a distraction that the film that you're currently watching isn't any good. This is because it is too full. The convoluted plot tries to fit in two introductions of new characters, although Batman really doesn't need any introduction, and Wonder Woman is really only introduced by maybe five lines of dialogue that doesn't give any insight at all to who she is or where she comes from. And in the middle of all this happening, we are treated to a lengthy and jarring dream sequences that diehard comic fans will be able to link to the Flashpoint storyline, but regular moviegoers might get lost with (if you're part of the latter group, maybe just take a squiz at that link). This really could have been chopped out to make a more streamline story.

The aesthetics of this movie are nothing we haven't seen before either. A lot of CGI smash on smashfest that is just moved to an abandoned part of Gotham because people got so up in arms about that happening in Man of Steel. Newsflash Zack Snyder, taking the people out of the equation won't change people's opinions on the wonton destruction of cities. Side note: while we're on Gotham City, did anyone else notice that it seemed really close to Metropolis, almost as if it were in the Greater Metropolis Area? Because you can definitely see the Bat-signal from Metropolis. Back to visuals now. Why was everything slowed down? I can get the need for some stylising of the fight sequences, but there's a whole slo-mo montage of Superman doing his super thing all around the world. I get that it's building dramatic tension, but this movie is way too dramatic for it's own good.

None of this movie's performances warrant anything to write about, but I will anyway because you know I'm that kind of guy. But because there's so many, I'll be brief about each. Henry Cavill could really instil some of his own real-life charm because Superman is too dark and brooding. On the flip side, Ben Affleck barely brooded at all, which is the only thing Batman is really good at. Up until the last five to ten minutes Gal Gadot was really only eye candy for male teenagers and then she became a badass with the only good musical theme in the whole movie. Jesse Eisenberg was over the top as a character who is supposed to be a restrained genius, not the Joker. Jeremy Irons was a very believable Alfred and the total opposite to Michael Caine, so I'm torn there. Laurence Fishburne was too wacky as Perry White this time round. Tao Okamoto, Callan Mulvey and Scoot McNairy weren't in it enough for my liking.

Five minutes into this movie, I found myself thinking, "This movie needs more Wes Bentley." If you're as confused by that sentence as I am, then allow me to explain. If a movie doesn't impress me in the first five minutes, I often think that only the appearance of Wes Bentley will make it better for me. Granted, it's not a thought I find myself with often, but this was definitely one of them. The lack of Wes and the frustrating slowness of Batman v Superman left me sadder than Ben Affleck. Nawww, poor Ben, won't you let us know what's going through that head?

Fantastic Four

I think we can all be in agreement now that a Fantastic Four movie will never work. This is the fourth attempt (you think the symbolism of that number would be lucky) and it just didn't work on any level. Even director Josh Trank doesn't like it.

In 1997, new childhood friends Reed Richards (Owen Judge) and Ben Grimm (Evan Hannemann) work on Reed's teleporter. Seven years later, Reed (Miles Teller) and Ben (Jamie Bell) present their science project to their science teacher to a lukewarm reception. They do get the attention of Dr Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey) and his daughter Sue (Kate Mara), who are working on the same project: interdimensional travel. They bring Reed to work on their project with the help of Franklin's renegade son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan) and reclusive scientist Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell). Once they complete the project, Reed, Ben, Johnny and Victor recklessly use the machine to go to the other dimension, where an accident occurs leaving Victor for dead and the other three with their respective powers. Sue gets hers when trying to bring them back.

What I have just told you is more than half the movie. If you think that that is spoiler-y, let me tell you, there is nothing to ruin about this movie. The climax of this movie happened so suddenly and so soon, that I turned to my friend and said "I think it's finishing". That's because this movie has a big problem with time. Both the shortness of the film itself (it's only 99 minutes) and what it does with that run time. It is about an hour of build up to when the characters get their powers, barely any time to develop the characters, first appearance of the villain (surprise it's Doctor Doom) and then death of main villain. All up I think there are two major action sequences and they don't last very long.

Despite the lack of character and action, the design of the film is pretty nice to look at. All four have a great design in their post accident bodies, but particularly that of Ben Grimm. In the last movies, he was just Michael Chiklis in a rubber suit, so making the character CGI is a big improvement. Also Doctor Doom's design is pretty cool (he has been fused with his spacesuit). While we're on the subject of Doctor Doom, why do all the film iterations try to give him the same origin of powers as the others. He's a witch doctor from Latveria (although they do make an attempt to hint at that).

The actors in this movie don't really get time to develop much of a character at all. Miles Teller disappears for a large chunk of the film, Kate Mara acts rather moody and Michael B. Jordan tries hard (but I feel his best stuff probably ended up on the cutting room floor). Pre transformation Jamie Bell is quite good, but then his performance is lost in the CGI. Toby Kebbell is the same, as he usually gives quite nuanced performances. Reg E. Cathey however will never live up to his character of Martin Querns on Oz though.

Basically just a tease at what could have been a rich exploration into what might have been, Fantastic Four falls dramatically short of any semblance of a good superhero movie.

Ant-Man

The build up to Ant-Man has left many Marvel fans questioning how successfully the Hollywood Goliath will be able to pull off  a film on one of their lesser known characters, particularly without the guiding directorial hand of Edgar Wright. Well I'm not a Marvel fan so who knows, I might like it! 

Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) is an unparalleled technological scientist that discovered a group of particles with the ability to change the distance between atoms, effectively able to shrink and grow objects at will. After safeguarding the technology from those that wanted to weaponise it in the 1980s, Pym gave control of his company to Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), his protégé, who know has a sinister interest in re-developing the technology. Pym's daughter, Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) has a broken relationship with her father, but nonetheless turns to him when she becomes worried about Darren's actions.

Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is a former burglar who can't throw punches, and has just been released from jail. Taking up residence with a former cellmate, Luis (Michael Peña), he hopes to foster a new relationship with his daughter, increasingly difficult thanks to his ex-wife and her new partner. Soon Scott is on the look out for another score to pay child support, and burglarises the home of a wealthy old man with meticulous precision. However all he finds is a dusty old suit. Scott is soon hired by Dr. Pym, planning a heist that will save the world. 

There's no doubt that Ant-Man follows the typical Marvel construction: out-there technology, a self-referential universe, CGI, CGI and also CGI. Where the film diverges is the heist sub-plot that dominates the second half of the film. You can detect the penmanship of co-author Wright, whose other work holds similar crime/heist-centric elements, particularly in Spaced and The Cornetto Trilogy. Ant-Man also scales down on the barraging action and takes some time-out for decent character development - not commonly found in Marvel films - however this also leads to relentless exposition and too many over-emotional scenes that try to get a rise out of the audience. Also tedious is the compulsory attempts to address the cross-franchise Marvel connections. "We'd better call the Avengers", we get it, they all exist within the same universe, enough already! Stop trying to set-up future cross-overs and self-advertise to us! 

Some held concerns that given the...uhh....somewhat trivial nature of Pym's technology, Ant-Man would try not to take itself too seriously and resort to an all-out joke fest similar to Iron Man 3 - which I happen to like, but is not that popular amongst the fans - Well you can rest easy, because it manages to strike a good balance between situational humour and plot development, and the comedy works well with Rudd's usual style. Whilst the action sequences rely heavily on computer generated visuals, the unique qualities of the Ant-man story allow for some equally unique sequences, including a run-in with a newly-enormous bathtub early in the film.

Unfortunately though, there's nothing new or interesting about most of the other visuals, which are stock Marvel and ultimately monotonous, especially when it could have been so much more. It's impossible to ignore the departure of Edgar Wright from the project, who reportedly left due to differences in vision between the Hot Fuzz director and the studio. His attempt at Ant-Man would have most likely been a standout film in the Marvel cinematic universe, where instead we get largely the same recycled formula that the studio knows can produce the revenue. It's a sad situation, but we can be thankful that his influence appears to have made it into the film in some ways, no matter how small they may be. 

Ant-Man is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. However it does manage to pull away from the pack somewhat, which is crucial if we want to see Marvel develop any unique content in the ever-expanding Hollywood superhero bubble.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

I think it's safe to say that Marvel Studios have gotten themselves to a safe enough place to be comfortable and confident in the movies they are making. The latest films have been branching out into various genres (political thriller with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, comedy sci-fi with Guardians of the Galaxy) and they have now reserved the main Avengers movies for the generic beat-em-up that most superheroes become. Despite this, Age of Ultron isn't entirely a slugfest and does try to take a softer approach with a few of its characters.

The movie starts right in the middle of an intense action sequence, with the team of the Avengers (Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Black Widow, The Hulk and Hawkeye) assaulting a fortress in the European country of Sokovia in an attempt to retrieve the sceptre of Loki from Hydra (see Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Once Tony Stark gets his hands on it, he realises that the sceptre possesses the technology to develop complex artificial intelligence, something that he and Bruce Banner have been interested in developing for a while. But Stark's plans for this AI program, named Ultron, goes awry and the program soon goes rogue with plans to destroy mankind. It's up to the Avengers to, you know, save the day.

In this film, we get to have a closer look some of the characters outside the big three (Thor, Cap, Iron Man) and it is slightly refreshing. The relationship between Black Widow and Hulk is explored and heavily hinted at being romantic and Hawkeye is revealed to have a wife and children, a fact that surprised not only the audience, the characters in the film. These smaller arcs are somewhat refreshing and satisfying.

There is a lot of assumed knowledge that comes with watching this film. Not only are you expected to have done your homework and be completely up to date with the Cinematic Universe, but you are also expected to have some knowledge of what is happening in the comic books or else you will be left in the dark as to who some of these new characters are. This film introduces us to three new heroes on top of the villain, whose storyline does make sense. The new characters are the Maximoff twins, Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen) and Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) (otherwise known as Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver). We of course saw a much better version of Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but that is beside the point. We also are introduced to Vision (Paul Bettany), who is another advanced cyborg imprinted with Tony Stark's manservant Jarvis' own AI.

This movie is definitely the kind that moves from action sequence to action sequence with a little talking in between, just enough so you know what's going on. And it's pretty impressive too. The action is enough to keep you amazed at what's going on. There is also an array of humour in the movie, enough for everyone to have a laugh.

Most of the performances are pretty stock standard, as all the actors have gone way too deep with these characters. The ones that stuck out the most for me were James Spader (Stargate) lending his amazingly authoritative and terrifying voice to Ultron and Elizabeth Olsen as Scarlet Witch, although her accent did drop a few times. Of all the Avengers, Chris Hemsworth probably gave the best performance. His outsider status as an Aussie probably helps him get in the mindset of the god Thor.

Ultimately this film is incredibly entertaining and isn't extremely taxing. Fans of the movies will get all sorts of excited and people with limited knowledge of this things will still enjoy the large scale of the film.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Matthew Vaughn has achieved critical and commercial accolades in recent years for his entertaining adaptations of cult comics and graphic novels. His previous efforts, X-Men: First Class and Kick-Ass, are smart, often employ good humour, build upon pop-culture knowledge and contain good action buoyed by heavy CGI use. The violence used in Vaughn's films is prominent, and his approach is extra-ordinary, so much so that it's brutality can clearly be considered an integral part of his style. This is perhaps the main feature that will separate Kingsman from it's contemporaries in the soon-to-be crowded spy-comedy sub-genre.

In recent years adaptations of comics like Kingsman: The Secret Service have become commonplace, mind-numbingly so. There are the success stories and cult hits like Men In Black, Road to Perdition, Kick-Ass, Sin City, Scott Pilgrim, 300, but more often are the forgotten and ill-conceived such as The Losers, 30 Days of Night, Wanted, Surrogates, Red, The Rundown. But Kingsman will be remembered for some time. It's smart, sweary, violent, and loyally devoted to modernising and stylising classic spy films, particularly Bond, of course, with a an eye for comedy and reference. Vaughn has stated that he was influenced by the manner Indiana Jones was made for modern audiences and hoped to achieve a similar effect.

Gary "Eggsy" Unwin is a young cocky troublemaker living with his Mum and her gangster boyfriend in a poor flat complex in London. After getting into trouble with the police, he uses a code and phone number imprinted on his medallion, the only memento from his father who died mysteriously when Eggsy was a toddler, to bail himself out. Doing so Eggsy unintentionally summons Harry Hart, a.k.a Galahad, a smartly dressed man who declares himself to be a tailor and informs Eggsy that his father saved his life. Hart then recruits Eggsy into the Kingsman program, a modern day melding of the Knights of the Round Table with the flair and resources of Ian Fleming's famous espionage firm. Meanwhile, an eccentric billionaire communications mogul and his assistant (sporting sword-like leg prostethics) begin to kidnap prominent scientists and world leaders while simultaneously unveiling a new free mobile and network, which draws the attention of the Kingsman.

Kingsman is a shockingly violent film, containing extended set pieces resplendent with glassing, gun violence, bone-breaking and limb dismemberment, and in the first 10 minutes even a head-to-toe dissection. Funnily enough, and in contrast to recent bouts of extreme violence in unexpected films such as The Interview, Kingsman is largely bloodless. Obviously this is likely a combination of the wider production trend of adding CGI blood effects during post-production (see The Expendables series) and used to appeal to censors for a more commericially viable rating, but this appears in contrast to the unrestrained take on language used by Eggsy and Galahad. Though the language fits more into the films broader commentary on gentlemently dignity and behaviour that is the source of much of the comedy. In either case, the action is well-staged, Colin Firth and the stunt team of Kingsman really steal the show from Taron Edgerton's Eggsy. Firth performs much of his own stunts, though often he and the camera go beyond their usual capabilities. Firth morphs first into a CGI rendering of himself and then into one of his stunt doubles and back, whereas the camera performs zooms and digital edits that do help the flow and dynamism of the fights, particularly the pub and church fights. The use of POV shots during gunfights, Gazelle's prosthetic sword-legs and the trippy and artful method of eradicating Valentine's henchmen army in a single fell swoop also add oodles of flair to the well-choreographed action.

For all its flash and folly, Kingsman is ultimately as much of a homage to the spy films of old as Austin Powers is. Numerous direct and indirect references to the Bond and Bourne films as well as the influence of both plain on the film's style, with Jackson and Firth are the main offenders through their near constant references and mentions, though slightly more subtle aspects like the interior design of Valentine's secret base being similar to the one in You Only Live Twice, or the scope Valentine's attack being as grand as in Moonraker. At the risk of spoiling the final act, Kingsman's villainous plan fits in appropriately with contemporary society. Instead of a simple threat of terror and attack, Valentine's plan is to aggressively combat climate change by forcibly culling the population through the use of a signal emanating from his company's mobile phone that forces the aggression centre of a persons brain into overdrive. It's a brilliant tactic and affect as the film depicts mass carnage in a 28 Days Later-style effect, and the combination of mobile technology and environmental awareness really cements the time period.. Unfortunately, the Kingsman have little reason to stop it aside from a lot of people dying, and there's very little debate. It's also during these scenes it becomss clear that Kingsman has problems with it's female characters. Earlier in the film, Eggsy's Mum, Roxy and the assassin Gazelle are all strong, yet underwritten characters, but during the finale a shift occurs with the former two. Eggsy's Mum has a few shots dedicated to her and her baby in an attempt to personalise the plight of Valentine's rage-inducing attack and Roxy's role in the finale is reduced to riding a balloon into the upper atmosphere, where Mark Strong's Merlin activates a missile on her behalf from her rig that's attached to the balloon, then she promptly parachutes back to Earth and rings Eggsy's Mum. During that time Eggsy, who is not a member of the Kingsman fights an army of henchmen, Gazelle and Valentine and ultimately saves the world. Seeing Eggsy's heroic actions intercut woth Roxy standing in one spot and talking on a phone emphasises the creeping feeling that these two female roles were after-thoughts shot after principal photography ended. It's really very grating to see two of the main female voices in this film written into these corners, especially when Roxy has a great set-up. But the most baffling and repugnant treatment is saved for the immediate aftermath of Valentine's defeat, which is played for comedy, but makes the Moonraker "I think he's attempting re-entry, sir!" moment look regal by comparison.

Smart, funny, and inventive with it's action and violence, Kingsman moves well beyond it's basic existence as Alex Rider: Stormbreaker meets Kick-Ass. It has plenty of flaws, but has enough fun and flair to impress.

The Deadpool movie we've all been waiting for

Listen up true believers, the Deadpool movie that we've been waiting for since his first appearance in 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine is finally happening. Well we have a release date anyway. February 12, 2016 to be exact.

Whether or not Ryan Reynolds will return as the merc with a mouth is up for debate, but we can only hope. What we do know is that the film will be directed by Tim Miller (who previously worked on Scott Pilgrim vs. The World and The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo in a visual effects capacity) and will be written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (Zombieland).

Don't go expecting any crossovers with the main Marvel heroes any time soon. The rights are owned by two separate studios who would rather just make a bad movie than give up the chance to make any money. What we can hope to expect from Deadpool is a lot of breaking the fourth wall and addressing the audience, something he does regularly in the comics, along with a lot of violence.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Before I get into the film itself, I have to just say that I'm absolutely sick to death of Marvel's releases. I used to really like their characters but with film after film, franchise after franchise, I feel that they've really diluted in quality and have over-saturated the market to the extent that I now don't want to see any more superhero movies, even from DC or any of their other competitors. Not to mention all the good that their hyper-budgets could do with smaller productions and better script treatments. Anyway, rant over. It's time to see how their latest release Guardians of the Galaxy stacks up!

In 1988, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) is abducted from Earth, with only a Walkman and a present from his mother as possessions. 26 years later he steals a sought-after orb that lands him in prison, before he teams up with a tree-like humanoid (Vin Diesel), a genetically engineered raccoon (Bradley Cooper), an orphaned alien (Zoe Saldana) and a pissed off guy with tattoos (Dave Bautista) to escape, sell the orb and hunt down Ronan the Accuser.

The plot wasn't quite as convoluted as I was expecting, but was still as ridiculous as in most Marvel films. Having said that, it's really nice to have some fresh characters in the mix, instead of the constant rinse and repeat that we've become accustomed to. It's also great to have more of a pure sci-fi film from Marvel.

There's plenty of decent humour to keep it rolling along, although some of it is a bit cringe-worthy and there were also several jokes (such as the fact that Groot can only say "'I am Groot") that were repeated to death, which got tiring very quickly. But other than a few cliches here and there, and an ending that seemed to go on and on, the plot's really not that bad and is enough to keep you entertained throughout.

There's also nothing particularly wrong with the casts' performances but at the same time, they're nothing special. The only two characters which I actually enjoyed were Rocket (Bradley Cooper) and Peter Serafinowicz's character, Denarian Saal (mainly because it's Peter Serafinowicz), and they were basically the two biggest arseholes in the whole film.

Of course, with a budget of $170 million, it's going to have plenty of eye-candy, and trust me, you won't be disappointed. It's absolutely jam packed with explosions, lasers, spaceships and a CGI racoon, whether that makes up for all it's issues depends on what sort of sci-fi films you enjoy. If you're a fan of Michael Bay, this film will blow your mind with it's strong presence of plot!

At the end of the day, it's a big-budget blockbuster with tonnes of special effects that look fantastic and jokes that will keep you watching. I quite enjoyed this but it still doesn't change my stance on Marvel.

New Wonder Woman and Batman pics

I know we seem to be focused on the next Superman movie at this here blog, but until we get some buzz on Star Wars, it'll have to do. This is probably the biggest DC related news to come out of the San Diego Comic-Con, new pics of both Ben Affleck as Batman and the first look at Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman.

Tell us what you think in the comments below.

Hercules

This latest obsession with Hercules isn't the first time its happened in movie history. In the 90s there were two TV series with one spinoff series and an animated movie, so two movies in one year is nothing. I think I saw the better of those two movies.

I thought that this was going to be a very different movie. From the trailer I had expected a movie about the Twelve Labours of Hercules (which I know every one of), but we are instead introduced to the man behind the myth. Hercules (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) is a mercenary whose only ambition is to get enough gold to retire to the Black Sea and live in peace. He is offered a job by Lord Cotys (John Hurt) to help stop a civil war.

Instead of just presenting a demigod Hercules, this movie looks at how the legend is born. Hercules' nephew Iolaus (Reece Ritchie) heightens the abilities of the hero and exaggerates the labours he completed for King Eurystheus (Joseph Fiennes).

Dwayne Johnson is a sensible choice for Hercules. His muscular physique makes it believable that he is the strongest man ever (obviously), but he is also able to perfectly convey the torment that haunts him after he has murdered his wife and children (or so the legend goes).

Though this movie is incredibly tense at times, there are some moments of great comic relief. These come from quite a few characters. Iolaus can be quite funny, but Ian McShane's Amphiaraus steals the show with the premonitions of his own death. Ingrid Bolsø Berdal, Aksel Hennie and Rufus Sewell round out Hercules rag tag group of mercenaries.

Verdict: Normally anything made by Brett Ratner would make my skin crawl, but there isn't anything for him to ruin here. It is all that it sets out to be; a swords and sandals adventure that certainly has the right level of scope.

New 'Guardians of the Galaxy' Stills

After the release of new trailers for Guardians of the Galaxy over the weekend, Marvel has provided Empire Magazine with exclusive stills from the set of the film. Guardians of the Galaxy is slated for release in the next couple of months, depending where you live. What do you think of the new stills? Do they tantalize your interest in the film? Head to the Empire article link below to see all of them.

Source: Empire Online

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Enough with the X-Men already! Is what I was thinking before watching this movie. It's not that I'm not a fan, it was more that I thought I was all X-Men'd out. This movie showed me I wasn't.

One of the great things that was in the movie was the number of characters. In any other movie, I would say that this would be too confusing, but it made this one so much better. There are all the characters from the original trilogy (Wolverine, Storm, Colossus and, my favourite, Iceman), characters from First Class that we all loved (the young versions of Professor X, Magneto and Mystique) and new characters that will definitely be your new favourites, like Quicksilver (who I think everyone will love), played by Evan Peters (Kick-Ass). The only problem with Quicksilver is that he'll be appearing in the next Avengers flick played by a different actor, James' Kick-Ass co-star Aaron Johnson (he won't be as funny).

I won't go into too much plot, but basically the mutants of now (or the future?) send Wolverine back in time to prevent a war between mutants and humans breaking out. He teams up with young Magneto and Professor X to make this happen.

I will go into the 70's setting though. It is amazingly accurate (or maybe it just seems that way to me). Instead of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the historical moment that is the backdrop is the end of the Vietnam War. Like First Class, this adds an extra level of tension that the audience can relate to. Director Bryan Singer also handles the dramatic moments of the story really well.

The other thing this movie handles really well is the comedy. The last couple of X-Men movies have been pretty good at mixing comedy and drama, but this time it is perfected. The jokes aren't rammed down your throat so that they are overplayed, rather they are well timed and don't interfere with the films more serious situations.

I had a couple of issues with the continuity of this film in the timeline. The last time we saw Patrick Stewart's Professor X he was torn to shreds by Dark Phoenix, yet this film is set years after that and he is fine. Maybe if it was made clear that this was an alternate timeline it would be okay, but I don't think it is.

Verdict: I had a lot of fun watching this movie, revisiting old characters and meeting new ones was great. The story was pretty simple, but at the same time engaging enough that you didn't lose interest.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

I am still undecided in my feelings toward the newest iteration of the Spider-Man film franchise. He is my favourite superhero and I grew up with the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films. I loved those movies as a teenager because they had all the things a Spider-Man film needed. When the first of these new films came out, I was very reluctant to see it because I didn't know what they could change from before. I watched that film a week ago, so that I could understand the new angle that was being put forth and I wasn't blown away or disappointed by the film but I understood the new direction. That way was toward the comics on which it was based.

Of course there are a lot of things that has been created for the films, but the character of Peter Parker is much more like in the comics. Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) trash talks the perps he is chasing. He is fun and bubbly when he is in the suit and moody when he isn't. One aspect that Garfield doesn't really portray is the nerdiness that comes with Peter Parker, a trait that Maguire had down-pat.

In this film Peter's relationship with his girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is pushed to the limit, as Spidey promised her dying father that he wouldn't let any harm come to her. That is a one of the big themes in this film; Peter's relationships with all the other characters, whether as Peter or Spider-Man.

Of course this film also has some action in it, with some new villains as well as a new twist on an old favourite. First up is Jamie Foxx as Electro, a former Oscorp employee who gains electrical powers after an accident involving some electric eels. His genesis was very reminiscent of one of the Batman movies of the 90s, the villains were always falling in toxic chemicals back then. I feel as though Foxx wasn't able to flex his acting prowess in this film, rather just shouting through every scene.

I was also disappointed with the inclusion of Paul Giamatti as Aleksei Sytsevich or The Rhino. He appears only briefly in the film at both the beginning and the end and is underused completely, especially having such a fantastic actor as Giamatti playing him. My only hope is that he makes another appearance in the next film.

James Franco did such an amazing job as Harry Osborn and was such a good character in all three films, so I was understandably shocked with Dane DeHaan's amazing portrayal of the character. Harry is dying of a rare genetic disease which he inherited from his father Norman (Chris Cooper) and believes that Spider-Man's blood will save him. This is where the plot gets too convoluted for me. (Also quick side note before I go on, who thought it was a good idea to cast Chris Cooper as Norman Osborn. Willem Dafoe is the only person who should ever play that character).

Now, the convoluted plot elements come from including Richard and Mary Parker, Peter's parents, in this film. (Also isn't Richard Parker a tiger, or did Spidey's dad come first?) I understand putting them in the first film to make sense of Peter's relationship with The Lizard, but in this one it really just slows down the pace. There is one scene between Peter and Aunt May where bringing up his parents is needed, but that's it.

Verdict: I am still unsure what the point of having this new series of films is or what it's leading to, but these need to get a little better in the story department. We needed to see more of the Green Goblin and Rhino in their suits.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I've always been a huge fan of World War II movies, especially those that strive for an accurate portrayal of warfare in the 1940s, Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan being a stand out example. And then sometimes I want to see a what if scenario of the same period, Tarantino did a great job of that too. But then you might get a movie that walks a line between the two, a movie where history occurs as it did, but you supplant a fictional character, a superhero* no less, into the mix. That's why I appreciated the first Captain America movie so much.

The Winter Soldier poses an interesting question. What if you took that same soldier, with all his values and beliefs, and put him in the present day. After the events of The Avengers, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is trying to acclimatise to modern life in Washington DC. He is still an agent for SHIELD, a government espionage agency run by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson).

Rogers' partner on these missions is Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) also known as the Black Widow. After an attempt on Nick Fury's life, Rogers and Black Widow uncover a corruption plot that permeates throughout the SHIELD organisation.

There is a prevailing notion that is brought up throughout the film and that is that humanity would willingly give up its freedoms in exchange for security. This is an interesting nod to our own society, with things like surveillance of the population being conducted by most Western powers.

Chris Evans had a different challenge in this film. In the last movie, his character had to cope with a physical transformation and his performance was great. Now as a modern actor, he has to portray a man from the past dealing with things from the present for the first time. One of these things he has to deal with is dating, having not gotten over his "best girl" Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell).

For an extremely physical movie, Johansson does an excellent job to keep up with the rest of the guys. In truth, I enjoyed her fighting scenes more than the guys because it is always great to see a girl kick a guys arse.

There was also the inclusion of a new hero from the comics who I have always liked. Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker) plays Sam Wilson AKA The Falcon. The Falcon is famous for being the world's first black superhero with his own comic series. Sam Wilson is a veteran who helps soldiers who suffer from PTSD and is only too glad to help Rogers when he asks.

Verdict: An enjoyable Marvel movie that will get superhero junkies through to the next Avengers film.

*Superhero is a trademark term owned by both Marvel and DC. I just wanted to cover myself, you know.

300: Rise of an Empire

Or 300: On Water. This prequel/sequel takes the scenario of the first film and puts in on the sea in a slightly boring, albeit actual, naval battle. Despite the rampant action set pieces that are paraded around, this film could not capture the magical essence of the original film and I feel as though part of this stems from the fact that so much effort was put into creating elaborate 3D visual effects.

The film takes place alongside the events of the original 300 film. So while Leonidas and his 300 Spartans are fighting the Persians at the battle of Thermopylae, Athenian statesman and war hero Themistocles (Sullivan Stapleton) engages the Persian fleet, commanded by Artemisia (Eva Green), in a series of naval battles with a pitiful fleet of ships.

I think the main problem with the film is that it is trying too hard to recreate the underdog feeling of the original and falling short, as well as recounting a lesser known battle. I would have rather seen an adaption of Xenophon's Anabasis, but alas that exciting epic came much later in the Persian Wars and has already been perfectly adapted as The Warriors (1979).

It also seems to me that ancient Greece was populated by mostly Australian and British people, for there is not a single American (or Greek, for that matter) actor in sight. Sullivan Stapleton (Animal Kingdom) does a passable job as Themistocles, but somehow I felt he was channeling either Mel Gibson or Russell Crowe in his rallying speeches. A lot of the original cast have returned, with Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) getting the most screen time of them.

The only noteworthy, although flawed, performance comes from Eva Green (Casino Royale). She plays a female character that is as hard and tough as the men in the film and I was happy that she was treated with the same brutality as those men. I was unhappy, however, with the one massively out of context sex scene in which she dons a pair of fake breasts that are way too large for her slender frame (anyone who's seen her debut role in The Dreamers (2003) will spot this immediately).

Verdict: A seemingly passable movie on the surface, but once you scratch a little deeper you can see that even Green's performance can't save this sinking ship.

Kick-Ass 2

As much as the original Kick-Ass presented us with what it would be like if there were actually real life superheroes, this film deals us with the consequences of what it is to be a superhero. I can't help but feeling like this film was made as a public service announcement for those people who actually want to do this kind of thing.

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) has given up fighting crime as the superhero Kick-Ass and wants to live the life of a regular teenager. Soon he starts training again with Mindy Macready (Chloe Grace Moretz), formerly Hit-Girl. Before long, he joins a group of other superheroes headed by Colonel Stars and Stripes (Jim Carrey). Meanwhile, Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is still brooding over the fact that Kick-Ass killed his father and vows to kill him as the world's first supervillain, The Motherf***er.

I felt that this movie was just a little weaker than the original film and I have a feeling that this was down to it having a different director. Matthew Vaughn (also known as Guy Ritchie's producer) gave the last film a certain energy that this one lacked. Jeff Wadlow (who also wrote the script) did an alright job at showing us the consequences of being a superhero. I think that I may be being a bit harsh on him, as Kick-Ass is a tough act to follow.

Taylor-Johnson did a great job playing a character who is torn between what he thinks his duty is and what he thinks a teenager should be doing. There are few scenes between him and his father (played by Garrett Brown) that really shows his inner conflict.

Moretz does a fantastic job as Macready, who is trying to learn to be a normal girl after the events of the last film. She has an energy and passion for acting that I really think will pay off for her in the future.

Jim Carrey once again shines in a film. Unlike Burt Wonderstone, where he outshone the stars, he really complements the rest of the cast. A lot of the humour in the film comes from his character's wacky view on being a superhero. It is a shame that he has since denounced the level of violence in the film, but it is good to point out that these violent actions do have heavy repercussions in the film.

There are also some very funny cameos from Donald Faison (Scrubs), John Lequizamo (Ice Age, Super Mario Bros.) and Iain Glen (everybody's favourite khaleesi bodyguard from Game of Thrones) as Chris D'Amico's truly terrifying uncle.

Verdict: The first Kick-Ass did seem like lightning in a bottle, but this film still does a great job with the cast and characters and does have some truly funny parts.

The Wolverine

Man, Wolverine is so cool. He has like claws and regeneration and mutton chops. What I would do for a pair of those. This Japanese-set, Australian-filmed action movie is unlike any of the X-Men movies that have come before, apart from the fact that Logan is once again the central character (when you look back at it, the only time he wasn't a main character was when Professor X and Magneto were recruiting the initial team in the 60s).

So, this film starts when Logan (Hugh Jackman) is a POW in Nagasaki, prior to the US dropping the bombs that ended the war in 1945. This scene is pretty full on, as we get a ground view of an atomic bomb detonating. Something that no one lives to tell anybody about. Except for Logan and Yashida (Ken Yamamura).

In the present day, Logan is living as a homeless man in the mountains of Canada with his only friend being a bear. He is tracked down by Yukio (Rila Fukushima), a mysterious Japanese woman, who says that her master wants to thank him for saving his life all those years ago. Yashida (Haruhiko Yamanouchi) is now an old man dying from cancer (probably from the radiation caused by the bomb). He offers Logan a way out of his immortality, which he rejects. This film deals with Logan's internal struggle with his mutation.

This movie is really cool in the fact that it's not like the other superhero movies we've seen recently. Although it does revolve around his mutation, it's not the focus of the movie. It's more of just an action movie, where the tough main character has claws. Speaking of his claws, I've only recently been wondering about the blood on his claws and if he wipes them off before retracting them, because that is a really weird hygiene problem.

I don't really need to say whether Jackman is good as Wolverine, because he's played the character in six movies. The only other character that he should be able to slip into with the same amount of ease is Peter Allen.

The real rising star of this film is Rila Fukushima. The 170 cm model is really graceful in her action scenes and has real talent when it comes to acting. Although she has only previously been in a short film and handful of music videos, I can see her having a real future in the industry.

The only other white actor in this film is Svetlana Khodchenkova (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy). She plays Viper, although her character is very different from in the comics. Her character isn't explored too much and I wanted to know more about her background or her in general.

Verdict: A really fun movie that doesn't need background knowledge of the character or any of the previous films. Although it does call back to the comics, especially his use of 'bub'.

Man of Steel

Did you ever wonder who pays for the reconstruction of a city after superbeings have destroyed it? Have you ever wondered why people don't recognise Clark Kent as Superman with glasses? If you answered no to both of those questions, then Man of Steel is the movie for you.

After a lengthy sequence on the world of Krypton, Jor-El (Russell Crowe), a scientist, sends his firstborn child (and first naturally born child of Krypton in a thousand years) away in a spaceship due to the imminent destruction of his home planet. Meanwhile, leader of a military coup, General Zod (Michael Shannon) fails to obtain a codex containing the DNA structure and ends up getting banished to The Phantom Zone (a type of black hole).

Thirty-three years later on Earth, Kal-El (Henry Cavill), after being brought up as Clark Kent in a small town in Kansas (never referred to as Smallville in this movie), is a drifter, floating from job to job, saving people where necessary. When he hears about a possible discovery of an alien spaceship in Canada, Kent travels there and finds the ship, resurrects his father's consciousness with a key and learns about his origins.

In doing so, Kent alerts Zod, who has been searching for Kent/Kal-El, bringing him to Earth. Zod realises that Earth is a prime location for beginning a new Krypton, thus dooming this film to the Superman curse of all these films being about real estate (seriously, look it up, every superman film has a plot or subplot about real estate).

Although the plot of this film is weak, both the superb acting and striking visuals and action sequences redeem the film. Henry Cavill (The Tudors) brings a depth to Superman that was missing in Brandon Routh's hollow performance. He has a certain charm that I believe Superman should possess and there is a true chemistry between him and his Earth parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Amy Adams (Doubt) is the perfect choice for Lois Lane. She is believable enough to play such a strong and independent reporter to Lawrence Fishburne's Perry White.

I found Michael Shannon's (Revolutionary Road) performance as General Zod to be good, although at times I felt his character was annoying, especially at his most persistent moments. On the other hand, Russell Crowe was fantastic at playing a role made famous by Marlon Brando. His gruff Aussie accent was not out of place as the Kryptonian accent was all over the place.

Zack Snyder (director of Watchmen, 300) is great at comic book adaptions and here he does another fantastic job, especially with the backing of Christopher Nolan, fresh of the back of his Dark Knight trilogy.

The action in this movie, especially the fighting scenes between Kent and the other Kryptonians, was believable and enjoyable to watch, although as I mentioned before, someone is going to pay a lot of cash to rebuild Metropolis.

Verdict: An all in all enjoyable movie to watch despite some weak points. I look forward to see what Warner Bros is going to do with the other DC characters ahead of an Avengers-style JLA movie.