2012's Cinema Nightmares!

2012 has come and gone, and as we welcome in 2013 and build up to my imminent Top 12 of '12 list, as well as the First Annual Beyond Infinity Film Awards later in the month, here's something a little bit different. There's no denying the 2012 was a great year for film, but there were a number of releases that were a little less satisfying; in short, that sucked! So here it is, my 10 least favourite films of 2012 out of the all of the films that I had the displeasure of watching - brace yourself folks, here we go...

Daniel Radcliffe's first big screen project since the end of the gargantuan Harry Potter franchise set the actor his biggest challenge yet; shaking off the weight of the franchise that made his name and to break away from it before becoming stereotyped into the part. So did he do it? No, of course not. I know this may sound like I'm just bullying Radcliffe by badmouthing his career, yet it is this performance that drags down what could have been a special horror film that opted for a more traditional style instead of the tiring Paranormal Activity and Saw films that have plagued the cinema in recent years. Not only did I never believe that the young actor was a widowed father and a successful lawyer, the big problem was that I never saw a character at all, just a performance - or rather an attempt at one. Failing to get behind the lead character meant that the film failed to get an emotional response from me, making The Woman in Black lose all sense of peril and credibility as a result. Click here to read the full review.

I've actually been a strong defender of John Carter, making it known that I believe that the film is no-where near as bad as all of the negative press surrounding it made it out to be - there are far worse films out there that deserve such bad publicity a lot more. In fact John Carter was actually a rather interesting film in context, just as long as you consider the fact that it is adapted from a book published in 1917, then you can see how it was such a strong source of inspiration for most science fiction pieces since, including the likes of Star Wars and Avatar. Yet the film certainly isn't perfect - the performances and storytelling aren't groundbreaking, and I often find the heavy use of CGI somewhat off-putting - but it certainly isn't the worst film released this year... Click here to read the full review.

Despite Meryl Streep's much deserved award winning performance, The Iron Lady was a film that didn't quite get it all right. Whilst the scenes set in the past were engaging and well done, the constant jumps back to the present day Thatcher became a nuisance to me, destroying the flow and the entertainment of the whole film in order to attempt an emotional punch, which I hardly felt as a result. Had the film opted for a simpler narrative looking at Thatcher's incredible historic story - rather than focussing so much on the rather controversial and uncomfortable themes of the dementia of a woman who is still alive and suffering today - the film would have been a much better product as a result. Click here to read the full review.

This one might turn a few heads as Seth MacFarlane's Ted was one of the most popular films of the Summer for a lot of people, but I really didn't think it was all that it is cracked up to be. A new film by the creator of hit TV show Family Guy promised a fresh new inventive comedy, but failed to deliver - there was nothing new or interesting about the film at all. That's not the problem though, the problem is that bar a few moments of great humour, the film wasn't even that funny, which was not helped either by the completely predictable and unengaging plot, and the two-dimensional characters that I just didn't care about at all. The gag is that the teddy bear is alive, and is grown up so swears, does drugs and drinks, etc; the problem is that the joke lasts for 105 minutes longer than it needs to (and yes, the running time was 106 minutes long).  In all honesty Ted bored me more than it entertained me, which is a real shame because someone like MacFarlane has got the talent to create something a lot better than this. Click here to read the full review.

What could have been a wonderful family film adaptation of a book from the genius of Dr. Suess in fact turned out to miss the demographic by a long shot, featuring a ton of entertainment for anyone under five, and very little for anyone else. It is commendable for trying to push its environmental message to the young audience; I just wish that it did it a little more subtly rather than clubbing me around the head with it for the duration of the running time. The songs were pretty fun though. Click here to read the full review.

Just as many people loved Ted, a lot of critics seemed to go wild for the Charlize Theron starring film Young Adult. Yet there is a lot that is fundamentally wrong with the film. Theron's character, an adult still acting as if she's in her teens, is entirely unlikable and although it is arguable that she is not meant to be, the point still stands that I just cannot sympathise with her; especially when the film goes no-where by the end of it! There is no character development, nor any conclusion to her story, by the film's climax she simply fails in her warped plan, sleeps with someone for pity and then uses those who she continues to look down upon for an ego-boost, before going back to what she was doing at the start. Completely anti-climatic and not nearly as funny or clever as it thinks it is, Young Adult is not as good as some critics make it out to be.

While the original was fun, The Expendable 2 is mostly anything but. Tedious, loud, and void of any plot or characters, the explosive sequel goes bigger, but by no means better. Whilst it is redeemed slightly by the big finale which manages to hit the nail on the head and provide the tongue in cheek action fun promised by the packed cast, it is not worth watching the previous hour and a half of the film that takes itself far too seriously to get there. Click here to read the full review.

If John Carter and The Expendables 2 had a baby, it might look like Wrath of the Titans. Soulless and even more two dimensional than the film's 3D effects, watching Wrath of the Titans is about as much fun as smashing your own face in with a large rock. A lot of the expensive CGI-heavy budget is put towards creating not a lot of action at all, as nothing really actually happens in the film. Even the great Liam Neeson spends his time in the film standing there and doing nothing, literally! To think that the film features two of the leading actors from Schindler's List and completely wastes them says an awful lot about this awful film. Whilst Clash of the Titans infamously featured no Titans clashing, this sequel does feature a Titan, but nothing in the way of any wrath, nor enjoyment, excitement or entertainment. Click here to read the full review.

Tom Hardy is a very talented actor, and has starred in two fantastic films this year in two fantastic, menacing, brilliant roles. These films are The Dark Knight Rises and Lawless, because unfortunately even someone as great as Hardy couldn't save the abysmal This Means War. I don't even know where to begin, the film is just stupid. Two spies using their tech and skill to spy on a girl that they are both seeing, and to sabotage each other's dates with her, whilst at the same time the evil villain that they are meant to be stopping is completely forgotten about just like that - ya know, 'cause this is way more important! It's a film that tells people that it's alright to cheat on others and go behind their backs. Formulaic, unfunny, bland, tedious, irritating and terribly cynical, the feeling that you get when watching this film is not unlike the vile after-taste of vomit at the back of your throat. Tom Hardy can do better films than this, and judging by the expression void of any enthusiasm that he shows throughout the film, he knows it too.

I love film. I think that's pretty clear to everyone who knows me or reads this blog. I can't get enough of film, so much so that I'm currently dedicating my life to it. But on a very rare occasion I do have wonder why, especially if I see a film so repugnant and horrible as The Watch. I can't remember ever walking out of a film that was genuinely so bad that it actually gave me a headache! It's ridiculous, stupid, vulgar and not even slightly funny or enjoyable at all. I sat in a screening full of teenagers (who the film is targeting) and I don't remember the film getting a single laugh from anyone. The cast are irritating beyond belief; Ben Stiller is void of humour as the straight man, Vince Vaughn is one of the most unbearable screen presences in film, the recently Oscar nominated Jonah Hill plays an imitation of Zach Galifianakis in The Hangover (and seemingly every other one of his films), and the talents of Richard Ayoade are completely wasted as he gets pushed to the back. This film is a soulless, money grabbing machine designed only to take the money out of your pocket rather than to entertain even slightly - I guarantee that no-one making The Watch thought that it was a good idea, and no-one involved will be proud of it. A film so horrifyingly bad that, The Watch made me so angry that I almost lost faith in film - avoid it like the plague, even if you have to catch the plague to avoid it! Click here to read the full review. 

So there it is, my 10 least favourite films of the 2012, but what were yours? Perhaps some of your favourites are even in my list? Leave your thoughts and lists in the comments section below, as always I'd love to hear what you think. Oh, and Happy New Year everyone - let's hope that 2013 doesn't have many films as bad as these!

Review: Prometheus

2012: A Ridley Scott-yssey!

It isn't often that a film comes along that truly defines a genre, and it can often be difficult to establish those that do; but in the case of the science-fiction genre in particular (something that was briefly debated in my review for John Carter earlier this year) if you were to select two genuine genre defining films that have shaped the sci-fi films that we see today, then you'd almost definitely be left with Star Wars, and Ridley Scott's 1979 film Alien. Now Sir Ridley has returned to the Alien universe that he created 33 years ago with his prequel that's not a prequel (I'll try my best to clear this up in a bit!): the long awaited and highly anticipated Prometheus.

The year is 2085, and a group of scientists and explorers who have discovered a series of ancient markings littered throughout history, informing them of the origins of mankind coming from the stars, have followed these signs into the depths of outer space to a mysterious planet where they will truly discover where the human race comes from, whilst simultaneously trying to ensure that they actually make it out alive as events unfold that could change the fate of the entire human race.

Firstly I feel it's important to address the important matter at hand, and the question that is almost certainly on everyone's minds: a prequel to Alien that isn't a prequel to Alien - what!? Prometheus is set within the Alien universe, and does contain a number of small moments that relate to the beginning of Alien much later down the line - without any spoilers the film's ending in particular does link to Alien, but not a massive way that anyone who hasn't seen it will be left feeling confused. The rest of the film however is it's own entirely individual story with its own unique characters and aliens. See? A prequel that isn't a prequel! In fact the film itself in my opinion is actually probably closer to a spin-off than a prequel if anything. The obvious result of this means that anyone can watch the film and appreciate it, but those who know a bit more about the Alien mythology will gain a little bit extra on the side. However nor should it be a film that lives in the shadows of Alien, as despite the heavy influence upon the iconic elements of the original Alien used within the trailers and promotions for Prometheus, the film should be seen in many respects as a stand alone film of its own.

Along side this though, Prometheus does very much feel like an Alien film. Visually stunning, the film takes the retro vision of the future that Scott envisaged for the original film and presents it with both real life effects and sets, and advanced CGI; allowing Scott to explore more possibilities within the universe he created. The effect of this is rather extraordinary - the film manages to perfectly execute a look that is both true to that of the 70s original yet modern and contemporary to today's audiences who are now technologically 33 years closer to that reality. Remaining close to Alien, the tone of Prometheus clearly has Scott's visionary fingerprints all over it as it encapsulates the feeling of spectacle and the escapist futuristic excitement that entertains us as much today as it did in 1979 - mainly brought in through one of it themes of space exploration. In fact a lot of the themes from Alien, as well as a few from Blade Runner, also appear in Prometheus alongside a great number of new themes and ideas based around questions of life, the universe and everything, which lay deep in the background for those who wish to look for them - a sort of 2001: A Space Odyssey for today's audiences. As a result of these ideas and themes Prometheus actually becomes more of a solid sci-fi piece than Alien: which became iconic for its unique horror/sci-fi genre hybrid. Despite this the film isn't without its moments of horror, the emphasis merely lies in other areas even though some of the best moments were thanks to a return this iconic vibe.

The Fantastic Mr.Fassbender plays the android David in the visually stunning Prometheus.

Of course the film's strengths don't just lie within Sir Ridley's visionary style and direction. There really is no shortage of acting talent with the likes of Noomi Rapace (the original Swedish Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), Michael Fassbender (the fantastic star of Shame), Charlize Theron (who is also currently starring in Snow White and the Huntsman), Idris Elba (Thor) and Guy Pearce (The King's Speech) forming a small part of the overall cast. With Rapace playing Elizabeth Shaw, the film's female protagonist, another character becomes a memebr of Ridley's Angels, with Scott clearly retaining his emphasis on strong leading female characters after Sigourney Weaver's Ripley; a character who debatably changed the image and role of women in film forever. In fact during many scenes I almost felt myself having to do a double take, with Rapaces character occasionally even looking just like Ripley too! Alongside Rapace, The Fantastic Mr.Fassbender continues to prove himself as one of the finest actors around today within his role of the android David (nice name!).

Although despite its strengths, Prometheus is not without its problems either. Within the narrative of the film, a lot happens, and I mean a lot - the films certainly feels like its 2 hour running time. Firstly this causes a few pacing issues throughout the film, with a fair amount of scenes feeling longer than they needed to be, especially next to the film's more thrilling faster paced moments; during which the film really gets going. Alongside this the narrative does at times become bogged down substantially with a lot of sub-plots that arguably do not need to be there at all. This includes the prosthetic covered character of Guy Pearce's Peter Weyland, who's character feels unnecessarily aged for no apparent reason (you'll understand when you see him). It's almost as if Scott has grown a bit too attached to a lot of his own personal ideas and has attempted to cram them all into this one film, or maybe his ideas are just so deep and meaningful that they cannot fit within just 2 hours of screen time! Perhaps a second film is what Scott really needed to spread all of his ideas out a bit, in order to allow some of the more over-looked areas to breathe a bit more and for the film to flow a little bit better.

Despite the problems that the film does clearly suffer from, the overall scale, tone and vibe of the film are more than enough to make this a film worth watching, especially those who have seen and loved Sir Ridley's original 1979 film Alien - who will almost certainly get a kick of nostalgia out of the iconic style, tone and ideas of the first film. Performances from Rapace and The Fantastic Mr.Fassbender carry the film through, and with only a few small moments that link to the overall picture of the Alien films this really is a film that anyone can watch, even if they haven't seen the old films. Whilst it should be seen as its own entity, the sheer weight of Alien's slick and iconic narrative will mean that this film will remain within its shadows as its younger sibling - even if it doesn't necessarily deserve to. Prometheus has landed ladies and gentlemen; not in a crash-landing, but not in a smooth one either with some minor turbulence along the way...

Verdict: 4/5

Prometheus is now showing in cinemas across the UK.

Agree or Disagree? Leave your comments below!

Review: John Carter

Originally titled 'A Princess of Mars,' renamed (too girly) to 'John Carter of Mars,' then renamed again (too boyish) to 'John Carter' (by the DVD release it'll just be 'JC'!); the sci-fi fantasy that inspired them all has finally made it to the big screen!

Although from seeing the film and it's trailers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking that this film has been inspired by blockbuster sci-fi's such as the Star Wars franchise and Avatar; it's interesting to note that John Carter was actually the inspiration for them! Published in 1917, Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel 'A Princess of Mars' was the first novel in his Barsoom series - a series of books that have notably been a large source of inspiration for cinematic science fiction fantasy films; shaping the genre as we know it today. Now nearly a century after it was first published, the Earth and Mars based adventures of John Carter have lovingly been brought to the big screen in an epic film directed by long-time fan of the books, Andrew Stanton. Well know for his work at Pixar directing Finding Nemo and Wall-E, as well as writing for many of their other films right from the animation studio's inception, this is Stanton's first live-action feature, although not a huge change of style for him as a lot of the film and its characters are made via CGI anyway!

Rather surprisingly, the film itself opens to the setting of America in the late 1800s - both in the city and the far west. After a western style introduction to our sharp shooting, gun slinging hero John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), an unexpected turn leads to Carter being stranded on Mars - known to its inhabitants as Barsoom. From here on we are swept off into a science fiction fantasy adventure as John Carter must save the beautiful Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), her people and the Thark population of Barsoom from a devious plot for domination by a shape shifting group known as the Holy Therns, lead by the deceptive Matai Shang (Mark Strong).

Matai Shang (Mark Strong) with an army of Tharks in John Carter

With a lot of poor press surrounding the film recently from its poor critical reception, John Carter is not actually as bad as you may go in expecting it to be. Stanton and his effects team do an incredible job in bringing the world of Barsoom and it's inhabitants to the big screen in a way that respects and stays true to the original novel, but adapts it to appeal and work with a modern audience and its expectations (the films that it once inspired seem to have now inspired it!) - but CGI effects do not make a film good. By no means is John Carter the best film ever made, but it's far from the worst; whilst the story is long in parts and can at times be lacking in action, the film features a number of fantastic action sequences and a unique and well executed dynamic with Carter's exciting jumping abilities which are smoothly executed. The plot of the film can at times drag, but it provides an interesting story steeped in history that is engaging and enjoyable to watch. Taylor Kitsch won't win an Oscar for his performance as the titular hero, but he successfully pulls off a tough guy hero with a warm heart that echoes back to western greats through the decades. The rest of the acting ensemble (both live and motion capture CGI) isn't ground breaking or attention grabbing (although it is good to see Mark Strong expand his acting credentials with a villain role for a change *end-of-sarcasm*), and with no real big star names to sell the film on either, they do a good job of bringing the fun and epic stories of Barsoom to life. Yes the film has it's flaws, but it's not setting out to be the best film ever made; director Stanton simply wanted to finally bring the world of Burroughs' cinematically inspiring novel to the big screen in a film that does it justice - and he has achieved this with John Carter.

So why is it that John Carter is expected to flop so badly then if it isn't that bad? The film had an estimated budget of $250 million and it is said that films need to make a return of double the budget to be classed as a success - meaning that JC would need to make back at least $500 million in the world wide box office; it won't! Since it's release a week ago John Carter has performed poorly to say the least in the US box office (failing to make it to the top of the weekend box office whilst 'The Lorax' retained the number 1 spot for a second week), but performing slightly better internationally - now the only hope for the films seems to be if it can break even - but the film's not that bad, and far worse films make much more money; so what's wrong with John Carter. Despite the genuinely poor (and in my opinion slightly unfair) reviews and word of mouth that critics given the film, John Carter's main flaw is not actually within the film itself: the underlying flaw is Disney's marketing strategy. I've said from the start that I didn't think the trailers would do the film justice (and they don't) as they almost appear to dumb down the selling of the film to attract people with 'shiney' CGI effects and cliched Star Wars-esque sci-fi, but outside of the trailers other sources of marketing have been ignored. With little in the way of posters, TV adverts, promotional tie-ins, and most shockingly of all for a film which should partly target a young male demographic (a market that could have turned this into a large franchise), no toys, books video game or other merchandise releases; for a film based on a century old book few people know anything about the film or franchise at all. This links nicely into the issue of the ever changing title (which as I pointed out at the start has seen many transformations); 'John Carter' says nothing about the film - for all intents and purposes it's just a random guy's name! The problem here is that it evokes nothing in the way of genre or themes for the film; it sets nothing in the way of expectations and it says nothing about what will happen in the film - at the end of the day it won't intrigue people, they just simply won't care. With a source material like Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel which inspired the likes of Star Wars, Disney simply marketed this film extremely poorly when it really shouldn't have.

Despite it's poor marketing from Disney (disappointing especially after the incredibly successful parody campaign recently created to market The Muppets which lead to it's great success), John Carter is a pleasant surprise and a very enjoyable and watchable film that stands out from some of today's other more lacklustre blockbuster franchises; a film which through a number of genre's creates the immersive world of the sci-fi fantasy epic that clearly inspired some of the cinematic greats that we love today. John Carter isn't the best film and it will flop; struggling to break-even - but it is worth a watch as certainly doesn't deserve to.

Verdict: 3/5

John Carter is showing in cinemas across the UK now.

Agree or Disagree? Leave your comments below!