100 Word Reviews - Bad Santa (2004)

I’m struggling to think of something to say about Bad Santa, because it is so utterly redundant. It’s not particularly festive, it’s not funny or interesting, and it’s certainly not a platform to showcase any discernible acting ability. It was one of the first in what now seems like a yearly tradition of obscene films released around Christmas time, to provide a low standard of comedy and an almost non-existent level of entertainment. It stands as one of the many films released purely to be outrageous, without having any hint of personality, like a strand of cress in a vindaloo. 

100 Word Reviews - The Nightmare Before Christmas (1994)

This is one of the best alternative Christmas films ever made. Creating a strange composite of Christmas festivities and Gothic arthouse, offering a unique experience that explores the very nature of Christmas, whilst providing a simplistic Gothic romance and a timeless soundtrack of peculiar original songs. It is a visual treat, with a stripped down but unique style that is both fun and creative, yet strangely haunting. Fight the common misconception that this is a film for the strange kid who is obsessed with Tumblr, and sit back to enjoy one of the most beautiful Christmas films of all time. 

100 Word Reviews - Four Christmases (2008)

The prerequisite for a comedy is that it be funny, a concept that clearly no one explained to Vince Vaughn as he once again manages to star in a film that is as funny as 12 Years a Slave. I enjoy light-hearted Christmas comedies, but when they are this poorly written it is impossible to find any redeeming features. Vince Vaughn is like catnip for shit films, but Reese Witherspoon, Robert Duvall and Jon Favreau should really know better. Worse still, this film encourages violence, because upon watching it I felt a sudden urge to stab myself in the eyes. 

100 Word Reviews - The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

The work of Charles Dickens has been re-imagined a hundred different ways in a hundred different adaptations, most of which fall into the same trap of taking themselves too seriously. Thankfully, The Muppets provide a retelling that is a golden exception. It’s a fun and fresh adaptation that features some of our favourite Muppets as classic Dickens characters, and a fantastic leading performance from Michael Caine that really showcases his range as an actor. I have many fond memories of this film, and while it may not be perfect, for me the film encapsulates everything that is good about Christmas.

100 Word Reviews - A Very Murray Christmas (2015)

With so many talented people crammed into one film, and the genius of Sofia Coppola as director and writer, I have to wonder what went wrong. It’s not spectacularly bad, it just doesn’t amount to anything. If I’m watching a Christmas film then at the very least I want it to mean something. All this film delivers is a deflated festive balloon filled with cameos. I’m not angry, I’m just confused and disappointed that they didn’t capitalise on the tremendous opportunity they had. If you have Netflix then it is worth watching once, but don’t set your expectations too high. 

100 Word Reviews - Love Actually

There’s a popular erroneous assumption that men dislike this film, which is odd because there’s no correlation between gender and one’s appreciation of a superb romantic comedy. Richard Curtis is an outstanding writer, and this is unequivocally one of his best films. The ambitious ensemble cast is fantastic, with particularly brilliant performances from Bill Nighy, Colin Firth and Emma Thompson. What I like most about Love Actually is that it's such an unabashedly positive film. It's one that fills countless people with joy, and that's because it has a beating heart, three dimensional characters and a finely tuned sense of humour.

100 Word Reviews - The Santa Clause (1995)

This is the epitome of the over-sentimental nineties throwaway. Poorly acted and abysmally written, this film will surely make for a boring, cringe-fuelled festive experience for all of the family to despise. The film starts with the surreptitious murdering of Santa Claus, leading Tim Allen to slowly transform into a new Santa, in a strange homage to David Cronenberg's The Fly. It's cheap and nasty Saturday afternoon entertainment that is a tonal catastrophe and leaves a sour taste in the mouth. While DVD copies are scarcely purchased, there are undoubtedly countless VHS copies currently gathering dust in charity shops nationwide.  

100 Word Reviews - The Holiday (2006)

In time for Christmas, Hollywood delivers yet another dull film about white middle class citizens on a journey of self-discovery. Far from being the “cute” Christmas classic your secondary school classmates proclaimed it to be, this is arguably one of the most redundant romantic films of our time. The UK’s national treasure, Kate Winslet, is sent to America and replaced by Cameron Diaz, much like in science fiction horror when a human is replaced by a disguised, soul harvesting alien. It is a festive panoply of cultural stereotypes with an added mixture of self-indulgence, self-importance, and a sprinkling of consumerism. 

100 Word Reviews - Elf (2003)

While many hold this as a Christmas classic, I’d say this is a film I watch out of routine rather than for entertainment purposes. It has a certain level of charm and the performances are acceptable enough, however it is still far too overrated. Unfortunately the immaturity and oversentimentality are often mistaken for high quality humour and substance, both of which this film lacks significantly, causing me to feel annoyed rather than warm and fuzzy at Christmas. The funniest element is the fact the filmmakers saw no irony in casting Will Ferrell to play a man refusing to grow up.

The Suicide Squad Oversimplification

Just as the world was beginning to forget about one of 2016's biggest cinematic disappointments, it slowly creeps back into the spotlight for one last fleeting attempt of claiming victory. It would appear that DC are up to the same old tricks, having released a film that was not well received by the masses, leading them to offer a solution that isn't actually a solution. Towards the end of last week news broke that an extended edition of Suicide Squad will be released later this year. Many of us predicted the release of an extended edition right from the film's opening week in cinemas, having heard the news of extensive cuts and re-shoots taking place earlier this year, it was inevitable that they were going to somehow try to utilise most of the footage they shot. Obviously this is intended to excite those who genuinely liked the film, whilst offering a solution to those who didn't particularly like it by adding in extra footage in a hopeful attempt to patch up any holes and iron out the creases. I understand that many people are intrigued by this, and some would even go so far as to say they are excited by the promise of additional footage, but I think we all need to take a step back for a moment and ask ourselves the all important question: is this actually going to improve the film?

It feels rather like an old record that is stuck on repeat playing the same shit song, as we already saw a similar attempt from DC earlier this year to glaze over the damage caused by their other catastrophe this year; Batman v Superman. Similarly, this was not a film that well received by audiences, particularly fans of the genre. So when the inevitable home release drew closer they decided to release an extended edition on Blu Ray, providing more fun for fans of the film whilst grovelling for forgiveness from those of us who didn't like the film. Now in the case of this attempt there was limited success. It managed to plug a few plot holes and disambiguate some of the more ludicrous of moments, but it certainly didn't fix the film. It sanded some of the rough patches and made the edges a bit smoother, but the picture as a whole is still bloated and tedious, and the reason the extended edition couldn't fix it is because there are multiple fundamental flaws concerning elements such as structure, tone and stylistic choices. Adding extra footage on top of the film only added to the mess. With this in mind, I feel we will have a similar, if not worse, scenario with the new promise of an extended Suicide Squad.

I don't mean to be cynical and to judge this new extended edition before I have seen it, but I still maintain that this is not going to solve the major flaws of the original film. There was so much wrong with Suicide Squad, so many deeply embedded fundamental flaws that surely adding extra footage to this is only going to make matters worse? Fans of the film seem to assume that the people who didn't like Suicide Squad were film snobs, the cinematic intelligentsia who turn this nose up at action films. Well quelle surprise, the people who were annoyed at the film were largely fans of comic book films and DC enthusiasts, two groups that I would associate myself with. We didn't slate the film because it was a little bit rubbish or because it was action packed, we did it because we were excited for this film and we wanted it to be good, but it prevails that it is genuinely an awful film with too many problems to look past. Casing point, I've actually made a list of the main problems I had with Suicide Squad, so we can determine whether this extended edition is actually going to help.

Plot

The writing for this film as a whole is all over the place, but even if you strip this film down to the basics, the plot alone is ridiculous. It would appear that the people involved in the making of this film have completely forgotten one of the most basic uses for film, and that is to tell a story, because this film fails at even taking the audience from A to B successfully. Now I know that films don't necessarily run from A to B smoothly and there are various forms of narrative that can be utilised by writers, but this film doesn't utilise any discernible technique or skill in terms of writing. It's a really disconcerting and uncomfortable experience when a film stops and starts as much as this because it doesn't allow the audience enough time to become engaged in the story. And even if you did put the pacing to the side and just wanted to consider the actual events this film focuses on then it is still a mess. The whole set up of the film is that the squad itself is assembled to take on high risk cases that our favourite superheroes wouldn't take, much like the old eighties comics in which the squad was dispatched to deal with cases like advanced terrorist groups. So why then, in a cinematic universe that has already introduced powerful characters such as The Flash and Aquaman, would it makes sense to send a team of criminals to deal with a huge supernatural crisis? It really leaves a sour taste in the mouth to see the film rush past the assembling of the team, before dropping them headfirst into a case that is hugely inappropriate and negates the whole point of them. From there it only gets worse as the plot itself feels as though the writers were making it up as they went a long, so we have strange tangents and elements added for the convenience of the plot, leaving us with a film that feels incredibly ill disciplined and actually rather lazy.

Character Development

It's quite ironic that for a film that contains a lot of characters, the film itself distinctly lacks character. This film should have taken more time to introduce us to the characters and to develop them so we understand their motivations and their history. It's not a lot to ask for, especially considering a lot of people who saw this film wouldn't have known who the characters were, so its just a basic courtesy that the writers take time to ensure their characters are more accessible. There are only a small picking of characters that are actually developed to a point that allows the audience to give a shit about them, the rest are just like cardboard cutouts. I can't argue with the development of Deadshot and Harley Quinn because they were the two best characters of the film, but the rest of the squad just feels like packaging, just confetti in the box. Characters like Killer Croc, who is genuinely an intriguing and complex character, is reduced to just background noise and the guy who sits with his hood up grunting and chuckling to himself, it doesn't make sense! You've got some of DC's coolest and most interesting characters and you're just going to have them as members of the cast without developing them? There were times whilst watching this film when I genuinely felt as though it was a film comprised of extras, as if the squad consisted of the characters we see credited under names like "shop assistant #3" or "Gotham citizen #47." It was such a waste to of time to have so many characters on screen who weren't developed and weren't interesting, and you can't say that this was because of the re shoots or the hassle they had post production; this was a fundamental flaw that was a result of the writers clearly not putting in enough effort. The film reminded me very much of the line from Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters: "your personality certainly left a lot to be desired. Namely, a personality."

Screenplay

This is arguably one of the biggest flaws for me personally, because writing is one of the things I look for most in a film. I love script writing, it's a hobby of mine in my spare time and I feel as though while my writing is nowhere near anything even vaguely good, I have over the years developed a rather keen eye for a good screenplay. The screenplay for this film could have been so intelligent and so funny, think about it, they're bundling together some of the weirdest and dark characters DC has to offer and they're telling them to work together as a team. The clashing of the characters alone could make for an interesting and funny film, so why the hell didn't this film capitalise on the enormous opportunity it had? The film actually becomes quite infuriating part way because it is not entertaining or fun in any sense of the word, and yet after every action sequence we have at least one of the characters (mainly Harley Quinn) say something along the lines of "well that was crazy!" or "that was fun!" and it's annoying because they're wrong. The film is trying to tell the audience they're having fun when clearly we aren't. It's like Kanye West; the more important he tells us he is, the less important he becomes. Hence, the more times the characters reference the "fun" they're having, the less fun the audience has. However, it's not just the lack of humour that is annoying, because this is a film that has characters that need to show how sinister they are, and yet we don't see them in all their glory. Most notably for this is the character of Amanda Waller, the government official who actually assembles the team. In the original comics she is formidable! She is one of the most terrifying characters, and in fact there is a famous panel from the comics in which we see Amanda Waller backing Batman against a wall and pointing her finger at him as she cuts him down to size. The character is far more interesting than the film presents her to be, and her character development is basically whittled down to one line: "if you misbehave, I'll blow up your head." When a filmmaker is given a fantastic premise for a film and a top notch cast, you'd expect them to behave accordingly and try their hardest to make a film that pleases the crowd, but as I've said before, clearly there was not enough input from the writers.

Editing

What's interesting with Suicide Squad is that it's not just a film to dislike because it's uninteresting or because the writing is beyond sloppy, but also because of just how poorly made it is. The actual film-making itself is ludicrous, it doesn't feel like a cohesive film. Because of the so-called re shoots and the changes they made to this film post production, we're left with a film that feels like a series of random clips that have been spiced together, as opposed to a sequential act of storytelling that flows smoothly. There are moments throughout this film where the editing is appalling as it is apparent that footage has either been taken out or placed in randomly, and it's not only distracting but actually quite annoying. I can understand if the studio wasn't happy with the original cut of this film that they would maybe want to go through it with a very slim blade and operate on this film carefully like a surgeon, but there is more than enough evidence to show just how brutal and choppy the editing was. If they really cared about this film then they would have postponed the release and taken the time to edit it properly, instead of hacking through it with a chainsaw and adding scenes in wherever they felt like it, because that way the fans would have been given the film they waited so patiently for and everyone would have a lot more respect for the people involved in the film-making. 

Lack of substance

While many of the flaws of this film are mere annoyances, this one actually rather hurts. There's a common erroneous assumption that comic book films don't make for mature cinema, a viewpoint that I will always question because clearly if you look over some of the best comic book films of our time there are so many of them that are teeming with substance and that ask intelligent questions for the modern world. Suicide Squad is absolutely not one of them. There is no form of social commentary hidden away under the surface of this film, and in fact there is no depth to the film at all. With most comic book films there is at least a second layer or a third dimension that allows the audience to immerse themselves into the film and consider concepts like good, evil, justice, revenge, technological developments, and there was absolutely no third dimension to this film. Interestingly, I recently stumbled across quite an old interview with Alan Moore, one of the single greatest writers of all time, and part way through the interview he's asked about some of the first comics he read from Marvel and DC. At this point he comments on how one note the DC comics used to be, and how the characters only had one characteristic. That is basically Suicide Squad in a nutshell, it is absolutely all surface and no substance which really makes me struggle to see why this film exists. It doesn't tell an interesting story, it's not entertaining and it doesn't provide any thought provoking social commentary so what is the point of it? And I can't even use my usual expression of "it's style over substance" because that leads us into my next point.

Obscure style

If any of you reading this have ever seen a film by David Ayer before then you'll know that at the very least he is a good filmmaker. He has a real keen eye for cinema and has always flirted the line into edginess without going too far into artistic obscurity. With Suicide Squad there is a clear absence of style, particularly in the second and third act. The first act of the film is a little offbeat and refreshing, with some interesting music choices and flashbacks that allow us to see at least some of the squad's background, in a rather Tarantino-esque sequence that was at least tolerable. As soon as the film moves into the main body of the story, which takes place in a city, the film loses all focus and just becomes one heated mess of action and not and awful lot else. Don't get me wrong, I really like David Ayer as a filmmaker, but I think stylistically he made more than few questionable decisions for this film, and it resulted in him making just another tedious, faceless action flick that didn't offer anything fresh or exciting. The quirkiness of the first act was probably the most interesting element of this film, but when the flashbacks appear sporadically and the action scenes all bleed into each other this film quickly loses its spark. Is this more to do with the editing? Potentially, but there is a lot more going on here, and it hurts to know that this film came from a filmmaker that I have actually liked a lot in the past.  

Tone

This issue leaves me quite puzzled if I'm perfectly honest, because as far as I'm aware the re shoots that took place at the start of the year were largely to brace the topic of the tone of this film. After the apparent failure of Batman v Superman from DC just months before, and the mixed responses to the film's first trailer, the studio raised concerns that this film was going to be too dark and too serious, which I'm not ashamed to admit I agree with. This film is based on a comic book property that is largely based on fun, it's a gang of weirdos and criminals bundled together by the government to fight crime. What about that doesn't sound fun? If you know anything about the comics you'll know that these people aren't necessarily friends, they grate against each other and piss each other off, and part of the fun is seeing just how much they disagree and fight among themselves whilst on a mission. What this film needed was a huge injection of fun, but what it instead received was a lethal injection on death row. The whole film just lacked a sense of humour, and when it did attempt to be funny it was awkward forced humour that squeezed nothing but a mere snigger out of the audience who sat in the same screening as I did. It seems as though the characters on screen are having a great time, but more poignantly they were having a better time than the audience. It still felt as though it took place in this stupid washed out, one note, grey scale bullshit universe that Zack Snyder is building for DC, and from the person who wrote the film Training Day this should clearly have been more fun than it was. Quite often with films there is evidence of self importance and a feeling that the film takes itself too seriously, but with Suicide Squad it doesn't feel like they're taking anything seriously. Instead of settling on a solid tone or transitioning between tones smoothly and appropriately, the tone of this film buzzes around the room like a wasp, stopping at irregular intervals to sting the audience in the face. I think it's a bad sign that I had more fun in the two and a half minute trailer than I did during the two hour run time of the film itself.

The Joker

I'm aware that I've already tackled the issue of character development, but there is still the elephant in the room; the irrefutable waste of screen presence that is Jared Leto's Joker. I'm not going to waste my time talking about the character traits of this incarnation of The Joker because it is clearly one of the worst. I know some people really liked this street gangster "fuck bitches get money" version of The Joker, for me it didn't really work and wasn't that interesting, but I don't necessarily think that it's Leto's fault. I'd much rather focus on how the character is used. If you'll recall the opening week of Suicide Squad you'll no doubt remember the internet being largely in uproar that The Joker was used as one of the most prominent characters throughout the advertising campaign, and yet it prevails that he is onscreen for all of eight minutes. And for me I'm not sure that was problem, because I'd much rather he was onscreen for significantly less than that. Possibly reduced to a non-speaking role, that is in fact not a visual role either. I can only assume that because of his rather limited appearance in the film there is quite a lot of footage that ended up on the cutting room floor which is more than likely to resurface in the extended edition, which absolutely will not help matters. I think this is another clear cut example of DC ruining their chances by cramming the content of a number of films into one film, so they can rush through the world building process and establish their cinematic universe quicker. In the case of Suicide Squad this means showing an abrupt montage of how Harley Quinn and The Joker came to be the brilliant mess they are, and I'm sorry but that is just inappropriate. Their story is one of the most brilliant and popular stories in comic book lore and it deserves an entire film in itself, so to see it rushed in thirty seconds just to bring cinema audiences up to speed is ridiculous. And is shoehorning in more footage going to solve this matter? Absolutely not. It's just going to make for an even more bloated mess of a film. Regardless of what you thought of Leto's performance, which personally I didn't like, it is clear that he is surplus to requirements. He isn't incorporated into the film well, his actions don't have any consequence on the story, and really all his character stands for in this film is a sign of just how much they messed around with the original product of this film. I'm sure somewhere on the cutting room floor there's the remains of a good Suicide Squad film with The Joker as a stronger and more purposeful character, but that is far from the film that was screened in cinemas.

There are of course other flaws within this film, but I feel as though this list tackles those that are most pertinent to the subsequent failure of the film. If you look further then you will find minor imperfections and smaller details that need to be straightened up, but if we are to understand exactly what ruined this film then clearly we need to look at the very basic elements that set the groundwork for a flawed film. I'm sure there are countless other blogs written under far better authority that take a more critical view against this film, but for me personally the elements listed above are the ones that Suicide Squad was let down by. 

At the end of the day what we need to ask ourselves is when you have a film that has so many flaws, are you really going to improve said film by adding more footage to the mess? Short answer: no. When the flaws are so deeply embedded that the film is essentially built upon them, adding to the mess isn't going to help. It's like trying to add more layers to a house of cards that has already fallen over, or improving the hull of the Titanic by adding a few layers of tinfoil, it's just a lot of effort to put into a project that is going to have very little impact, especially after fans have been so bitterly disappointed. Clearly we all wanted this film to be good, and it would have been a refreshing experience to see a new addition to the DCEU that didn't fill the fans with anger. And it's actually upsetting more than anything to see yet another film end up on the scrapheap of wasted time. Furthermore it's even more upsetting to see them adding to the mess and unsuccessfully trying to keep the hope alive, like attaching strings to a corpse and using it as a human puppet instead of burying it.

I understand why they are releasing an extended edition, because clearly hidden away in all of the negative reviews there was a distinct amount of people who enjoyed it, so really this extended edition is for them. If we ignore the film critics and the negativity, there is a clear fan-base for this film and it is those people that the studio are going to focus on. I am eventually going to watch the extended edition of Suicide Squad but my expectations remain low, and I will do so with the unequivocal understanding that this extended cut is not designed for comic book fans such as myself. I think with Batman v Superman they released the extended edition with the expressed intent of fixing some of the plot holes and making it more bearable for those of us who are well versed in comic lore, but with Suicide Squad they need to realise that an extended edition is not going to fix the film, and its only real purpose is fan service. That is essentially going to be the best way to view this new extended edition, as an act of fan service rather than a solution for a doomed film.

The Batfleck and Matt Damon Combination Hypothesis

As much as we all dislike DC at the moment for messing around with their cinematic universe, and for pumping out disaster after disaster, I think we can all agree that we're excited for some of their upcoming releases. They've spent so long scratching their heads instead of actually doing something to challenge Marvel, which lead to them trying to build a cinematic universe with characters they didn't have, like trying to play with toys that are still in the store. What this means is that they've had to start planning a whole number of films so they can introduce their characters and actually start building the baseline of a cinematic universe. This has resulted in plans for a new Batman reboot, as it inevitably would. Now as I said, no one is really seeing eye to eye with DC at the moment, but the Batman reboot is one of their upcoming projects that stands as the glimmer of light at the end of a very dark and very long tunnel. Like Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption, the cinema audience's ordeal of navigating a long tunnel filled with human shit is finally drawing to a close. Hopefully. 

While Zack Snyder is normally the weapon of choice DC rely on to direct their films, with Batman they're finally telling him to keep his grubby fingers to himself and have instead given creative control to leading actor Ben Affleck, who will be writing and directing the new film. Now, if you cast your mind back to about two years ago when the news of Affleck's casting as Batman first came out there was a lot of negativity in the air, particularly from me, because we were all worried we were about to see Daredevil vol. 2. Thankfully, even though Batman v Superman as a whole was a fucking shit stain on the toilet bowl of bad cinema, from that film emerged the greatest Batman we have ever seen. Hidden away in the cluttered, disfigured narrative was a well rounded, strong Batman whose motives were clear and who had three dimensional emotional development throughout the film. It was a breath of fresh air to finally see DC master one of their most popular characters, which is why I am actually quite excited to see a new solo Batman film. I know the standard has been set high by Christopher Nolan after his Dark Knight trilogy, but Ben Affleck's performance in BvS leaves us with a lot to be excited about. 

What we all need to remember is that Affleck is a superb filmmaker. His writing is incredibly impressive, seen from a very young age when he co wrote the Oscar winning screenplay for Good Will Hunting, so we're pretty much guaranteed a substance heavy film with three dimensional characters, a solid structure and razor sharp dialogue. Furthermore, if you have any doubts about Affleck as director then go back and watch Argo a couple of times and the man's genius will sneak up and hit you around the face with a baseball bat that has the words "I told you so" engraved on the side, because he has already proven himself as a hugely talented director with a real keen eye for cinema. Granted he's had his fair share of bad films in the past, but that doesn't remove the fact he's got film in his blood. Think about it, he's spent a lot of years working with his good friend and fellow filmmaker Kevin Smith who has taught him a lot I'm sure, and since then he's worked with incredible directors like David Fincher, so I believe he is more than ready to take on the role of directing a Batman film. 

After the recent footage released by Ben Affleck via Twitter, teasing the character of Deathstroke who is set to appear in the reboot, a lot of us have started to speculate as to whether they will incorporate Affleck's long standing friend Matt Damon into the film. The two started their career paths to success when they wrote and starred in Good Will Hunting together and have remained friends ever since, and considering they are both very talented actors a lot of us would like to see the two of them on screen together in a Batman film. From what I can gather from interviews and reports Matt Damon has in the past stated outright that he would not consider appearing in a comic book film, UNLESS it was directed by Ben Affleck. If this is true then they need to start emailing each other pronto and get Damon on set in some form of costume. And I don't mean just surreptitiously slipping him in as a cameo in the background, I want him in a speaking role on screen so they utilise his talents and please fans all over the world by putting the original bromance on screen together again. 

The speculation of Matt Damon appearing in the Batman project has caused me to think about how exactly he could fit into the film. Looking at his back catalogue he has proven that he is a very diverse actor and so could play an all manner of roles in a Batman film. If you'll indulge me for just a little while and allow me to pontificate slightly, I've taken the time to list a couple of options available that would allow Matt Damon to become part of the project.

#1: Deathstroke

It's a cliche I know because the footage has been teased and the character has been confirmed, but it's a solid choice. Granted, they've recently released casting news for the character, but if cinematic history has taught us anything it's that actors can be replaced if the shoe doesn't fit. If this is the case, why not slip Damon into the DMs? Physically he is perfect for the role and is more than a match for Ben Affleck, plus we've already seen from the Jason Bourne films that he absolutely nails action sequences, especially hand-to-hand combat, so it would be really interesting to see him in the role of a super assassin/ mercenary. I think what's most appealing about this choice, aside from the fact it would be interesting to see two best friends trying to kill each other, is that it would be such a refreshing role to see Damon in. We're so used to seeing him play the good guy, and it's only in films like Interstellar and The Departed that we start to see his covert bad side, so it's time for us to see him go all out evil and cause some real shit for Batman on the streets of Gotham. It'd be interesting to see Damon playing any villain if I'm perfectly honest, but none more so than Deathstroke, because he could really master the physicality and complexity of the role. 

#2: Nightwing/ Robin

Batman wouldn't be where he is today without an annoying sidekick to drag him down and give him something else to worry about, but once they mature out of the bratty rebellious phase they actually become quite interesting characters. To see Batman with a sidekick that is genuinely of use to him, but at the same time can stand on their own feet and go off to do other things without needing a babysitter would be interesting to see, particularly because this is an older Batman that has been introduced to the DCEU. Obviously we're not going to see anything of the Jason Todd variety because there is clearly an Easter egg in BvS that suggests The Joker has already killed Todd in the cinematic universe, but there are still plenty of options available. As much as I would love to see Affleck and Damon trying to tear chunks out of each other as Batman and Deathstroke, it would be pretty awesome to see them fighting crime together. I can just imagine scenes of them beating criminals to a pulp and then high-fiving afterwards, like the Brock Landers footage we see in Paul Thomas Anderson's Boogie Nights. It might be a little camp and a little nineties, but why the hell would that be a bad thing? As long as they don't end up making a throwback to the days of Joel Schumacher and drowning us in puns then there shouldn't be a problem. 

#3: Harvey Dent

He's not necessarily a huge character until his descent into evil as Two Face, but I think this particular project is set to be quite sophisticated and very down to Earth, so we're going to need supporting characters that are involved in the world of crime who are working on the side of the law. If you remember Tim Burton's 1989 Batman you'll recall that Harvey Dent is in the film briefly, played by Billy Dee Williams, so the notion of him appearing in a Batman film as a smaller role could work again. As the district attorney Harvey Dent is quite an interesting character as he is widely renowned as the good guy, which Matt Damon can portray quite easily. However he also has a whole other side to him in which we see his own personal struggles and his constant obsession to walk the straight and narrow path in his fleeting attempts to get results in a crooked world without rules. He's the character that always tries to be the good guy but then consistently stays one step behind the bad guy, much like the quote from the Coen Brother's No Country For Old Men in which Anton remarks "if the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?" I think that is Harvey Dent's character summed up perfectly, a guy trying to run full laps while his enemies are cutting corners and finishing the race first. His character is complex and I think it would really suit Matt Damon because he would have enough screen time to be appreciated, and it would be a great way to show that he has the acting ability to cover a range of emotions as a fragmented character.

#4: Alfred

Hear me out on this one. I'm aware that Jeremy Irons is already cast as Alfred, but I don't really care, because he was one of the most redundant characters in Batman v Superman and Irons should really just fade into obscurity after the absurd comments he made about same sex marriage not too long ago. Now, what I want to see is the Alfred that we got a glimpse of from Michael Caine in Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Initially in Batman Begins we see him almost as the patient father, not exactly happy with Bruce Wayne's decisions but he's there for him through whatever happens. He's a bit like a father whose child is going through an emo phase at the age of fifteen; they wear black a lot, spend a lot of time in a dark room hunched over their computer, and only really come out at night, but he still loves them and cares about them so he makes the effort. But then by the time we get to The Dark Knight Rises we see an Alfred that is exhausted to a pitch of near lunacy as we see him become more blunt with his opinions, to the point where he's practically saying "I'm getting real tired of your shit now Master Wayne, I'm off, good luck." That's the Alfred I want to see! I want an Alfred that is sick of dealing with Bruce Wayne's bullshit and who is tired of having to deal with the backlash of his actions. I want him to walk in on Wayne after a night of beating people up, look at his beaten and blood stained body and just say "What the fuck have you done now? You idiot. I come here every day and do everything for you around the house, and you repay me by adding more shit to the list as your personal physician. It's my evening off, and now I have to spend that time reconstructing your shoulder with a first aid kit and whatever tools I can find in the shed. You know you really need to get your shit together Bruce, you are dripping blood on the carpet and now I'm going to have to clear that shit up. The hell do you think you're doing? Now clean yourself up, dinner's ready. Bitch." Who better to play that character than Ben Affleck's best friend? They've been friends for years now so you know they're probably brutally honest with each other off screen, and I think it's time for us to see that on screen. And if you're sat there thinking it wouldn't work because Alfred is traditionally old and British then I would simply refer you to the terms 'xenophobia' and 'age discrimination' you monster. 

#5: Oliver Queen AKA The Green Arrow

I think out of all of my choices this is my favourite, even though it's something of an obscure choice because it is still unclear as to whether Green Arrow will be brought into the DCEU, but personally I really want to see it happen, and Matt Damon would be perfect for the role. As I've previously mentioned he's shown in the Bourne films that he's got the acting ability for action films, but then if you look at films like Good Will Hunting there's evidence that he can play a witty intellectual too. The fact that Oliver Queen and Bruce Wayne are such good friends in the comics is just a happy coincidence, and it would make their onscreen chemistry so much more realistic if they were played by two actors who are best friends off screen. He doesn't even need to appear as Green Arrow. I know I would get value in my admission fee just to see a ten minute sequence of Bruce Wayne played by Ben Affleck, sat in Wayne Manor talking to Matt Damon's Oliver Queen about general superhero shit and how messed up their lives are, but how much they love it at the same time. And now that Deathstroke has been announced as the villain it would make this scene even more fitting considering Deathstroke is one of Green Arrow's most famous adversaries. Just picture the two of them talking about how much of a prick Deathstroke is before Damon just leaves the room saying "You're going up against Deathstroke? I remember that guy! Good fucking luck buddy, you're gonna need it."I know I would pay to see that film even if other people won't, because with any comic book inspired film there's always guaranteed action, but in between the action and the set pieces you need strong characters who can hold an intelligent and interesting conversation. They probably wouldn't even need to script the scene because Affleck and Damon know each other so well and are fantastic writers so they could just improvise and the audience would still believe their performances as part of the liberal intelligentsia they portrayed so brilliantly in their screenplay for Good Will Hunting. 

#6: Some form of love interest

This is probably the first and only time this blog will venture into fanfic territory, but just bear with me here. It's 2016, times are changing, we're striving for equality more and more, so perhaps it's time to see a gay superhero. Not just a gay superhero, but a gay Batman. With Matt Damon. Somehow. I don't know, I haven't really looked too far into this, but I'm betting some you will make the mistake of searching on google images for Ben Affleck and Matt Damon and will stumble across some overly sexual Tumblr pages created by a creepy fan who studies fine art at University. On a side note, if you think the notion of Batman being gay with Matt Damon is weird then just remember that Christopher Nolan managed to make a romantic interest for Batman out of fucking Katie Holmes. Just let that sink in. 

All joking aside, I am hoping that Matt Damon is somehow incorporated into Ben Affleck's Batman project. The two of them are old friends, and they're both incredibly talented, so it would be brilliant to see them collaborate on screen again in a solid Batman film. The ideal scenario is that Damon would play a returning character, like Deathstroke or Green Arrow, because that way we as the audience get to see him doing something interesting with a character we all want to see on the big screen and it wouldn't just be a one off gig. While the focus of comic book films tends to be the action and the visuals, what really drives a film at its heart is the performances. If they didn't have strong characters then people would completely lose interest, which is why so many people didn't like Man of Steel. If you put aside all of the problems that film had, one of the fundamental flaws stems from the fact the film has a weak protagonist. In that film Superman is so boring and completely lacks the complex and compelling edge that made people fall in love with the character from the comics. If DC have any hope of building a cinematic universe then they need to focus on the characters, which means finely tuning their writing and performances. They're slowly starting to add talented actors into their big cinematic releases, so fingers crossed they at least consider people like Matt Damon over the next few years. 

Whether Matt Damon is involved or not, the Batman reboot is undoubtedly one of the films I am praying they get right. He's one of their most popular characters, and having let us down too many times before, DC need to pull out all the stops to give fans the films they deserve. Admittedly their failures in the past have been largely due to Zack Snyder, but now that DC are letting other people step into the light and take control of their films, I think it's a massive step in the right direction. There's always going to be a lot of pressure when making a film based on a character that is as popular as Batman but I think putting the project in Ben Affleck's hands is the safest way to ensure that even if they miss the mark, we'll still be left with a film that is an enjoyable experience that has a lot to like and admire. 

If not, Marvel is still a thing. Swings and roundabouts. 

Ant Man and Alternative Movies That Never Were

After the hassle it took to eventually put Ant-Man on to the big screen, it's interesting to consider how different some films would have been if we had received the original planned versions.

It dawned on me recently that while I am a self proclaimed geek who is incredibly passionate about both films and comics, I still haven't found the time to watch Marvel's Ant-Man which was released over a year ago. I'm not particularly anxious about watching the film and I haven't surreptitiously been putting it off, I just simply haven't found the time to watch it yet. I am of course excited to see the film, but even before I watch it I have to confess that I am fascinated with the production of it. It's odd to think about the fact that Ant-Man was a project that started back in 2003, and yet it has only just made it to the big screen. It was picked up at roughly the same time Jon Favreau was hired as the Iron Man director, which as we all know has had three solo films since, so why did it take so long for Ant-Man to make it to the big screen?

Up until a certain point the film was going to be directed by Edgar Wright, famous for The Cornetto Trilogy, who was also eagerly penning the screenplay. He was incredibly passionate about the project, but it soon prevailed that he was not being given proper creative control and so couldn't make the film he wanted to. As Wright's vision was slowly replaced by studio input he eventually left at the last minute, taking lead actor Simon Pegg with him. His film was set to bounce between present day and the sixties, showing both the original Hank Pym and the new Scott Lang, but supposedly the studio wanted something different which caused trouble for the project and lead to Peyton Reed taking over as director. Personally, I would love to have seen Edgar Wright's original version of the film with Simon Pegg in the lead role; I would argue that his visual style, witty writing and respect for the source material would have made a fantastic film for a truly intriguing comic book character. After thinking about this for some time it soon provoked thoughts about alternative versions of films that were meant to happen but then were changed to become the films we know today.

There are of course famous stories from across Hollywood about alternative films that never were, alternative projects that have achieved cult status. Most notably the original plan of Martin Scorsese directing Schindler's List and Steven Spielberg directing Cape Fear, before essentially doing a straight swap. It's that sort of the thing I find exciting to think about. How different would Scorsese's Schindler's List have been? Would the red coat still be in the film and go on to become the iconic image we know today? The list of possible differences is vast and intriguing, which is why I thought I would take this opportunity to discuss the alternative films that never were. 

I am Legend (2007)

Production for this film initially began in early 1997, with Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead role and Ridley Scott as director. Writing had already begun for the film, but the screenplay advanced so the plot dealt with more horror elements, which subsequently sent the budget for the film through the roof. The commercial viability of the film was questioned, resulting in the film being put on the back bench by March of 1998. The version of this film we received was nothing particularly special, I know a lot of people like it and it is generally held as a crowd pleaser but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it incredibly annoying and self important, but I'm not too sure how much different it would have been with Ridley Scott in the director's chair. Don't get me wrong, I think Ridley Scott is wonderful and has made some of the best films of all time, but I'm not sure we need to see his version of I am Legend. 

Spider-Man (2002)

While there were a couple of different people attached to a live action Spidey project in the nineties, such as David Fincher, the most notable name was James Cameron. Thankfully we did not receive this version of Spider-Man because Cameron's vision was completely obscure and would not have suited. In his original outline for the film, not only was the planning grossly over budget, but there was notable use of profanity, and a love making scene that took place on the top of the Brooklyn Bridge. It's a nightmare to think about, but in reality all we had to do was wait for Sam Raimi to step into the spotlight. Don't get me wrong I like some of James Cameron's work, but I don't think he's the genius that many people cite him to be, and because I love the character of Spider-Man so much I would rather not see him placed in the hands of the man responsible for Titanic and Avatar. 

Alien 3 (1992) 

If you have ever seen Alien 3 then you know already what a rubbish film it was, and you may be aware of the terrible time director David Fincher had making it. Cuts and reshoots were made without Fincher being present, and so the film that was eventually put to the big screen was not the film Fincher wanted to make. But there was an original version of the film written by Vincent Ward that has now achieved cult status as one of the best films never made. If you research further into the topic there are certain places where you can find original sketches and notes for Vincent Ward's Alien 3, which details the plot for a completely different film altogether, set on a wooden planet inhabited by monk like figures, with a lot of rich religious imagery. It is a film that sounds utterly brilliant, and yet fans will never get to see it, which is a tremendous shame as it means we're left wishing the story had ended after Aliens. 

Watchmen (2009) part I 

Ultimately this project was let down by director Zack Snyder, he's widely renowned as a visual director but he absolutely failed as his own trade with this film, but originally different directors were set to make the big screen adaption of Alan Moore's classic graphic novel. First there was the news that Terry Gilliam was attached to the project, at least in the very early stages, which would have presented the audience with a different film altogether. Gilliam is one whose films have the perfect balance between being obscure, visually impressive pieces, but also intelligent and weighted enough to deal with heavy questions and themes However, he is also widely known as someone who cannot stick to a budget. So after story boarding the film and realising there was no way to adequately reduce the source material, there were concerns as to whether the film they would make would remain faithful to the source material. His version of the alternate eighties and the world of masked vigilantes would have been difficult to get through, but it would have been an unquestionable work of genius. After toying with the idea of making Watchmen into a film and then a five part series for television, Gilliam eventually left the project after speaking to Alan Moore and asking him how he would go about making the film, and Moore's response was "Easy. I wouldn't."

Watchmen (2009) part II

After Gilliam (previously mentioned) left the project in the nineties there was a gap left for a new director. Stepping into the role was Paul Greengrass, director of Captain Phillips and the second and third installments of the Bourne series. I think Greengrass came as close to making the film as he could have been, having actually been on set and seen with various props from the film, so it was something of a sudden surprise that he left the set before the cameras were rolling. I personally feel that Greengrass would have delivered the best version of Watchmen as he has proven countless times that he can balance action and drama perfectly, without distorting the pace or removing substance. It would have been an interesting project and may not necessarily have been as graphic as Snyder's version, but I think it would have made a much better film with more substance and character. Personally, I think Watchmen is an unfilmable piece of literature, but I would rather see a talented filmmaker make a decent attempt, rather than watching an immature director ruin one of the greatest pieces of art this world has ever seen.

The Hobbit film series (2012-2014)

I know fans will hate me for this and I can already tell I'm about to get a storm of hate mail from Peter Jackson fans (again) but I didn't like The Hobbit trilogy. I think Peter Jackson showed that he should have left Middle Earth alone and left it for someone else to take the reigns. Personally I much prefer the sound of the two Hobbit films that Guillermo Del Toro was originally planning. He is one of the best minds working in cinema at the moment and his imagination has no boundaries, particularly when it comes to fantasy films, so I think it would have been better to place the project in Del Toro's hands. Of course he was still involved in the films and receives a screenplay writing credit for them, but that's not enough. If you've ever seen his original sketches for his films you know that Del Toro is a genius and creates such beautiful creatures and settings with a real passion for practical effects, so I truly believe he would have made better films of the source material than Jackson did. At least, if anything, they would have been better disciplined than the Bilbo Baggy trilogy we actually received.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

This project was in the works for a very long time before getting off the ground, and then it resulted in a film that was remarkably unremarkable. Peter Jackson was the eventual director to stand at the helm of the film, thinking that he could appropriately apply his experimental approach to fantasy worlds to this project that explores death and the afterlife. I admire Jackson as a filmmaker, but this film is hugely problematic and is by no means his best work. Originally the film was going to be directed by the fantastically talented Lynne Ramsay, who famously bought the rights to the film and started the project before the book was finished, and then swiftly left the project upon reading the book in its entirety and being hugely disappointed with it. It's interesting because of course Ramsay's version of the film would have been better, but we are lucky that she left when she did because otherwise we would not have the brilliant film adaption of We Need to Talk About Kevin, one of the best films of modern years. It was a big sacrifice, but one we should all be glad of.

Total Recall (1990)

This is another alternative film that has gained cult status as one of the best never made, but for me this is one, much like Lynne Ramsay's The Lovely Bones, that was a sacrifice well made. Originally the film was to be directed by David Cronenberg, which is understandable considering his back catalogue and his ruthless directing style. It would have been a completely different film, with more focus on the main character who was to be rather like Walter Mitty in the sense that reality is slipping from his grasp, albeit in a more sinister fashion. However after Cronenberg's vision was slowly replaced by the producer's interests it was a mutual understanding that Cronenberg should leave, thus allowing Paul Verhoeven to enter the director's chair, whilst replacing lead actor William Hurt with Arnold Schwarzenegger. It is not a shame that Cronenberg left the project, because it allowed him to be signed to another project and make his masterpiece: The Fly. Another sacrifice well made in my opinion. I don't necessarily have any issues with the version of Total Recall we received, I just think such a cerebral film would have been perfect for David Cronenberg. 

Wolverine (2013)

While I don't have any issues with this film per say, I think it would have been really interesting to see the original film intended for release that was directed by Darren Aronofsky. With a clear passion for the source material written by Frank Miller and Chris Claremont, and a guarantee that the film would be hard edged, it looked as though this film was going to be one of the best comic book films of recent years. However, just three months into production, Aronofsky had to leave the project due to personal circumstances. As I said, I don't have a problem with the film we received, I just think it would have been better if Aronofsky had stayed with the project and made the film we all wanted to see. 

I'm aware that there are many other famous films that were never made, but these are just a select few for me that sound the most interesting. They have all achieved a status, for good or bad, and so it is interesting to consider just how different they could have been.

Of course there are others that have grown infamous status in Hollywood as films that nearly happened. Most Notably there were plans for a third Batman film from Joel Schumacher, with Courtney Love as Harley Quinn and Nicholas Cage as The Scarecrow. Make of that what you will, but personally I think the image of Cage as The Scarecrow is terrifying enough and does not require the use of fear toxin to enhance it.

Although the projects mentioned above do seem interesting what we must consider is that if they had gone ahead we would have missed out on some fantastic films. If Lynne Ramsay had stuck with The Lovely Bones then we wouldn't have We Need to Talk About Kevin, if David Cronenberg had stayed with Total Recall then we wouldn't have The Fly, which is for me one of the best horror films of all time. So we may not have the Ant-Man that we all want to see, or the Watchmen we all know would have been better, or even the Lovely Bones that would have been less problematic, but I'm happier to say that we live in a world where the films that we all know and love exist, as opposed to a world where films we would have had anyway are just that little bit better.

Although this still does not mean I have forgiven Zack Snyder for Watchmen. I am still waiting for a written apology.

First Thoughts of Star Trek Beyond [SPOILER FREE]

It's time to dust off your Spock ears, iron your blue, red or yellow uniform, and set your Phasers to stun, because the third installment of the current Star Trek film series has hit cinemas. 

I was quite busy over this weekend just gone, and by busy I mean quite badly ill, so I didn't manage to do an awful lot other than consume copious amounts of water and pray that whatever demon was inhabiting my stomach would decide to leave. I did however manage to catch one of the first screenings of the latest Star Trek film on Friday evening. So I thought I would take this chance just to share a few quick thoughts about the film as it was one of the most important films of the year, considering not only the hype but also the fact it's celebrating the 50th anniversary of Star Trek.

I admit this post is a little rushed, and that is purely because I have spent most of this weekend in bed, feeling as though my stomach was about to give birth to one of the creatures in Alien, so to make some sort of sense of it I've formed a colour system. I've compiled a list of thoughts I had after seeing the film and I've expanded on each of them, but to make it easier to understand I have created something of a traffic light system. So, the ones listed in red are the elements I didn't particularly like, the ones listed in orange/ amber are the elements I found questionable but I'm willing to overlook them, and finally those listed in green are the elements that I liked. I thought it best to put them in that order, not only because it corresponds with actual traffic lights and thus satisfies my compulsive need for order, but also because it deals with the negatives first so I have more time to focus on the positives, because at the end of the day I did enjoy this film. I wouldn't hail it as a masterpiece, and it is nowhere near as good as the first two films of the reboot series, but there is still a lot to admire and enjoy.

Rushed exposition - I know in films there is never really an easy way to allude the audience to the appropriate knowledge needed to understand the film fully, but parts of this film felt not only rushed, but also rather lazy. The back story of this film's villain is delivered in such a clunky way, it felt as though they were struggling for ideas. However the most annoying piece of exposition came at the very beginning of the film in which the captain's log acts in something of a "previously on Star Trek..." fashion, skimming over important details and listing events that I actually would have preferred to see on screen, either in more films or in a montage. I'm glad we still learned the details we needed to, but it wasn't delivered in the most fulfilling way.

Focus on action - This is something I expected of this film, just purely because J.J. Abrams has left the director's chair and has been replaced by Justin Lin, famed for his recent contributions of the Fast & Furious franchise. Now Justin Lin is something of an action director and doesn't really handle substance well, which is a problem after J.J. Abrams started this film series with two films that had the perfect balance. Don't get me wrong, this is absolutely the best film I have ever seen Justin Lin direct, but there were times when I found that the action sequences dragged on for too long and became quite tedious. It got to the point where I actually wanted certain sequences to end because I was bored of them and wanted to return to the plot. In some ways Justin Lin has failed as his own trade, because he is widely renowned as an action director, and yet he didn't manage to present any action sequences that were better than those we saw in the first two films.

Frequently predictable - When I go to see a new film, particularly one in a science fiction franchise that means a lot to me, I want it to offer something original. I want to experience something new, something unique that is a surprise. So I'm disheartened to say that there were multiple elements of this film that were predictable, too many plot details or moments that I could see way before they appeared on screen, which did take away some of the magic. I don't want to give away any plot details or spoilers, but I will say that in particular there is the use of a Beastie Boys song that was borderline infuriating because it was so obvious it was going to be used.

Obscure pacing - This was one of the key issues I found in Star Trek Beyond because the balance between action and substance is a little dissatisfying. The first third of the film moves at a clunky pace, so it feels like we're just plodding along with exposition and some rather pointless character development that doesn't actually result in anything significant. Admittedly the second and third acts of the film pick the pace up and are more consistent, but there was still too much rushing and dragging (sorry for the Whiplash reference) which did become irritating.

Less of J.J's visual style - This is the old case of not missing something until it's taken away from you, and it's going to sound odd because we've all complained about this at some point, but I did kind of miss the lens flares. I know some people really had a problem with them in the first two films, and I admit they are overused to the extreme, but I guess I could have done with a few thrown in for good measure, just to make the Enterprise look a little more shiny. No big deal though.

Music composition - Again, this isn't really a big deal, but I didn't find the score for this film to be as good as the previous two. I remember when I saw the first two films how the music really crept up on me, particularly with the first film I remember getting goosebumps as the music played at the very beginning. With this film it felt out of place at times and was inappropriately timed, but also felt as though it was just there for the sake of it. Certain sequences have musical accompaniment but don't necessarily need it, so the music is thrown in without improving upon silence.

It didn't necessarily feel like a film - This sounds a little broad, granted, but bear with me. I am not alone in saying this, but honestly this felt more like an episode of a television show, as opposed to a film. I think it was mainly the story line and the production design that made this feel like it belonged on television. The plot itself and the trajectory of the narrative was simple enough that it felt like something you'd see in the original series because it was basic and cliched enough to fill an hour slot on a t.v. schedule. Furthermore the minimalist set design evokes memories of the alien planets present in the original series, so it would not have looked out of place on the small screen on a Saturday evening. I wouldn't necessarily say this is a negative point, it was more just a thought I had during and indeed after the screening.

Screenplay - One of my main concerns for this film was the screenplay, because the trailers were so focused on the action, it seemed as though this film was about to waste the writing talents of Simon Pegg. Thankfully however, the screenplay for this film is genuinely fantastic. Not only is there a lot of humour and witty dialogue between characters, but it also suits the characters perfectly. If there is one thing this film absolutely manages to achieve, it's paying homage to the original series and honouring the source material. Simon Pegg is such a big fan of the series, and I think it shows clearly in his work for this film as he has managed to co-write a screenplay that fits perfectly into the Star Trek universe. It has the right balance of humour and sincerity to make this so much more than just an action flick.

Character development - I think this was one of my favourite elements of this film, because if you push aside the spectacle and the excitement, Star Trek was always about the people, and the relationships they have with each other. In the previous two films we saw a lot of Kirk and Spock, which was brilliant, but in this film we see a lot of more the relationship between Bones and Spock, which was actually rather refreshing. Thus far we hadn't seen an awful lot of Bones, so it was good to see him getting some proper screen time and to see him interacting with other characters because it allows us to learn more about him and to sympathise with him.

Screen time for more characters - As I said before, the first two films were primarily focused on Kirk and Spock, so I was pleased to see that this film is very comprehensive. Even since the first film we've all firmly accepted that the new cast is brilliant, but it wasn't until this film we get to see more of them. Already I've mentioned the increase in screen time for Bones, but I was also very pleased to see more of Simon Pegg as Scotty and more of Anton Yelchin as Chekov. It was of particular importance that we see more of Chekov after the recent news of Yelchin's passing. He was a very talented young actor, and it was a pleasure to see him have a more active role on his last voyage as a member of the Enterprise.

Less sexualisation - This is arguably one of the most important elements of this film. It's not difficult to see that this film has taken a step back to focus on what the original series always strived for: equality. In this film there were no unnecessary shots of the cast in their underwear, nor were there any scenes of Kirk picking up women or in bed with female aliens. It seems as though they've allowed the character of Kirk to mature out of his pubescent phase and return to the character we once knew in the original series. Incidentally I've just started to watch the original series and I came across the episode entitled Charlie X in which we see Kirk teaching the young character of Charlie how to respect women and to treat them as they want to be treated. That is the Kirk we all want to see on screen, and I think we saw more of that in this film than we did in the previous two films.

A strong female character - I cannot stress how important this was to me. I am loving the fact that at the moment more and more films are depicting bad-ass, intelligent women who are more than the match for the male leads. It happened in Star Wars Episode VII, it happened in Captain America: Civil War, and now it happened in this film too with the character of Jaylah, played brilliantly by Sofia Boutella. In the midst of all of the men fighting and hatching plans, it was wonderful to see a strong female character who could fight and defend herself, and whom was also a technological wizard who is extremely intelligent. More writers need to realise that these are the characters we want to see, and I am so glad that this film introduced this character to us. Unequivocally one of the best elements of this film.

I think I could best summarise by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film and there is an awful lot to like, however the previous two films are still marginally better. This felt like more of a popcorn flick combined with a t.v. episode, whereas the previous two films felt like big and unabashed science fiction epics that were more suited to the big screen. I had my doubts, and to an extent I was correct, but this film was absolutely ten times better than I feared it would be. Some would argue it was one film too many, but I would completely disagree, it is a worthy addition to the franchise and has kept the opportunities open for another installment. While this film attempted to deliver more action, I think it was far more successful at developing the characters and respecting the original series, to deliver a proper crowd-pleaser than is a real advocate for equality.

My experience of watching 'Trainwreck'

Upon finally watching one of 2015's biggest comedies, I find myself feeling like a prize idiot for ever doubting it. 

Until about two weeks ago, I had never experienced any of Any Schumer's work. I knew of her and had seen short clips from various interviews, but I hadn't witnessed any of her acting or writing. That is until I sat down late on a Thursday night to watch the 2015 comedy Trainwreck, written by and starring Schumer. Now I have to admit at this juncture that I have a tendency to surreptitiously judge a film before I have seen it, a crime that I am not proud to admit to but it is an action that many of us partake in. In particular, I tend to be more critical of modern comedies, simply because I have seen a large amount of them and have subsequently been disappointed by a high percentage. It is because of this bad habit, that I feel I owe Amy Schumer an apology.

You see I sat down to watch Trainwreck after quite a shit day, I was in an awful mood and I was looking for something that was easy to watch, required little attention and would probably test my patience. My expectations were watertight; I was expecting to see a film that was mildly funny, a few chuckles here and there but no real laugh-out-loud moments, all leading to a sloppy resolution before the end credits hit and I'm left with an overwhelming feeling that I have wasted my time.  To put it bluntly, I wasn't expecting the film to be very good. And yet, I found that there is actually a lot to like about Trainwreck, and while I sat in anticipation preparing myself for disappointment, it prevails that I thoroughly enjoyed it. 

Far from being the infuriating waste of time that I was expecting to witness, what I instead experienced was a genuinely well written comedy that was strangely melancholic and actually very subversive. Even from the opening minutes of the film the tone is set perfectly with a rather dry sense of humour that the screenplay persistently capitalises on throughout the film. It not only attempts to entertain the audience and make them laugh, it also provides quite intriguing social commentary. From the outset the protagonist is introduced as an easy going professional who make a habit of getting drunk and stoned frequently and whom sleeps with people on a regular basis without wanting to commit to a serious relationship, however the film doesn't necessarily seek to demonise this lifestyle. Instead it feels more as though the film is intent on showing both sides of the coin, by showing how for the individual this lifestyle is functional and enjoyable, but this may change when someone else's feelings come into the equation, and when personal life trickles into the workplace.

My concerns were largely placed in the tone of the film as I feared it may be similar to many other films and simply attempt to make the audience laugh by any means necessary, and yet this film does have a darker side. There are of course countless comedic moments that are successful, but thankfully when the film moves onto more serious topics they are dealt with in a mature and sincere manner. I found that the film really has a beating heart, and we see a vulnerability in the characters, which for me made them seem more human and more relatable. This was not solely due to the writing, although the writing is superb, I would instead draw your attention to Amy Schumer's performance. As someone who was uninitiated to Schumer's acting I can safely say she is a very talented comedic actor, who adapts very well to a multitude of scenarios. In this film we see Schumer as a quick talking confident woman who is a great source of humour both through dialogue and slapstick elements, but then we also see a weakness to her. It was wonderful to see a fantastic comedic performance, but this was counterbalanced very well by serious acting that showed real human emotion and a genuine concern for other people.

Even from my first viewing of this film, it soon became clear that it is a comedy with layers. On the surface there are the usual suspects of slapstick comedy, excessive swearing, graphic sexual discussion and playing off of cultural stereotypes, but if you peel back the layers there is so much more happening with this film. At times it is actually quite thought provoking as the films seeks to provide social commentary, and subversively mock certain elements of modern life. The protagonist works as a journalist for a lads magazine, and during the scenes in which we see her in the workplace it is clear that the portrayal of this environment is almost a pastiche because of how exaggerated but honest it is. The behaviour of her work colleagues and her manager is cringe worthy because as they discuss potential ideas of articles it is glaringly obvious that the shit they're talking about is actually what people want to read. It is elements such as this that provide some of the more intelligent comedy, as Amy's relationships with people and her actions are used to satirically explore other elements of modern life in quite intense detail, such as sexuality, relationships, expectations of women and adults, and the process of becoming a socially accepted adult. 

One of the key elements that made this film really stand out is the characters. When I first started watching this film it reminded me very much of the Bridget Jones films, and I wasn't particularly happy about that because it evoked memories of just how annoying I found those films to be. However, Trainwreck manages to move away from this because it has genuine character development. Bridget Jones has infuriating one dimensional characters that stay exactly the same and basically play off of cultural stereotypes, with a real smug self destructive nature thrown in to make the perfect cocktail of bad writing, but Trainwreck sets up its characters in a particular way and places all of them on a trajectory. The characters we see actually go on a journey and have to face the consequences of their actions, so while there is still a self destructive element to this film, it's delivered with the utmost sincerity so the characters are conflicted and aren't simply polarised into good and bad. Bridget Jones essentially presents caricatures whom would be hated by everyone if they genuinely existed, whereas Trainwreck presents actual people, three dimensional and functional humans who the audience can relate to and sympathise with.  

I think what hit me most about this film is just how relatable it was. Personally I can't sympathise with the character that smokes weed excessively and sleeps around because that's pretty much the antithesis of me, but I could relate to the character of Aaron, played brilliantly by Bill Hader. I didn't relate to him as the perfect heart throb, because again that really isn't me, but I did relate to him as someone who was simply hoping for love to come his way. Throughout the film we see him fall hopelessly in love with someone who isn't at all adjusted to relationships, and as a result he spends a lot of time hoping for them to feel the same way and for them to take it as seriously as he is. And while it may not be pleasant to think about, I think we have all been in that place at some point in our lives; hoping for someone to feel the same way about us as we feel about them. So to see Aaron trying so hard to make a relationship work, to a pitch of near lunacy, was actually quite relatable after recent events, having unfortunately found myself in a similar struggle before.

When I first watched this film, I admit I wasn't exactly in a good place. I'd recently reached a rather abrupt and unpleasant end to a relationship, and there were some similarities between what I experienced and what the character of Aaron experiences in the film. The immaturity in Amy's behaviour, her habit of fooling around with guys without considering their feelings and her inability to take a relationship seriously was all too familiar to me, so the film really hit me quite hard because it was tackling real life situations that I and many people I know have encountered. While Bridget Jones shows us an almost science fiction like world in which utterly repugnant, one dimensional arseholes are somehow desired by others, Trainwreck tackles genuine problems that are faced in modern relationships. This character that could in an almost sociopathic manner, play with people like toys and then run away from responsibility was uncanny. To see Amy physically unable to cope with an adult relationship and simply resort to fooling around with people regardless of their feelings is something that many people are on the receiving end of, so the film felt as though it knew exactly where its footing was, and its roots were so deeply embedded in reality it was alarming how it accurate it was. There are segments of dialogue that read almost exactly the same as certain conversations I and many other have had before, so it was clear that this film was delivering a frank and sincere message through a brutally honest narrative.

It did become increasingly difficult to watch this film as it depicts a man who is putting in effort and trying to make a relationship work, when it's obvious that it's doomed to fail if the effort does not come from both members of the relationship. It was a scenario I was familiar with, and while it is something that has been explored in comedy numerous times, I felt that this film managed to bring something new to the table and tackle the issue in a way that I've possibly not seen before. The arguing and the bickering evoked thoughts of my own experiences and that of my friends too, particularly as one member of the relationship is trying their hardest. I'm not about to shame anyone for their sexual proclivities, but I think it is somewhat seflish and hurtful for a person to engage in sexual activity with other people whilst they are in a relationship with someone, which is something this film explores with a degree of maturity and honesty.

If I am perfectly honest I was expecting this film to quite immature. I wrongly made assumptions that this would the typical 'pie in the face' comedy that America so often provides us with, but in reality it was an intelligent and three dimensional piece of cinema, that understands humans. So often we see comedies in which totally unlikable people treat other people in the most despicable way and yet still get their happy ending without actually changing as a person, which would not happen in reality. With Trainwreck there is a happy ending of sorts, but it's something that the characters have to work towards. The whole film is teeming with honesty and it makes it feel so much more mature, much like some of Woody Allen's earlier work in which we see actual breaks from the comedy that allow melancholia to seep through the cracks. There are moments of this film that actually reminded me of one of the famous quotes from Annie Hall in which the two main characters come to the mutual decision that their relationship is over, and the character of Alvy remarks "a relationship is like a shark, it has to constantly move forwards or it dies. And I think what we've got on our hands is a dead shark" which is such a mature thing for someone to say, to actually admit that their relationship is no longer healthy and to set about moving forwards. That is very much the tone that is present throughout the last act of Trainwreck as we see mature adults taking matters into their own hands and changing something they are not happy with, which was so refreshing to see.

It's strange, because I know I really enjoyed this film, and yet the melancholic elements that were relatable didn't ruin my experience or make me think any less of it. In all honesty I think it made the film more special to me, because at once it managed to speak directly to me as someone in a bad and similar place, and to cheer me up and lift my spirits. It was difficult to see a young man being far too magnanimous for his own good and for his feelings to get trampled on, but the film also brings a flicker of hope. The focus is not solely on dysfunctional relationships and people that make those around them miserable, it's far more focused on moving forwards as a person, focusing on yourself and doing what makes you happy. It wasn't quite as optimistic as films like Silver Linings Playbook or Little Miss Sunshine, but it was enough to make me think "yeah fuck it, it's not all bad news. Live for tomorrow and all that bollocks." And I know some people will be questioning my judgement of this film based on the timing, but I have watched it several times since and my opinion has only been enhanced.

I suppose I can summarise my argument by repeating what I said at the very beginning, I feel as though I owe Amy Schumer an apology. I sat down to watch Trainwreck with a horrible predisposition, and actually found it to be an entertaining and often emotional experience. It was not of the same low substance, lowest common denominator nonsense that largely constitutes modern comedy, but was instead the epitome of the diamond in the rough, a film that truly stands out in an otherwise bleak genre. There is one moment in particular that acts as something of a metaphor which shows this film's place in cinema, and it's a simple moment in which two of the characters sit on a famous bench with a view of the Brooklyn Bridge. While it may not mean an awful lot to many, for me it shows a changing of times, because this shot is meant to pay homage to films such as Manhattan, showing that while once New York was the territory of comedic writers such as Woody Allen, it now belongs to new writers such as Amy Schumer.

This is the time of new writers, and it is films such as Trainwreck that will stand the test of time.