Hulk (2003)

 “Puny human!”

This is, incredibly, the first ever Hulk film... and it’s utterly, irredeemably awful. It’s a shame: the film is well-directed by Ang Lee with some nice visual touches. But it’s essentially a very, very, well-polished turd.

Part of why it's awful is the poor performance of Eric Bana as Bruce and Jennifer Connelly as Betty. Neither of them are exactly favourite actors of mine; they bring a touch of plywood to this as they do to most of what they do. Admittedly Sam Elliott does a good job with a badly written Thunderbolt Ross, while Nick Nolte is genuinely excellent as Bruce's dad, who also doubles as the Abomination.

But what truly dooms this film is the script, which completely fails to get what makes the Hulk interesting, as well as failing to give the characters and humanity or to give us decent dialogue; some of the lines are cringeworthy indeed. The whole concept is misconceived, drawing on the retconning of Bruce's childhood in the comics of the '80s and '90s under John Byrne and (much better) Peter David, beginning with his father's experiments with gamma radiation in the '60s and dealing with repressed childhood memories. Yet there's a reason this was a retcon; you need to start by just doing the gamma ray explosion and the fun Jekyll and Hyde "Hulk smash" stuff that the Hulk is about. All this childhood stuff needs us to know Bruce/Hulk first so we can start to explore the psyche behind those repressed memories- and make a link between the Hulk's rage and childhood abuse that the film doesn't really make.

Bruce and Betty have no real chemistry or, indeed, personalities, and Betty seems to be there mainly to act as the Faye Wray to the Hulk's King Kong. This may be a film with lots of genuinely cool action set pieces but it has no charm, no characters and is just dull, dull, dull.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

"The eagles are coming!"

So. I finally find three and a bit to complete the trilogy, a feat possible only during the Chrimbo limbo at a time when the little one is ith the in-laws. And yes, my disgracefully pretentious beginning was indeed a reference to Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf... no, stay with me. This blog post won't dissolve into pretentiousness, I assure you. I've had a bottle of wine, honest...

Tolkien was a scholar of Old English, and of other ancient Germanic tongues and heroic culture. This all, of course, was perverted for racist reasons- the most racist reasons imaginable- by Hitler's twelve year reign of unspeakableness. A millennium of Germanic literature must be held to exist on its on terms and not be defined by these monsters- as Tolkien himself makes clear in his response to the impertinent question from a Nazi publisher as to whether he has "Jewish blood". Ingeld and Beowulf may have lived in what we called the Dark Ages, but they must not be tainted by the far greater barbarism of the Nazis.

So, that aside... well, obviously, this is superb. The same stellar cast aside from the usual touch of plywood from orlanso Bollom, wit even John Rhys Davies being a splendid actor in spite of being a right wing conspiracy theorist twat; superb visuals and battle scenes that enthrall even me, perennially bored by such things; the narrative splendidly remixed for cinema in a way that works well dramatically. There may be no Scouring of the Shire, and Aragorn's use of Kinsfoil may be neglected somewhat even in the extended edition, but it's good not to have quite as many endings as in the novel.

What strikes me, though, more than either of the other two instalments, is how much the ethos of the film- that is, the defence of Gondor against the orcs and not the boring Frodo subplot, less dull by far than in the novel but still dragging- owes to the emotion and noble warrior passion of Anglo-Saxon poetry, which is not exactly about romance or daffodils, homoerotic overtones aside. Although Elrond’s words to Aragorn being in iambic pentameter may not be quite contemporaneous with this- but Tolkien’s literary bent is reflected in the dialogue, for which we should be grateful.

The film, and indeed the trilogy, is a triumph. Even though Christopher Lee isn’t in this one.

X-Men 2 (2003)

"Bobby, have you tried not being a mutant?"

It's rare for a sequel to outshine its predecessor; X-Men 2, helmed again by Bryan Singer (whose reputation has suffered post-Weinstein, as have many, and such behavior in this and all other industries cannot be tolerated, but let us not derail ourselves) may well have achieved it with this adaptation of God Loves, Man Kills.

As per the comics, the film gives us a well-rounded and well-written set of characters, all well-acted and many of whom, handily, have already been introduced. Good writing means that the sheer number of characters does not feel excessive, although I wonder if someone less familiar with the source material would say the same.

While Wolverine is still prominent- and hints are dropped about his origins- there is a much more equal treatment of the characters this time around. Nightcrawler is introduced, and in many ways true to form, but it's a pity that the character's sense of humour is so downplayed. Rogue is more peripheral this time, but the love triangle of Scott, Jean and Logan is very much still there.

Magneto is magnificent and, while allied with the goodies for much of the film, gets his chance to be evil for a bit near the end. Xavier is shown as reasonable and charming, and once again we forgot just how bloody terrifying his mind control powers are. Bobby Drake is well-developed, wit the pathos of his brother betraying him just after he outs himself to his parents. Pyro, of course, joins Magneto's lot. And, of course, Jean dies at the end just as she did in the comics a few issues before returning as Phoenix.

Among all the action and set pieces- I love the epic fight between Wolverine and Lady Deathstrike- there are also plenty of character moments, and the film is gripping throughout. This instalment will be hard to top.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

"She'll be back!"

Sometimes low expectations can be a very good thing.

Oh, I remember quite enjoying this film when I saw it at the pictures, but I’m well aware that it’s somewhat unloved and, indeed, James Cameron is proposing to de-canonise it with his new Terminator film. How rude.

Thing is though... yes, the film may not be directed by an auteur, unlike its two predecessors, and it shows, but this is still a well made film with some superb Terminator action and a truly superb epic car chase scene. Arnie may be noticeably older, Claire Danes may be the only other cast member you’ve ever heard of, but this is an entertaining action movie that doesn’t outstay its welcome, always a virtue. Even the characterisation, while taking the back seat required for an action film, is subtle and effective. And Arnie gets his killer line while in the van with John and Kate, the line which I now remember had me collapsing with laughter when I first heard it.

But I was genuinely impressed by the script, with its downbeat ending leavened by hope and its thoughtful timey-wimeyness. The lack of Linda Hamilton is unfortunate, and the need to kill Sarah Connor of screen even more so, but there isn’t much else they could have done. This film is rather good and somewhat unfairly ignored. Who cares what James Cameron thinks? This is not fan fiction, it’s a proper Terminator film, and it deserves respect.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

"Your instrument is quite impressive..."

I saw this film at the pictures back in 2003, when I was still in my twenties. I enjoyed myself, but never somehow got round to seeing part 2, something which will, I assure you, be remedied within the week. I liked the film then; I like it just as much now, having seen it for a second time.

It's often said of Quentin Tarantino that his main distinguishing feature is the aestheticisation of violence. This film could be said to be the purest expression of that, jettisoning Tarantino's trademark dialogue for an entire film's worth of beautifully shot ultraviolence. The film takes its time in showing us what is really a very simple plot: the Bride, in revenge for the deaths of her new husband, the baby in her belly and everyone present, sets out to kill the first two of five people responsible for her wedding day massacre.But this film is all about form- aesthetics- over content in the best possible way.

Forget realism. This film takes place in a universe where, even post-9/11, planes carry holders for passengers' samurai swords and there exists no pesky law enforcement institutions to rudely interfere with one's mission of revenge, Thgis is Tarantino's tribute to both Japan and to the Hong Kongmartial arts films from the '70s, beginning the film with an explicit tribute to Shaw Brothers and casting Chia-Hui "Gordon" Liu. Most of the film consists of the Bride's meticulous yet fantastical assassination of O-Ren Ishii, a delightfully entertaining baddie who, in a film chock full of superb female roles, assumes the role of main baddie with aplomb, vying well with the Bride in who can generate the biggest jets of CGI blood via the severing of various major body parts.

The direction is superb, with cam era angles to dies for and flashbacks marked out both by use of monochrome and animation. The multinational cast hints heavily at the film's Eastern origins and, while the lack of flashy dialogue or, indeed, of flashy narrative, makes this no Pulp Fiction, I look forward to the second part...

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

"The lesser of two weevils!"

It's been far too long since I read Patrick O'Brian's superlative tales of Captain Jack Aubrey and his particular friend Dr. Stephen Maturin, and watching this unexpectedly excellent film adaptation has reminded me that I really need to start reading all twenty(!) novels all over again. It's a magnificent series of books, with both intense psychological depth for the extraordinarily well-rounded characters and a dizzyingly perfect evocation of time and place. A crude analogy would be Hornblower as written by Jane Austen, but the novels are much more than that. The language alone I can just get drunk on. Patrick O'Brian was a man of the Regency out of his time.

I've seen the film before, but it's only now, having read all of the novels rather than just the first few, that I can truly appreciate its excellent. It's odd to base the film around The Far Side of the World, one of the later novels, but that's a suitably representative plot of Jack captaining the Surprise in pursuit of a French privateer. Naturally this isn't really an adaptation of a specific novel; a franchise of twenty films was clearly not going to happen so they did the sensible thing and made a greatest hits album. Hence we see Maturin doing his famous bit of surgery with the coin, Maturin directing his own operation, Jack's anecdote about Nelson and the above joke from Jack. I'm surprised we don't get Stephen's "cur-tailed" joke which Jack brings up every bloody novel but you can't have everything! But the approach works; the plot, cobbled together from some of the best set pieces from the novels, makes for a gripping film.

I'm not generally a huge fan of Russell Crowe but he was seemingly born to play Jack, and David Threlfall deserves particular praise as the perfect Preserved Killick. Paul Bettany, though, seems to lack charisma somewhat, although I can see little actually wrong with his performance. But this is nevertheless a superb adaptation which has certainly succeeded in directing me back to the novels.

Daredevil (2003)

"I want a bloody costume!"

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear.

I remember seeing this at the pictures when it came out. As far as I can recall I didn't hate it. I may not have been overwhelmed but I was, at least, moderately whelmed. This time, though... oh dear. I'm afraid this review is going to be quite the spanking.

Please understand that this film isn't awful merely because it stars Ben Affleck, which is never a good thing, or even that Affleck is in even worse form than usual. Jon Favreau is awful (he should stick to directing), Jennifer Garner phones in her performance, and while Michael Clarke Duncan is a good actor he's miscast as the Kingpin. He has a kind face. You just can't cast him as a baddie, although it doesn't help that the Kingpin's lines are the worst in the film. Only Colin Farrell manages to shine by, wisely, chewing the scenery with gusto as it's the only thing you can do with lines like that.

And that brings us to the script, a steaming pile of dung. It beggars belief that anyone seriously thought this script was ready for production. It's clear from the performances that the cast doesn't exactly believe in it. None of the characters are well-developed. Far too much time is spent on a totally unnecessary recap of Daredevil's origin- why are superhero films always doing this?- and Daredevil doesn't act or feel like Daredevil. He kills. He beats people up and generally behaves like a homicidal Batman. It just feels wrong.

At least we can keep ourselves entertained by counting all the names of comics creators here. I'm not sure how Joe Quesada feels about giving his name to a rapist, but Kevin Smith gets a cameo as "Jack Kirby" (and Frank Miller gets a brief cameo as, naturally, does Stan Lee) and Jack Murdock has recently fought "Miller, Mack, Bendis" and is seen fighting John Romita.

Still, this film is a turd. It's not even entertainingly bad. For the morbidly curious only.

House of 1000 Corpses (2003)

"Whatever you need to do, you do it. There is no wrong. If someone needs to be killed, you kill 'em. That's the way."

Wow. Who says rock musicians can't direct? This film is awesome: a twist on the Texas Chain Saw Massacre genre with a load of awesome directorial flourishes to keep things not only visually interesting. Not only that, but there's a cult cast led by the extraordinary Sid Haig in a great part as Captain Spaulding. But you know what? It's easy to be cynical about a director casting their spouse but, well, the best and creepiest performance here is from Sheri Moon Zombie and her deeply disturbing giggle.

It's a stroke of genius to have a character like Captain Spaulding, too- funny, charismatic but essentially there as both Greek chorus and light relief. But the film succeeds because of the twisted family of grotesque serial killers at the end of it, anchored by Bill Moseley's terrifying Oris. 

It's a tribute to the film to reflect that the pace is quite slow and there isn't much incident, yet you're too busy admiring the twisted set pieces and directorial flourishes to notice. A short but delightfully disturbing film. I'll most certainly be searching out more stuff from the esteemed Mr Zombie.

Freaky Friday (2003)

"I look like Stevie Nicks!"

"Who's he?"

Another remake by Disney, then, and yet again this is a rare case of a remake being superior to the original. It's much better paced, for a start- as firmly established by the opening montage- and a hell of a lot less sexist; this time the mother, Tess, is a psychiatrist rather than a housewife and the daughter, Anna, plays lead guitar in a band that sounds a bit like the Donnas or Verruca Salt. 

(While we're on the subject, incidentally, the film has an excellent soundtrack. And I'm reminded how good mainstream guitar music was back in 2003. Unlike Anna, I rather liked the White Stripes.)

This is a much faster-paced film than the original, thanks both to a much snappier s riot which cuts down on needless exposition and a much more creative directorial style; kids' films have changed a lot in twenty-seven years.

But the standout reason why the film is so watchable is, of course, Janie Lee Curtis, a superbly talented comic actress. As for Lindsay Lohan... well, personal life aside, she can certainly act.

Downsides? You could argue that there's a little light racism directed against the Chinese, perhaps, but while this isn't perfect I think that would be a more than harsh judgement. Could a band really win a competition in spite of its guitarist doing naff all for the first minutes of the song? I think yet. But I'm not going to labour the point. This isn't the greatest film ever made, being a bit of lightweight fluff designed for watchability rather than depth, yes. But there's nothing wrong with that. Well worth watching.

The Cat in the Hat (2003)

"Can't I have some rules?""

"No chewing tobacco!"

Lots of people don't like this film. This is mainly because they have fond childhood memories of the original work by Dr Seuss and don't like the more adult and naughty tone of this film. I can sort of see their point, and won't necessarily put this film at the top of the pile of films to show my little girl. However, I've never read any Dr Seuss and came to this with no preconceptions, just wanting to see a bit of comedy starring Mike Myers. And you know what? On those terms, this film is pretty good, and the naughty bits are among the best.

Mike Myers is great, naturally, and perfect for this version of the Cat, but the real revelation is the young Dakota Fanning as the strait-laced Sally in a perfectly judged deadpan comic performance for one so young. The direction and look of the film is perfectly stylised and coloured, with absolutely no concession to realism.

There may be no subtext other than the rather obvious one about properly balancing fun and responsibility, but there's nothing didactic in how the message is conveyed, and much naughty and mildly sweary fun is had in the meantime, with songs and all. Why, we even get a bizarre cover of the Beatles' "Getting Better", albeit without Paul McCartney's dodgy lyric about domestic abuse.

Don't be put off by the critics; this is an enjoyable comedy. Just don't necessarily assume it's for very young children!

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

"Welcome to the Caribbean, love!"

I saw this film at the cinema, and enjoyed it then as much as I enjoyed it again now. Mark Kermode may not like it much, but it's a rollickingly enjoyable adventure film with a superbly charismatic turn from Johnny Depp, although I must admit it's bloody long. Keira Knightly is quite good too, and even the fact that the uber-wooden Orlando Bloom plays our Jim Hawkins figure doesn't ruin things. Not bad for a film based on a theme park ride.

Obviously the introductory scene with Jack Sparrow- from the moment he casually steps from the mast of his sinking ship on to dry land until his capture and inprisonment under sentence of hanging- is the best thing in the film, but things don't flag in spite of the fact that there's ages to go. There's lots of nice usage of the tropes of the pirate genre and a bit of the supernatural mixed in there too. The plot may show a few signs of having been written by committee, but the film is all about the set pieces. And they deliver. 

What really lifts this film, though, is the utterly magnificent performance of Johnny Depp; this is a premier example of a potentially average film being elevated by his star into something greater. Case in point: the scene where Jack and Elizabeth, marooned, get pissed together on an island works entirely because of his performance. We're all rooting for him, and it's fitting that he's allowed to flee at the end.

Thing is, though. How will the sequels stand up? After all, Mark Kermode has certainly slated them most entertainingly...