Bridesmaids

Annie is a single woman in her mid 30's living in Milwaukee living with a weird Englishman and his weirder sister having failed with her bakery business and losing her boyfriend and all her savings. Life isn't going well. And now, her best friend Lillian is getting married and has asked Annie to be her maid of honour. Soon, Annie gets to meet Lillian's wedding party, which includes the ultra-competitive Helen. Can she balance her responsibilities to Lillian, her rivalry with Helen, her non-relationship with fuck buddy Ted and her blossoming relationship with policeman Nathan?

For years and years now, Kristen Wiig has been one of, if not THE, best things about Saturday Night Live. It's nowhere near its glory days, but Wiig's versatility, writing skills and numerous characters have kept the show fresh. Recently, she's begun to make the leap from small screen to big screen. After popping up in cameos in various Judd Apatow films and taking a few voice roles in a few animated films, her first starring role came in SNL film MacGruber last year, then she appeared again earlier this year in Paul. Now, she's back, having co-written and starred here in Bridesmaids. So can she carry a film? Do her talents translate to the big screen. You're damn right they do. They do in a big way.

This, for all intents and purposes, has 'chick flick' written all over it. Group of women preparing for a wedding. Laughs ensue. Well, frankly, this is a chick flick with balls. It crosses the gender divide without looking back, not because the humour is aimed specifically at one gender or the other, but because the humour in the film is actually funny. It doesn't matter if you're a man or a woman, this is a damn funny film, and there's something for everyone. There's the Office-style cringe-worthy humour. There's the 30 Rock-style silly humour. There's the Arrested Development-style clever humour. There's even the South Park-style toilet humour. This film literally covers all bases in order to try and illicit as many laughs from the audience as possible at it works. There's a coherent, well thought out plot keeping everything together as well, and the various situations the wedding party find themselves stay true to life and never get truly ridiculous. It all just fits together and works.

Of course, this is all down to Wiig. With co-writer Annie Mumolo, she's written a film which could, and if there's any justice should, launch her into leading lady status. Her acting is bang on as well, as you'd expect from someone who does an hour and a half of live sketch television every Saturday night. Therefore, the same level of performance is given by Maya Rudolph, a fellow SNL alumnus, who plays Lilian. Rose Byrne's pulls off the upper class bitch Helen with joy, you can see how much she's enjoying her role as the scheming, conniving rival with every scene she's in. However, one of the understated things about this film is the performance of Melissa McCarthy. Her role as the toyboyish yet raunchy Megan is brilliant, was well written for McCarthy and she plays it through the film straight as an arrow and has what are probably the two best and funniest lines in the film. These four do, unfortunately, leave the other two members of the wedding party, Wendi McLendon-Covey and Ellie Kemper, in the dark. Chris O'Dowd makes a good turn as the charming police officer trying to woo Annie, but he's outshone by an uncredited Jon Hamm as Annie's fuck buddy Ted. You know this film is well written when it manages to turn Jon Hamm into an absolute dick within the first minute. You can tell he enjoys being the chauvinistic bastard for a change as well.

I will say that there are a lot more laughs in the first hour and a half than there are in the last half an hour, I don't remember laughing that much during the third act as things turn rather serious and far less jovial, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd say that shows Judd Apatow's influence, as he was on board as a producer. He probably pushed for a more serious third act similar to those seen in The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up and Funny People. Not to say there are no jokes, it just eases up on the gas pedal a little. Plus, there is the underlying story throughout of people growing up and moving on from past friendships. Her friendship with Annie is Lillian's last and only link to her old life, and it's sad to see how she's begun to move on whilst Annie either can't or won't. It's really sharply observed and well played out on screen.

Overall, this is a really funny, really heartfelt comedy that is anything but a chick flick, despite the decidedly oestrogen-filled premise and cast. Kristen Wiig has proven her comedy skills once and for all on a major stage, and the door is now open for her to move on to bigger things. Melissa McCarthy also has an opportunity after this to become a huge star, though her sitcom may put the kibosh on that. This goes from witty to silly to gross-out back to witty throughout, it really strives to make as many people laugh as often as possible, and for me at least, it more than achieved its aims. Definitely the best comedy of the year so far by a long, long way. Considering this is two hours as well, it packs the laughs in far more than, say, the two hour Dinner for Schmucks. Yes, I will keep coming back to it.

Rating: ****

Green Lantern

Millions of years ago, the Guardians of the Universe harnessed the green energy of willpower to create the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force with one Lantern assigned to all 3600 sectors of the Universe. In the modern day, when Abin Sur, defender of Sector 2814 is mortally wounded, he crash lands on the nearest inhabited planet and sends his power ring to find his replacement. The ring chooses Hal Jordan, a brash and cocky fighter pilot, who becomes the newest Green Lantern. After being brought to the Lanterns' home planet of Oa, he quickly learns his new job comes with mighty power and even mightier responsibility...

We've seen the big heroes on the big screen, now it's time for the little guys to shine. I say little guys, they're still pretty big. Not Superman or Batman big, but they have their own fan base who have been eager to see them in their own feature film. Marvel presented Thor back in April to us, although that was a creation of necessity rather than choice what with the Avengers film coming up next year. DC now give a chance to one of their lower-tier heroes with the Green Lantern, probably the biggest hero yet to receive his own film. Well, now he's got one, and quite frankly, the general consensus has been that maybe he should have stuck to the comic books. Well, don't listen to Rotten Tomatoes all the time, kids, because frankly, I rather enjoyed it!

I will preface this by saying I'm a Green Lantern fan. Going into the film I knew the back story, I knew the characters, I knew what I wanted to see. In all fairness to its detractors, I can understand where the hate and bile is coming from. It really whistles through the history of the Lanterns and Oa and Parallax, the overriding evil entity, and it's a lot to squeeze into a two hour film. There's also the complaint that this is essentially a faux film, roughly 60% of it has been digitally animated. There's also the complaint that the film relies to heavily on the love story between Hal Jordan and Carol Ferris. Well, yes, it is a lot of history to get through, and considering the epic scale of the Lantern Corps history, it gets through it at a steady pace and never really patronises the audience, it merely offers a sound explanation. Also, yes, a lot of it is CGI and effects heavy, but looking back, that really was the only way they could have done it. Creating the planet Oa, creating the alien-looking Lantern Corps, creating Parallax (who isn't a person anymore, he's an ENTITY, an ESSENCE), doing flight, creating all the things Hal can imagine and summon using the ring, even the suit and mask which are technically aren't items of clothing but are parts of him to hide his identity. All of that was meant to be done with props and costumes and sets? The scale would have been immeasurable and unobtainable. Finally, yes, it does focus on the Jordan/Ferris story, much in the same way Batman focuses on the Wayne/Dawes story and Superman focuses on the Kent/Lane story - Jordan needed a damsel in distress to save. Shut the hell up, haters. Rant over.

That's not to say this is the best superhero film ever, not by a long way, but it's entertaining and has plenty of action, and that's exactly what you want/need from a summer superhero blockbuster film. Ryan Reynolds is a perfectly fine Hal Jordan, and adds his Reynolds trademark low-talking sarcasm, and it's fine. Blake Lively is also perfectly fine, if a little wooden at times, as Carol Ferris. However, Peter Sarsgaard is fantastic as Dr Hector Hammond, the film's villain who gets infected with Parallax's yellow fear-driven DNA, and becomes a swollen headed megalomaniac, he really delights in his role and you can see it on screen. Tim Robbins is in this, weirdly, and just isn't good here. This ain't no Shawshank level of performance. Mark Strong does well as Sinestro as well, straightly playing a red guy with a pencil moustache.

The thing which really brings this film down is, at times, it does get a bit boring when the pace gets slowed right down. But it doesn't last long, as it whistles through the plot, given that there's so much to get through in two hours. Another point here, it doesn't feel like it's two hours either, which is always a good sign. The film does get itself in a bit of a mess sometimes because there is SO much history to explain for all those non-geeks who don't know the character, and I feel the blame for that can be placed on the fact that this was written by 4 writers throwing ideas around left, right and centre. Too many cooks. Don't put the blame on Martin Campbell, haters. Just because you were expecting another Goldeneye/Casino Royale. It was never going to be that kind of film, never, and when your too-high expectations weren't met, you all laid into him. He did nothing wrong here, he did exactly what was asked of him, doing what he could with the material he was given.

Overall, Green Lantern will obviously disappoint people, but if you don't think about it too much, it's not that bad. It's not great, but it's not that bad. A bit of prior knowledge about the man and the Corps will help you to not drown in all the information thrown into this, but no matter if you do go in blind. Also, I like how DC have stolen Marvel's trick of including a small post-credits sequence, so don't leave straight away! Proper critics may have panned it, but I've yet to talk to one person who's seen it and absolutely hated it, it's just silly entertaining superhero fodder. I liked it more than X-Men, but then maybe it's just me. Not too shabby for a man who can be defeated by the colour yellow.

Rating: ***

X-Men: First Class

In 1962, as the world is gripped by the Cold War, Erik Lensherr is hunting down the man who killed his mother and manipulated his magnetic powers. Meanwhile, Charles Xavier, a professor in genetic and mutation, as well as being a telepath himself, is hired by the CIA to help find and stop the very same man: Sebastian Shaw aka Dr. Schmidt. As Charles begins looking for fellow mutants to teach them how to control their abilities and to help stop Shaw, Xavier and Lensherr cross paths and join together as they fight to stop Shaw from initiating the Cuban Missile Crisis, plunging the world into nuclear war...

Since superhero films are a dime a dozen these days, the next logical step towards is the superhero reboot. Batman is actually coming near the end of its reboot cycle, Spider-Man gets the reboot treatment next year along with Superman, and now the film series which launched the new wave of genre films gets rebooted with X-Men: First Class, adapted from the comic series of the same name, detailing the origins of the X-Men and the Brotherhood of Mutants. In recent weeks, this film has been praised and is among the most well-reviewed films of 2011 so far. So what did this young, semi-comic book geek make of it? Well, the original trilogy set the bar high immediately for any superhero films that might proceed, and while this is a really original take on the genre and the material, I was less impressed than everyone else seems to be.

All in all, the film just seems a bit rushed and, after a small bit of research, it turns out it was. The aim for this film was to steer clear of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which this film undeniably shares a lineage with, and to attempt to recapture the tone of Bryan Singer's X-Men and X2. It does this, but it just falls a bit flat, and for the life of me I'm not entirely sure why. There's lots of action, it's a lot smarter and braver than the last couple of X-Men films and has a very Mad Men-esque feel, something furthered by the casting of January Jones as Emma Frost, but it feels like a film which has been pieced together from various sources which, after some more research, turns out it was. Again. This script was an amalgamation of the comic book series and a planned X-Men Origins: Magneto film which is clear due to the amount of screen time Magneto gets above anyone else here. The film seems at pains to homage James Bond and Mad Men and X-Men and even Star Trek with its new, younger cast and nothing really seems to fit cohesively.

That's not to say the casting isn't top notch... at times. James McAvoy makes a really good Professor X, plays him exactly like a young Patrick Stewart. Michael Fassbender also is a commanding screen presence as a young Magneto, a troubled man out for vengeance. Jennifer Lawrence gets a huge amount of screen time as the young Mystique happily, but she doesn't command the same kind of presence her co-stars do. On the other hand, Kevin Bacon plays the bad guy, Sebastian Shaw, fairly well, but there's a constant niggling doubt as to why exactly this important role was given to Kevin Bacon. Really? Kevin Bacon? The Footloose guy? He's done nothing of real significance in years, so why is he here? Also, as I mentioned earlier, January Jones turns up as Emma Frost and to be perfectly honest, I don't like her as an actress, I think she's wooden, I think she's the worst thing about the exquisite Mad Men and she's one of the worst things about this.

What I didn't like about First Class was the number of smarmy, self-knowing, post-modern in-jokes. First Class makes a number of jokes regarding the original X-Men trilogy, as it is perfectly allowed to do being set before those films events, but it just seems out of place and only served to make me groan to be perfectly honest. There's two jokes about Xavier and his current full head of hair. Two. That's two too many. There's also two cameos, one of which doesn't make a whole lot of sense in regards to the film featuring the X-Men as they were when they were younger, and the other having absolutely no purpose whatsoever other than to fill time and to let the scriptwriter *cough* Jane Goldman *cough* feel smug. What also annoys me is when superheroes cross over into real life events and provide an alternate history. Maybe this is just me being overly critical now, but the X-Men solving the Cuban Missile Crisis? I don't like it, stick to beating up bad guys on your own plane of existence, don't mess with history.

Overall, the film looks very stylish but there's too many early cuts at the ends of scenes, indicative to a rushed shooting schedule with no time for re-shoots, and it just pulls down the quality and enjoyment of the film, for me anyway. The casting's hit or miss, the storyline starts off with good intentions but then spirals into ludicracy before remembering what it set out to do near the end, and half the dialogue seem forced because it can't create its own path, this film's events need to directly lead to whatever happened in the original trilogy or else people will start getting angry. I will say this for it though: It has the best use of the word 'fuck' I've heard so far this year.

Rating: **1/2

The Hangover Part II

The wolfpack is back. Two years after their forgotten night in Las Vegas, Stu, Phil, Doug and Alan make their way to Thailand for Stu's upcoming wedding to his fiancée Lauren. Inevitably, what starts out as a quiet toast to the upcoming nuptials turns into a horrendous night for the boys as they end up in Bangkok with no clue what happened or how they got there. However, this time it isn't Doug they've lost, it's Lauren's little brother, child prodigy Teddy. They've got two days to find him amidst the chaos of Bangkok and get back to Stu's wedding. Can they find him before the city takes him?

I have news for you. The Hangover wasn't THAT good. Everyone seems to rave about how funny it was and how original and refreshing it was and how it was the highest earning R-rated comedy of all time. I'm sorry, but for me, it was only alright. It was funny, I'll grant you that, but it wasn't the funniest thing ever, not by a long shot. I dare say I got more laughs from I Love You, Man, released a few months earlier. Inevitably though, we have the sequel now, or rather Part II as it's being billed. So is this any better? Is this one of those rare sequels which is better than its predecessor? No. In fact, in their efforts to try and out-do Part I, they've just ended up making the same film. But in Bangkok.

Believe me, this is The Hangover Part I as set in Bangkok. The Hangover Part I rested on two things: Firstly, it relied on its setting. Las Vegas, Sin City, 'what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas', all of that. The perfect place to have an apocalyptically bad night. Secondly, it relied on Zach Galifinakis and his character being an idiot, linking together the sheer amount of stupidity the boys got up to during their night. Well, The Hangover Part II simply moves the action from Las Vegas to Bangkok without really changing any of the jokes, aside from including a few stereotypes involving ladyboys, drugs and monks. Also, Zach Galifinakis's character is exactly the same and the film relies even more heavily on him this time around as the catalyst for the events before and after the actual hangover. It's the same damn film but just a bit louder and with a few more fucks. In my book, that's just lazy, shoddy film making and more than anything, The Hangover Part II just made me angry.

Zach Galifinakis has this on-stage persona of an idiot who comes out with various non sequiturs at the most inappropriate times. This persona translates directly onto the screen, and Zach ends up doing his usual schtick for an hour and a half, and to be completely honest, I didn't laugh much at it the first time round and I definitely didn't laugh at it the second time round. Bradley Cooper doesn't really act in this, his job is to stand around, shout, swear and look handsome while looking hungover. The unsung hero is Ed Helms, who plays Stu. He's probably the funniest character in these films because of all the misfortunes that befall him. Helms does well when the focus is so clearly placed upon Galifinakis, and by the end he gets the screen time and recognition he deserves. Which brings me to Dr Ken AKA Ken Jeong AKA Leslie Chow. I hate this guy. He's not funny at all, I don't understand his appeal and he's absolutely fucking appalling in this. Again. He has a bigger part in this though, which ruined my viewing of the film. I can't really say much more without spoilers, but the film falls down majorly in the second half because of who appears or reappears.

There are, as expected, a bunch of cameos in this (No Liam Neeson though, oooooh....) and the joke isn't funny anymore. There's even a cameo at the end which is so unsurprising and unoriginal that it won't make you laugh, it'll just make you moan and despair as to why the writers and Tod Philips the director thought it would be funny. It's just so painfully clear that this wasn't done out of love and passion for the project, it wasn't done because they felt they till had a story to tell. This film exists purely for the money. It's arguable any film exists for the money, but this one is just so damn lazy, it has 'paycheck' written all over it. The funniest thing about this film was, much like Part I, the credits, which has a photo album of the night before. That actually made me laugh, whereas there were only two or three times throughout the entire film. For a supposed comedy, that's appalling.

Overall, I understand that people will go out and watch this film and find it funny, find it hilarious. My experience of this film though was ruined as soon as I realised that the film had one joke in it and it was the same one they told in the first film: They can't remember what they did last night. It's unoriginal, it's more crass, it's more offensive, it's more extreme, it's louder, it's more purile and more trashy than the original. The only good thing I can think to say about it is that it was slightly better than Dinner for Schmucks. Awful.

Rating: *1/2

Thor

Thor, son of Odin, prepares to ascend to the throne of Asgard from his father, above his jealous brother Loki. However, after an attempted invasion by Frost Giants, Thor travels to Jotunheim to even the score, against his father's wishes. Odin, as to punish his son for his insolence and stupidity in bringing war to Asgard, strips Thor of his powers, banishes him to Earth and places a curse of his hammer so that it may only be wielded by those who are worthy. Upon his arrival on Earth, he meets Jane Foster and her team of scientists, who attempt to find out where he came from. However, as Odin falls into 'Odinsleep', Loki seizes the throne and begins to plot Thor's demise. Can Thor reclaim his powers and return to Asgard to stop his brother's evil plot?

With every passing year, the likelihood of the next big cinema release being a superhero film becomes increasingly likely. It all started with X-Men back in 2000, and as that franchise took off, more and more characters in the Marvel and DC Universes were optioned and turned into potential franchises. There's been the good (The Dark Knight, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man), the bad (Spider-Man 3, Hulk, Elektra) and the downright ugly (Daredevil, Fantastic Four, The Incredible Hulk). Finally, here in 2011, Thor is given his chance to shine as we come towards the Avengers film everyone's been waiting for next year. So what exactly can Thor offer that we haven't seen before a hundered times before? Well, how about something a little Shakespearian?

Yes. A Shakespearian superhero film. Well, it might not have been in anyone else's hands, but Kenneth Branagh brings all the experience of making Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing and various other big screen adaptations of the bard's work into a Marvel franchise film, and for whatever reason, it fits in perfectly with the scenes set in Asgard. The Norse gods' dialogue and behaviourisms, the grandiose setting... It works! Then, when Thor comes to Earth and the action happens there between the fish-out-of-water Norse god and the exasperated human scientists, the dialogue becomes far more down to Earth (pun intended) and is even funny at times. The contrast between the two realms is very well observed and differentiated, and Branagh's done very well. For the most part. What annoyed me about this film (though it didn't ruin my viewing experience) is Branagh's insistence on differentiating between the two realms by having rather fine classical camera set-ups and shots while on Asgard, but using an absolute f*** load of Dutch tilts. I'm guessing it's done to make the shots on Earth look more like a comic book since there's nothing particularly interesting about the backdrop in comparison to Asgard, but the film overkills on the Dutch tilts and comes dangerously close to resembling Battlefield Earth. Close, but not quite: Thor, at least, has a coherent plot and dialogue.

As far as the acting performances go, Chris Hemsworth never really needed to be a great deliverer of dialogue to play Thor, he just needed to be hench. And he is, he looks like a Norse god with the long blonde hair and the height and the henchness, so that's him pretty much covered. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is convincingly evil enough to be Thor's polar opposite, it's no Heath Ledger Joker villain, but the role didn't demand something like that, it needed subtlety and a quiet, resentful evil and it comes across well on screen. Anthony Hopkins is a legend who doesn't need a hack like me praising or criticising him, so I'll just say he was good. Natalie Portman doesn't put in an Oscar-worthy performance but plays the exasperated scientist well enough to carry the film through to its conclusion. Stellan Skarsgård is a pretty cool piece of casting for Portman's colleague, and does his thing pretty well, plus it's nice to see Kat Dennings in a major motion picture after she seemed to disappear after Nick and Norah. Also, Edris Elba is a boss, absolutely ice cool and has a hell of an on-screen presence.

I'd like to be able to call this Marvel's Superman: A man born with these godlike powers, sent to Earth by his family, able to fly. It's not Superman though. Nowhere near. Thor is a nice enough superhero film ,but it seems like the only reason they've made this film is so that he can make his appearance in the Avengers film. That's probably also the reason why Jeremy Renner shows up in a Clint Barton AKA Hawkeye cameo, complete with crossbow. It's also the reason why, in the no-longer-a-surprise Marvel standard post-credits scene, Samuel L. Jackson AKA Nick Fury turns up to talk to Stellan Skarsgård (plus Loki) in something which seems more like a set-up to a Thor sequel rather than a link to another upcoming Marvel film franchise (ala how Iron Man 2's post-credit set-up Thor). It's weird but sometimes change is good. Other than that, the origin story is rushed through and the film jumps straight into its main plot, which is refreshingly different. Instead of Thor becoming Thor, Thor is immediately Thor and jumps into his battle with Loki over the 100 minutes. I say thank god that despite seeming destined to be 'just another comic book adaptation', this was actually different, especially different for a Marvel film.

In conclusion, Thor is nicely done and refreshingly different and may just have reinvigorated my enthusiasm for the genre after ploughing through so many run-of-the-mill superhero films in the last couple of years. It looks goddamn beautiful, especially the scenes in Asgard which have wonderfully created. If only Branagh could have laid off the Dutch tilts, it would have been a really easy film to watch, but then maybe I'm over-analysing things. It sets up the Thor character nicely for the Avengers film and leaves the door wide, wide open for a potential sequel. It's not fantastic, but it's nicely done and it impressed me. I feel bad for The Green Lantern now, it doesn't look too good anyway but now it has to follow this? Uh-oh.

Rating: ***1/2

Source Code

Captain Colter Stevens finds himself assuming the identity of a school teacher on a train journey which is 8 minutes away from being blown up by a terrorist. As it turns out, Stevens is part of the Source Code, a military project which sends recruits into the last 8 minutes of a deceased persons life for a specific mission. His mission? To find the bomb on the train and to find the bomber, somewhere onboard the train, in order to prevent a further attack on downtown Chicago? Can Colter Stevens uncover the bomber, or will he be distracted by a potential love interest or his own back story?

Duncan Jones aka Zowie Bowie, son of David Bowie, declared himself in a grand stage by giving us Moon 2 years ago, an intriguing sci-fi thriller, which said that science fiction had a future beyond alien invasion films. Unfortunately, the teaser trailer and the poster seemed to peg this latest offering as nothing more than the latest 'Inception meets...' film, containing dream levels and some kind of sub-reality level which will pigeon hole it as merely another rushed out Inception capitalising film. So has Source Code surpassed its assumptions and created its own audience? Well, considering this came out the same week as Sucker Punch (Inception meets Music Videos), this film clearly makes a name for itself by separating itself from the crowd by being delightfully unique and really solidifies the reputation of its emerging director.

Don't get me wrong, on a basic level, Source Code is Inception meets Groundhog Day, as Colter Stevens is repeatedly sent back inside the Source Code to relive the same 8 minutes over and over again but with different consequences each time as a result of the 'independent factor' with Stevens being able to break continuity and do whatever he wants/needs to do in the 8 minutes. However, it surpasses that typecasting by becoming a genuinely intriguing mystery/thriller with an added love story. After Sucker Punch, I'm so glad to say there's another film that's gotten the 'dream levels' thing right and has done it well enough to separate itself from Inception and really make a name for itself, even though no-one will see this, choosing in favour to see the film with girls running around in kinky uniforms. For shame, UK viewing audience, for shame...

What makes this film great is the mystery, or rather mysteries, that run through it without confusing the audience: Who is the bomber? What is the Source Code? Where did Colter Stevens come from? Can Stevens change the present/future? It actually keeps you guessing and intrigued throughout its brief 90 minute run time. I mean, this could have run longer and played out its various mysteries a bit longer, but it completely fits into this 90 minute slot, it doesn't drag at all and it comes out better for it. It remains a compelling hour and a half of blink-and-you'll-miss-it action which you can't afford to take your eyes off of in fear of missing some sort of key or hint towards solving one of the films various questions it asks of its audience.

Jake Gyllenhaal is expected to carry the film, and does so extremely well, switching from confusion inside the Source Code to... Well, confusion outside the Source Code in the real world as well, but he does well and, after Love and Other Drugs and Prince of Persia, this serves as a welcome return to form. As far as the female leads go, Michelle Monaghan does well as the love interest in the severely restricted role she's given, but it's Vera Farmiga (of Up in the Air fame) who really makes the most of the absolutely rigidly ruled role she's given by giving a mere bit-part real character and emotion. Go, Vera!

Overall, I'd highly recommend this, definitely above Sucker Punch and a lot of the films currently on offer at the UK box office. It's pretty inventive given the presumptively-repetitive storyline, and gets the most out of it that it can without becoming slow and boring. Expect this to be Duncan Jones's last semi-independent sci-fi flick, he's bound to be snapped up by a Hollywood studio to lead some sort of major franchise after this, so make the most of the mind-bending narrative he offers up here, because my God it's worth the effort you'll be forced to invest in this.

Rating: ****

Sucker Punch

Baby Doll is a young girl wrongly sent to a mental asylum by her abusive stepfather and scheduled for a lobotomy in 5 days time to stop her revealing the truth about her stepfather. As she awaits her fate, she escapes into a dream world where she dreams she’s a dancer trapped in a mob-run brothel and meets Amber, Blondie, Rocket and her older sister Sweet Pea. Together, they plan to escape both the imagined brothel and the real asylum by gathering a map, fire, a knife, a key a fifth item to be revealed...

Zack Snyder has definitely developed a look: Highly stylised, comic book inspired visuals with plenty of sweeping camera movements and slow motion shots. So far it’s worked well for him; his remake of Dawn of the Dead and his two graphic novel adaptations (300 and Watchmen) went down well with critics and audiences (even his animated owl movie went down OK last year), and now we have Sucker Punch which represents Snyder’s first film based on an original story. So can Zach Snyder, Superman’s director-to-be, write a film as good as he can film it? Based on this evidence, he should probably stick to letting other people come up with the story.

Sucker Punch look stunning, visually it’s exactly what you’d expect from a Snyder film. Story wise though, it’s terrible, it really is. It saddens me to say it too, because it has all the elements of a great story: Inception-like dream levels and complexity, a group of hotties kicking ass and taking names, Alice in Wonderland-like fantasies, a group of hotties, 300-meets-Watchmen-like fight scenes... Did I mention the hotties? It takes all of those elements and combined them to create something which is absolutely sinfully boring. It’s shocking that something so full of action and gorgeous women struggles to keep a viewer interested but unfortunately it really struggles, and the only way it manages to keep attention focused on itself is by being loud. Very loud.

I imagine that after Inception went down so damn well last summer, major studios started pushing forward any film with dream layers in it. In Sucker Punch, we’re treated to three levels: You have your real world where Baby Doll is trapped in the asylum, the first dream layer where Baby Doll hatches the escape plan with her cohorts, and when the girls are trying to acquire one of the items needed to escape, we enter the second dream layer (the dream within a dream) where the girls acquire the items through a variety of different scenarios. This is where the fantastical becomes the maniacal. Steam powered Nazis! Robots! Dragons! They’re all here, and make absolutely no sense being in the movie. They’re nice sequences, and the fighting is all well choreographed and looks good, but it’s going to lose a large percentage of the viewing audience. Plus, because they enter this dream level to retrieve an item, it makes these segments seem like computer game levels embedded within the film, mini-quests on a variety of different maps with different bad guys. It worked in Scott Pilgrim because it was funny and appropriate, it doesn’t in this

As far as the acting goes, no-one’s particularly great, they all do their jobs with the fighting and the action and the looking sexy. They aren’t helped by some decidedly dodgy dialogue. Emily Browning (Baby Doll) carries the film well enough with plenty of loving/pervy looks at her face and other parts and only Abby Cornish kind of half stands out as the older sister who’s against the escape plan then comes on board, really clichéd stuff here. There’s also a really quite random cameo in this. I won’t ruin it, because as far as I know, his name hasn’t/doesn’t crop up in any of the adverts or promo material, but I’ll say it was lovely to see him even in a minor role, but then sad to see his small part underwritten. He has 2, maybe 3 lines and they’re still corny. Sad.

Overall, Snyder has created a 14 year old boy’s wet dream: Scantily clad women, gun fights, sword fights, steam powered Nazis, dragons, robots, bombs, everything a teenage boy would need to happily satisfy him and keep him locked in his bedroom for weeks. The soundtrack combined with the flashy visuals makes this seem like a 100 minute music video, and thus it holds no real substance: Definitely a choice of style over substance. As far as reports that Snyder may be taken off the Superman franchise because of this, they’re rubbish: Sucker Punch isn’t truly terrible, and he isn’t writing Superman, he’ll make it look flashy with Nolan taking care of the words and the story. I was so looking forward to this, and it saddens me to say this film truly lived up to its name: This movie was a real Sucker Punch.

Rating: **