Big Hero 6 (2014)

 "That is both disgusting and awesome..."

A somewhat unusual Marvel film here, but an inevitable consequence of said comics giant being swallowed by the greedy jaws of Disney. Awesome Stan Lee cameo aside, the obscure Marvel origins are minimised in order to make a Disney kids' film, and the result works well.

Hence there's no Silver Samurai and no Sunfire. The setting is not Japan but the amusingly named "San Francokyo". But it's all very Disney with the plot, characters and humour having all the kid-friendly charm we might expect. So Hiro inevitably becomes the, er, hero while Baymax becomes the kind of cute robot we might also expect from Disney. I don't know the source material myself (I Googled it; 1998 is well after my comics-reading days) but it adapts amazingly well to the modern house style of a Disney kids' film.

There are some awesome ideas, like the Microbots (wasn't there something like these in the Bob Budiansky Transformers comics in the '80s?), Alan Tudyk as the (spoilers) red herring and all the cool robotics. But it's a heartwarming tale of a boy coming to terms with grief at its, er, heart while at the same time, with the character of Professor Callaghan, showing us the terrible things that grief can make us do. Plus, of course, Hiro gets five, yes five, comedy superhero sidekicks (because that's what they are) with powers.

It's definitely a Disney kids' film which will appeal mainly to kids (not Little Miss Llamastrangler, sadly; it is apparently lacking in princesses), but is a charmingly different little superhero film.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

“Where do all these guys come from?”

The critics didn’t like this film; I went in knowing that. So I’m left wondering what parts low expectations had in what I made of the film, but I liked it; perhaps more so than Spider-Man 2, and that certainly isn’t what you’re supposed to think.

We’re told this film is an overcrowded mess with too many villains. Well, it isn’t. Both Sandman and Venon are tied in well to Peter Parker’s character development and play important roles, as does Harry Osbourne.  Gwen  Stacy plays an important role too; the film packs a lot in but doesn’t feel rushed. Instead, it actually justifies its long running time.

The core of the film is, of course, the symbiote as a symbolic representation of Peter’s dark side- the arrogance, the selfishness, the temptations that lurk within us all. From a situation of seeming perfection at the start of the film- things are going well for Peter in his love life, studies, work and Spider-Man is insanely popular- we immediately know that the bubble is bound to burst and, importantly, Peter starts to show some neglect for MJ’s work problems before the symbiote even affects him, but as soon as he puts in the dark costume (it’s a shame they didn’t use the proper version of the costume, as Benom looks pretty similar, but heigh-ho...)

Yes, Venon gets relatively little screen time, but a version of Eddie Brock is well used, Harry (whine, conveniently, we already know) is well used and Flink Marco (Sandman) is given a tragic backstory and an important role into being (rather crudely) retconned into Ben Parker’s killer. He’s well portrayed by Thomas Gaden Church and, while both he and Venom have limited screen time, I liked the way both were used. This isn’t a Joel Schumacher Batman film; all the characters are properly developed, however minor, including May, Jonah and the rest of the supporting cast.

So ignore the criticisms; this is a fine film. It also has a top cameo by Bruce Campbell as a snooty French maitre d’, and the CGI with both Sandman and Venom deserves an awful lot of praise. It’s sad that this is the last of the Sam Raimi films; I wish they had more of a wisecracking Spidey, but the trilogy is excellent on the whole, and ends on a high.

I, Robot (2004)

"Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?"

"Can you?"

This is the only film, as far as I know, that's been adapted from an Isaac Asimov story. And, Ironically, it's based on one of the few pieces of Asimov's SF writing that I've never read. I've read all the Foundation stuff, the Elijah Baley stuff, The Stars, Like Dust and sequels, and all of Asimov's work after 1980 that reads like very good Isaac Asimov fanfic. But I've never read any of the Susan Calvin robot stories. Oops. I suppose I'm not overly qualified to blog this film. Oh well.

While there's a low of fascinating philosophical stuff on both the Three Laws and the prospect of robots nicking people's jobs (very topical), this is fundamentally about the question of what if a robot was to exhibit sentience- what these days we call the Singularity. The theme is essentially the same as Short Circuit, but done with some intelligence.

The script is superb. I've no idea how faithful it is to the source material but it's certainly faithful in spirit to Asimov. Will Smith is excellent casting, charismatic and likeable as the technophobic, irreverent yet philosophical Spoon, while Bridget Moynahan is also excellent as the icy Susan Calvin, in personality almost a robot herself. Sonny the robot, incidentally, is voices by Joss Whedon favourite Alan Tudyk.

The design is also a triumph- the robots look great, and the world of 2035 is just futuristic enough to convince without being futuristic enough to alienate. It's a very contemporary view of the future, with none of the gleaming silver corridors of yore; instead we get a post-Cyberpunk, post-Blade Runner, lived-in future.

There are big action sequences, yes, but this film dares to be, at its heart, intimate and philosophical, and is all the better for that.

The Artist (2011)

"Quiet, please!"

I feel completely naked right now. Every time I've reviewed something up until now I've taken notes while watching (meaning much use of the pause button), and referred to them while tying out my review. But I saw this at the cinema, where making notes is not exactly an option. So I'm naked, without a safety net, swimming without water wings, or whatever metaphor you prefer.

Incidentally, I saw this at the Phoenix Square cinema in Leicester, a rather excellent little place, somewhat arty, and just around the corner from one of my favourite little watering hols, the Ale Wagon. Not only does it have a bar, not only does it do Boddingtons, but you can take your pint of Boddies in with you to see the film. Result.

The film is, let's not wait before saying it, completely bloody brilliant, and entirely deserving of its Oscar, although I would have thought it might be a little light-hearted for the Academy's tastes. The whole thing looks gorgeous: Michel Hazanavicious does rather a lot of very things with the camera. The film just bulges with sumptuous 1920's-ness; the cars, the clothes- everything from the opening titles onwards evokes the period in a way that films made in the actual 1920's, when all this stuff was ordinary and mundane, don't. The cast is superb, too, with Jean Dujardin being another deserving winner, accurately portraying a strangely period kind of matinee idol charm while also evoking the pathos of a proud man humiliated, all while showing a superb sense of comedy. He does all these things, and yet George Valentin (bit of a nod to Rudolph with the name there...) comes across as a coherent and nuanced character. Really, there are people in this world far less fortunate than a washed-up ex-actor whose diminished lifestyle would arguably still be the envy of many, especially during the Great Depression, and Valentin really is a proud, arrogant and self-centrede git. And yet he fully retains our sympathy in spite of all this, and even the attempt at suicide feels both real and horrifying.

Bérénice Bejo (the director's missus) is superb too in a role that demands her to convince as an A-list star while also showing us the real enthusiasm and the big heart that lies underneath. It sort of helps that she happens to be gorgeous.

But the best thing about the film is how damned clever it is. There are few things I enjoy in a film more than a bit of metatextual fun, and that's exactly what this film is about- a "love letter to Hollywood" that wallows in all the glamour of cinema while also showing us the tragedy of what happens to those who have finished their time in the Sun, and how cruelly they are cast off.

The opening scene, a scene within a scene from A Russian Affair, features Valentin being tortured and refusing to talk. This is, obviously, pretty much a metaphor for everything he does in the film. Just before his wife leaves him she's most upset at him for his refusal to talk to her. In every way possible, he refuses to talk, and this underlines just how thoroughly and suddenly he's been sidelined by the arrival of the talkies.

My favourite scene and, I suspect, most people's favourite scene, is the dream sequence where sound (though not dialogue!) suddenly intrudes, with his glass thudding on to the table and a feather falling to the ground with an almighty crash. Sound is what Valentin most fears.

Only at the end are we told why as he utters his only line of dialogue in a pronounced French accent, which is if anything even more meta. And the last few seconds of the film feature a cacophony of voices calling for quiet.

A splendid film, then, marred only by the parking ticket I got from some bastard traffic warden. I strongly recommend you go and see it, but be careful where you park!