Valkyrie (2008)

“We have to show the world that not all of us are like him.”

This is an extremely exciting, entertaining and dramatic film full of tension and suspense as (in spite of inevitably knowing that the plot doesn’t succeed) we follow through the workings of the plot to assassinate Hitler in July 1944 by Count Claus Von Stauffenberg, Ludwig Beck and various other members of the German (in many cases Prussian) conservative establishment who feel that Hitler and Nazism have gone too far.

And the result is gripping. This is a film that had me on the edge of the seat. In a sense it could hardly have been otherwise, as the historical events are pretty bloody cinematic in the first place. But the whole thing is well executed. Yes, Tom Cruise is pretty wooden, but there’s a magnificent cast of mainly British character actors, with Bill Nighy standing out in particular, but we also get Kenneth Branagh, Terence Stamp, Eddie Izzard in a straight role, Danny Webb, Ian McNiece, Tom Hollander and more. As a Hollywood war film with loads of suspense the film certainly succeeds.

And yet... does the film not whitewash Von Stauffenberg, Beck and the other members of the plot? Historians seem to disagree on Von Stauffenberg’s views- was he an anti-Semite but one who felt that the Holocsust was going too far? He was certainly no liberal, or democrat; he believed in German dominance over Poland; and he wanted a Germany with its 1914 borders plus Germany and the Sudetenland. This is, perhaps, the best we could have expected given where the Overton window was in Nazi Germany, but it’s a shame these shades of grey were washed over and the plotters were portrayed simply as heroes. They deserve respect and remembrance for what they did, but they fought for Nazi Germany. I think I shall let Roger Bartlett from The Great Escape have the last word here:

“Look, sir, you talk about the High Command and the Luftwaffe, and then you talk about the Gestapo and the SS. To me, they're the same! We're fighting the bloody lot! There's only one way to put it, sir: they are the common enemies of everyone who believes in freedom. If the High Command didn't approve of Hitler, then why didn't they throw him out?”

The July 1944 plot was too little, too late.

Elektra (2005)

"They say Elektra whispers in your ear before she kills you."

Meh. Thing is, this isn't an awful script, not really. There are some nice directorial touches in places, although there are also moments of, well, meh. But the main reason why this is Marvel's notorious flop, a spin-off of the already underwhelming Daredevil, is that Jennifer Garner is just phoning it in and offers up no charisma whatsoever. She simply sucks the energy out of the film whenever she's on screen.

Not that there aren't some positive points- it's good to see Terence Stamp, General Zod himself, appearing in a Marvel film, even if he is woefully miscast as Stick. The main baddies are good acting-wise, although I'm not familiar with the Hand from the comics. And the opening sequence establishing Elektra as the assassin she isn't going to be for the rest of the film is well done.

But... Jennifer Garner. And the film, frankly, flags once you're an hour in, not a good thing for a film that isn't really all that long. There are lots of action sequences, many of them good. Tattoo is a cool character. It’s good to see Typhoid Mary on screen. But... Jennifer Garner.

This film really isn’t worth seeing except for us Marvel completists. Meaning, sadly, that Marvel has yet to release a decent film with a female star, in the Cinematic Universe or elsewhere. I hope they do so by the time my daughter is old enough.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

"Polite persons do not take their supper in the nude!"

 Well, there's a surprise. Oddly enough this is quite a departure from Tim Burton's usual directorial style, even if the subject matter is very him, but it works. The very English early twentieth century fantasy feel- never mind it's based on a series of American novels whose author is younger than I am- is a perfect fit for him and is done well, even if it doesn't necessarily feel very Tim Burton. And it's most odd to see neither head nor hair of either Helena Bonham Carter or Johnny Depp.

The cast is superb, though. Eva Green is the obvious highlight but Samuel L. Jackson deserves particular praise for portraying a fantasy villain very much out of his normal kinds of parts, and doing it with aplomb. Even the many child actors are at least ok, but Ella Purnell is a revelation.

Mostly, though- and I haven't read the novel and so cannot comment on how it's been adapted- the film succeeds because of the superbly imaginative and original fantasy world it presents to us from the pen of Kick-Ass' Jane Goldman, a kind of wartime X-Men with magnificently imaginative powers, extra timey-wimeyness ( I love the loops) and some particularly fearsome monsters and fantasy creatures that are superbly recognised, in some cases by mock stop motion. Very much an enjoyable film and one much better than its puzzlingly mixed reputation.

Wanted (2008)

"This is me. Taking back control."

Grr. Don't talk to me about "taking back control". I'll be glad to see the back of 2016.

I watched this film at the suggestion of Mrs Llamastrangler as she hates it and wanted me to administer a good spanking in my blog. The things we do for love, eh? This is the most awful film I've seen since The Black Knight, and that's saying something.

Actually I suspect that the original comic book (which I haven't read) is likely to have been quite good; there's nothing wrong with the intrinsic concept of a beaten down, cuckolded office drone finding out that he's connected to a rather cool secret society of assassins and at last gets to be cool. The twist is pretty effective, too, and, in fact, I don't think the script is the problem at all here.

No; it's the awful direction from the enfant terrible of Central Asia, a man who comes with a certain reputation and from whom I expected better. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with an ever-moving camera or even with the things that happen with bullets in this film, but here it's just style over substance. The curved trajectories of the bullets (er, yes) and the  over-use of the same CGI tricks give an impression of style over substance, of a strongly emphasised visual style which doesn't actually mean anything and gets in the way of both the characters and the story. The visual style isn't just annoying; it's actually a barrier.

Also, it's noticeable that Angelina Jolie's character, Fox, is there only to look cool and spout exposition rather than have a character as such or, indeed, a first name, which is a shame. Still, at least we get Nine Inch Nails on the soundtrack and the performances are good. It's just st that the direction has to spoil everything and turn a film that could have been something into... this.

Superman II (1980)

"Well, geez, Mr. White! That's terrible!"

"That's why they call them 'terrorists', Kent..."

I'll come back to the Richard Donner cut later; this blog post is about the theatrical release credited to Richard Lester; a straightforwardly directed, action-packed and, without comparing it to the other cut, magnificent film with only two drawbacks, both of which are arguably excusable in context.

This is 1980; to produce a superhero film that is both excellent viewing for a wide audience- with romance as well as thrills- and to remain broadly faithful to the spirit of the comics while doing this is  a considerable achievement. Mario Puzo's script (what a writer to get!) respects the characters on their own terms while giving us a truly epic tale of a god who gives up his powers for love and ultimately gives up his chance of happiness for the greater good. We're halfway to the cliche that is a Christ metaphor but it isn't overdone. I'm not sure that Superman's regaining his powers is adequately explained- finding the crystal at the Fortress of Solitude is not really enough- but I suppose we don't have to be splinter anything. More problematic is the reset button at the end, both in narrative terms (it renders the romance between Lois and Clark meaningless after all they've been through and all the weight that was placed upon it) and in terms of the simple fact that the main female character has her freedom of action taken away be a man to the point of altering her memory, which is undoubtedly a kind of violation. Still... it's only 1980.

Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder are superb as individuals and, just as importantly, together; they carry this film. Terence Stamp is an effective if actually underplayed villain; I would have liked a little more overacting for a part like this. It's surprising to see Clifton James from Live and Let Die here... in Idaho??? Is the state really as southern as its being portrayed here?

All that notwithstanding, though, this is easily the best superhero film up to this point and arguably for many years after. The bar is well and truly set.

Superman (1978)

"I have sent them you, my only son."

This is, perhaps, the first of the current era of superhero films. The 1966 Batman film was a TV tie-in, while all the others were either movie serials or of that world. This film sets a precedent, and at first it looks like being a good one; Superman is, after all, bloody good.

It isn't a good precedent, though, for the simple reason that the film is an origin story. It happens to work here, yes, but it doesn't in general. Origin stories just mean that you spend most of the film without the title character being able to do any of their usual cool stuff. It works here because Superman's origin story is epic and cool, but generally speaking origin stories are to be avoided.

Still, it works here, and the film is superb. Oh, there are flaws- Gene Hackman is miscast, playing Lex Luthor for broad humour rather than the more camp performance the character needed. Luthor six written like a villain from the Batman TV series; he should have been played as such. Also, there's a glaring continuity error. Jor-El tells Kal-El in the Fortress of Solitude that he's been dead for thousands of years. Yet Kal-El took twelve years to reach Earth and he crashed into Kansas, we're told, in 1948. (So Superman is thirty years old.)  Oops. Also, I'm not sure there's any real logic to the way Luthor infers the existence of Kryptonite. Still, it's necessary to the X plot. Oh, and why is Superman so stupid as to tell Lois one of his weaknesses, namely that he can't see through lead, knowing full well that she's going to write a full page article about it?

All that said, though, the film is epic, huge, looks awesome and Christopher Reeve is perfect casting. It's a triumph, and here are some particular nice touches. The film commemorates thirty years of Superman, so the tribute to Action Comics #1 at the start is an extremely nice touch. Also a nice touch is that all the Elders of Krypton have  different symbol on their chests, and Jor-El's just happens to look like an "S" in the Roman alphabet. Also, well, Marlon Brando. Sadly, though, I must confess to my fellow Doctor Who fans that I failed to spot William Russell in these scenes.

Also s nice touch is the young Clark Kent running faster, literally, than a speeding train. These little touches keep us entertained as the film whisks is through Superman's origins and, this being pre- Crisis on Infinite Earths and the film being moderately faithful to the comics, his takes a good long while. 

Interestingly, though, Jor-El says the line "I have sent them you, my only son". This is a blindingly obvious Christ allegory and I'm not sure that's appropriate; Superman was created in 1938, the year of Kristallnacht, by a couple of Jewish nebbishes. The character is, in spirit, Jewish. He's also essentially a liberal wish fulfilment figure: Superman in his early years would go after wife beaters or put Hitler and Stalin on trial. Here, though, he's a resolutely conservative and all-American figure, his liberal, Jewish origins forgotten.

Nothing dates the film so much as the scenes at the Daily Planet, with typewriters everywhere and not a single PC. Metropolis is very obviously New York here: there are trains to Buffalo and Syracuse.

Sadly, the climax to the film is a bit of a letdown; if Superman can just turn back time so that Lois doesn't die then all future dramatic tension is gone. But this is a film that rises above its flaws by dint of simply being awesome. 

There. After loads of Marvel stuff I've finally blogged something by DC!