Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Premise

Eight years have passed since The Joker spread anarchy and terror across Gotham. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has retired from being Batman, living as a hermit in his mansion, nearly crippled from his days as a crime-fighter. The city is free of organised crime thanks to the "Dent Act", named after Harvey Dent/Two-Face, the deceased District Attorney. Batman is seen as a murderous vigilante by the people of the city, a lie which is begrudgingly kept alive by Police Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman). Whilst Bruce is helped by his faithful butler, Alfred (Michael Caine), his business is undergoing changes thanks to mysterious entrepreneur, Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard). However, after an encounter with a thief named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and hearing of the arrival of the beast-like mercenary, Bane (Tom Hardy), in Gotham City, Bruce once again dons the cape and cowl to become the hero Gotham both needs and deserves. With the help of young beat cop, John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) and the trustworthy President of Wayne Enterprises, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), can Batman bring an end to Bane's destructive plans?

The Good

...

Wow

Maybe I should actually write something here...

....

Wow

Okay, so it's good. Really good. Like, ridiculously good. Let's not beat around the bush. Everyone wondered which would be better, The Dark Knight Rises or The Avengers. I say this with no reservations (and I'm not being biased, read my Avengers review); This film blows every other film of 2012 out of the water. We've got a strong storyline, once again written by Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, with Jonathan Nolan working with his brother on the screenplay, giving us some extremely memorable lines (some that, in my opinion, rival some of Jokers dialogue in The Dark Knight). The cast is fantastic, as usual. I've never really had a problem with Bale as Batman. The voice has always been a source of controversy between fans of the series. Personally, I find it appropriate. I understand why people dislike it, but take a look at this:

Really? The guy in the bat costume is out of his mind? Y'THINK?

In some comics and graphic novels, it's been described as a low growl, almost a whisper. Bale has utilized the growl and the bad Eastwood impersonation, and I, for one, think it works. One of my problems with the Burton/Schumacher series (other than, you know, all of the films existing) is that Batman always spoke with Bruce Wayne's voice. Sure, it was maybe a semi-tone lower or it was hushed, but there was no effort to disguise it. Wouldn't someone eventually think "This guy hanging me off this roof upside-down sure sounds like that famous billionaire I've seen on TV"? Anyway, we're off topic here!

Anne Hathaway and Tom Hardy are the two newcomers in costume, so let's talk about them for a while, before moving on to Joseph Gordon Levitt and Marion Cotillard. Remember when Heath Ledger was announced as The Joker? I do. Well, apparently none of the fucking idiots who argued against his casting learned their lesson when he did a spectacular job. So this time, they singled out Anne Hathaway. I've seen it all in the past year. That she's a talentless bitch, how did she become an actress, she's ugly, she's shit, she's generally a terrible person all round. I, of course, ignored this nonsense, because the internet is full of idiots (Just put that there for good measure). If anyone said to me now, after seeing this film, that Anne Hathaway was a terrible Catwoman, I would happily curb-stomp them until they saw sense. Her performance was better than any attempt at the character I have ever seen. This technically isn't difficult, since 1. Saying "purrrrrrfect" doesn't make a good Catwoman, 2. Being killed, then brought back to life by cats doesn't make a good Catwoman, and 3. Being Halle Berry doesn't make a good Catwoman. As such, it should be noted here that Miss Hathaway stole the show. Ironic, no? (She's a thief in the film....so...so she stole...AH, forget it!)

*Insert cat related pun here*

Now, Tom Hardy. He play's Bane, though honestly, you wouldn't know by watching the film that it was Tom Hardy. Yeah, he's behind a mask, but so are most actors in this genre of film. What is amazing, though, is that Hardy is able to act purely by showing emotion through his eyes. I know this sounds simple, but it's really a sight to behold. I doubt many actors could do it as well as he did. Hardy disappears into this role, just as scarily as Heath did with The Joker. However, this is the only similarity between the two characters. Whilst Joker gave us anarchy and destruction worsened by his unpredictable nature, Bane gives us cold, calculated plans, backed up by brute force and fearsome power. This is the ultimate challenge for the Batman we've grown accustomed to for Nolan's last two films. When it comes down to it, Batman's foes have been schemers (even if Joker didn't want to admit it). They were good at throwing together a plan, and yet they were equally good at taking a good right hook to the jaw. This is not the case for Bane. The mask he wears is constantly pumping anaesthetic gas into his system to hold back pain from an injury he received prior to the events of the film. Unfortunately, this means the guy could, hypothetically, take a bus to the face and still keep fighting. Assuming his face hasn't sort of caved in or anything. Fights between Bane and Batman are brutal, leaving me breathless both times I saw it.

Now the voice. Yes, yes, yes, there's been some complaining about the voice. Some say they can't hear it, some say they can hear it just fine. I fit into the latter group of people. His voice came through clear as day, having been enhanced in post-production. Amazingly, I have read a number of reviews complaining that due to the enhancement, his voice sounds out of place, which brings me to ask "WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?" I mean, come on, you can't hear him, so you complain. Then they fix it. Oh, it's too out of place now, so you complain!

...

Anyway, there is no problem with the voice. I understood everything, which is lucky really, since Bane has some of the best and most intimidating lines of the trilogy.

It's like Trading Places, but with less Eddie Murphy, and more death

Joseph Gordon Levitt, playing new cop on the block, John Blake, is a welcome new addition to the franchise. Blake has the idealism that Bruce had when he first put on his cape and growled "Rargh, I'm Batman" into his mirror. This is an important part of the characters story, particularly after Bane put his plan into effect. Marion Cotillard is another new addition to the series, as Miranda Tate, a board member at Wayne Enterprises. Her character is responsible for funding a (now defunct) Wayne Enterprises fusion reactor project, one which would create a clean, renewable energy source. For reasons unknown at the start of the film, Bruce has cancelled the project. Miranda becomes important to the business when Wayne is the victim of fraud and loses his position at the company, and becomes even MORE important later in the film, but I won't say why, even though anyone reading this is probably aware of what happens.

One picture. Both characters. Thanks internet!

Of course, we have our usual gang of father figures, such as Michael Caine playing Alfred Pennyworth, Bruce's butler, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, President of Wayne Enterprises and creator of all of Batman's wonderful toys and last, but not least, Gary Oldman as Commissioner James Gordon, the one man in Gotham who still doesn't know who Batman is. You can expect the usual from each of these characters as before. Alfred provides the heart, talking to Bruce about moving on from being Batman and living his life, Lucius offers tactical advice and offers business information and Gordon provides a much needed ally for Batman and a leader for the resistance against Bane. All three of them are brilliant as usual.

I had to make this one myself. Fuck you internet!

The Bad

Alright, I do have a couple of issues with what could have been a perfect end to the trilogy. The opening twenty or thirty minutes feels unnecessarily rushed. If Nolan is okay with giving us nearly three hours of film, he could spend more than half an hour on development. It's great beyond that point, but the audience is sort of thrown in the deep end. I managed to comprehend most of it as I'm familiar with the comics, the characters, so on, so forth. I do feel bad for anyone that's going in nearly blind, having only seen the Tim Burton/Joel Schumacher films and the first two Nolan films.

Pictured: A haunted AND cursed virus on humanity

Due to the rushed opening thirty minutes, characters like Miranda Tate have little to no purpose. Speaking of Miranda in particular, there's a scene where she and Bruce kiss and have sex after she comes to meet him at his home. If there had been some build up to this as a relationship, then I'd have no problem, but there was literally no build up. They meet once at a party, then once more at another location that contains a fucking huge spoiler, so I won't say anything about it. That's two meetings. TWO. It's not like they were drunk and 16 years old!

I'd also like to throw in that I loathe that there is no mention whatsoever of The Joker. None. I mean, okay, I don't want a cameo, but what's so wrong about, say, having a scene where Bane has the option to release him upon Gotham and declines, knowing what he's capable of. Damn it Nolan! DAMN IT!

The Ugly

I've dug myself a hole here, since there's not really any ugliness about this film, be it a character or story element. So I'm shit out of luck here.

For those who skipped to the end...

This is a brilliant film let down by what is obviously a constricted running time, which is rather impressive, considering it's two hours and forty five minutes long! Batman is good, Bane is brilliant, Catwoman steals it and shit goes down in Gotham as usual.

9.8/10

Review: Men In Black 3

Premise

In standard Buddy Cop movie fashion, after fourteen years of working together, J (Will Smith) and K (Tommy Lee Jones) are, for want of a better phrase, in a rut. K is grumpy(er) and J is annoying(er). All of this changes, of course, when alien super-criminal, Boris The Animal (Jemaine Clement), escapes from his prison on the moon, seeking revenge on K for shooting off his left arm. To carry out his revenge, Boris travels back to before this event took place and kills K, erasing him from the timeline we all know and put up with. J, for reasons that aren't clear to begin with, is the only person who remembers the truth, and as such, must travel back in time to help young K (Josh Brolin) defeat two Boris The Animal's, in order to prevent an invasion in the present day by Boris' alien race of jerks.

Is that clear? I feel like it's not clear. Why are time travel movies so complicated to explain?

The Good

Let's be positive for a moment. To some extent, I did enjoy this film. Josh Brolin is pretty damn good as a younger version of K. The key element here is that it's believable. There are numerous films involving younger and older versions of characters and it always comes across as obvious and rather embarrassing. Thankfully, that's not the case with Men In Black 3. His performance is definitely the saving grace for this picture. I'm was also impressed by Jemaine Clements performance as Boris. Granted, it's not a memorable villain such as Edgar The Bug from the original film, but he plays it just right. A snarling beast with an almost distinguished English accent. It works nicely, giving the movie a villain that is both amusing and threatening at the same time.

Say what you will about Will Smith, but I just find him entertaining to watch. I'm not saying he adds anything new to this film that we haven't already seen, but it's hard to find him unlikeable as an actor and a character. Hell, he slapped a reporter last week and I still think he's great. When I slap reporters, I get arrested. In terms of his performance, it's plain old J from the first two films.

It should be noted, of course, that the visuals following J's time travel to 1969, are thoroughly pleasing. The MIB headquarters scene genuinely brought a smile to my face. Women walk around in short dresses (it's the 60's, no equality there I'm afraid), the aliens are all delightfully reminiscent of Star Trek creatures, there are people walking around in those daft spacesuits (you know, the ones with the fishbowl helmets?) and the typical 60's sci-fi interpretations of future or alien technology. This attention to detail is excellent, serving as a well-meaning nod to the era's obsession with aliens and space.

The Bad

The story. It's lackluster. It doesn't seem to have much flow to begin with, I'm afraid. Maybe time travel is your thing, that's cool, but thrown in with the mixed genre we have already (Buddy Cop movie meets Sci-fi Movie), it all feels a bit over-the-top and not in a good way. As I said before, I like Boris as a character, but as the villain of the piece, there was rarely any real threat. Sure, they talk about how he's travelled back in time to off a main character, but we barely see him. He pops up now and then to cause trouble, but there's not the same amount of screen time that Edgar, or even Selena from MIB2 had. As such, the character is under-used and never really becomes what, I assume, the director intended him to become.

Where the hell is Tommy Lee Jones? Seriously? I get that he's there because he's one of the main characters in the first two, but if you're going to give someone the "name-on-the-poster" treatment, at least have them in the film for more than ten minutes. Actually, on second thoughts, don't include him at all next time. It's a great character, and he's a great actor, but he just doesn't look like he wants to be there at all this time around. And no, it's not coming across like it's his character, it's coming across like he's having a miserable time on set, like he knows this is going to be panned by critics or something.

I also think the ending was overly schmaltzy, but hey, I'm not going to spoil it.

The Ugly

I'm putting in a vote; Jemaine Clement should look like this for Flight Of The Conchords

For those who skipped to the end...

It's an entertaining movie, with great performances from certain members of the cast, but it's unfortunately let down by a tediously messy story.

7/10

Review: Dark Shadows

Premise

Oh, Tim Burton. Johnny Depp. What did we do? Was it the Alice In Wonderland reviews? Is that why you hate humanity?

Okay, maybe I'm being too dramatic. Dark Shadows was in no way a "life-ruining" film. It was just terrible. So that's okay, right? Basically, Barnabas Collins (Depp) travels to the US with his family in 1760, who establishes Collinsport, a small fishing town in Maine, and Collinswood, their stately manor. Barnabas, after growing up as some kind of rich playboy, has an affair with one of the workers of the house, who falls in love with him. When he doesn't return her love and he falls in love with someone else, she goes a bit mental, kills his parents, makes his girlfriend jump off a cliff and turns him into a vampire (with MAGIC?). Understandably, he's pissed off. Oh, but she's not finished. Figuring that, hey, losing loved ones and becoming the undead isn't THAT bad, she leads the townsfolk to his home and has him buried in a coffin until 1972, when he escapes and seeks to rebuild his fortune with the help of his descendants, the Stoddard/Collins family.

The Good

The setting and visual design of this film are, admittedly, very nice. I think I've come across a lot of complaints about these two aspects, but I liked them. It fits the era that Burton's trying to emulate, and it gives Barnabas a number of misunderstandings that really stand out as the only amusing moments in this production. Even if they only give us cheap laughs, it's better than no laughs. I think Collinswood is a stunning creation. I have a certain love for gothic manors, it's a particular fascination of mine, so yeah, the house was a highlight for me, as was the grim atmosphere of the town. You hear Maine, you think Stephen King. Then you shake that thought from your mind, and for me personally, I think of Maine as quaint little towns, with neatly presented building exteriors. There was just something so interestingly...off about Collinswood, like the sky was destined to always be grey and cloudy. It was nice.

Okay, so, yeah, Johnny Depp is good in this. I'll admit that much. Barnabas is a rather amusing character and the way in which he interacts with each member of the family is entertaining, although some are rather confusing (why does he have a conversation about marriage and birthing hips with Carolyn Stoddard, who is played by 15 year old, Chloe Moretz? What's going on there, Burton?). Still, there are plenty of moments where Depp does what he does best. Act weirdly and talk in a funny British accent (because, yeah, we all talk like we've got a stick up our backsides).

Same picture used earlier in the blog. That's called recycling, kids.

I suppose the same can be said about some of the other actors. Eva Green is interesting as Angelique, though her "I love you, but fuck that, I'll ruin your life and your family's lives" schtick gets a bit old after, oh, ten minutes. Michelle Pfieffer is...in it. Not much more I can say about that. Same can be said for Johnny Lee Miller, whilst Helena Bonham Carter is literally just showing up on the day of filming now and saying "Right, what's my line? Do it in an orange wig? Okay, let's shoot this fucker!" Chloe Moretz and Gulliver Mcgrath play the children's parts as you'd expect. She's a surly teenager, he's a bratty kid. Jackie Earle Haley is rather entertaining as the family's caretaker, but again, there's not much more to say about his character. I'll get to my point about this later.

The Bad

I had to start this new section now, just to get to Bella Heathcoate. I'm not sure what's going on with her character, but it's just meh. Just...just meh! Give me something to work with here, I mean, it's boring. She's not mysterious, even though her story calls for it. A well played mysterious character will make the audience think "Oh, I wonder what her story is." A badly played and poorly written mysterious character makes us think "They're going to explain whats up with her in an hour and a half and it won't be worth the wait" and it definitely isn't in this instance. As for what I was saying in the last section about there not being much point to Jackie Earle Haley's character, I'd like to extend that to all the characters that aren't played by Johnny Depp. Look Burton, if you're going to give us a film that we're told is centered around a family with secrets, make those secrets worth the running time. I won't spoil anything (watching the film will do that for you. BANG, in with a zinger!), but seriously, none of the characters interested me. At all. It was a shambles, a mess, a pointless endeavour of film-making, offering up a half-baked story, dull characters with no development and a waste of a good cast.

The Ugly

Pointless celebrity cameos are always ugly!

For those who skipped to the end...

This is a messy, pointless film which offers nothing substantial in the way of comedy or horror, which is rather unfortunate for a comedy horror film. The cast is underused and underdeveloped, with Johnny Depp taking center-stage on what is essentially the most pointless adaptation so far for 2012. Burton, take the hint, drop the adaptations and remakes and start doing some original work again.

2/10 (and that's being generous)

Preview: Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

After signing up for access to the pre-release Beta for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive a number of months ago, I recently received access to the online sequel to one of the most popular PC shooters in the past ten years, and I can happily tell you that it's been worth the wait.

I was an avid fan of Counter-Strike: Source. Whilst I didn't play it as much as other particular users (sorry that I don't know precise movement instructions or location codes for each map guys, I guess I'm a failure at life, right?), I enjoyed it enough to keep going back to it for seven years. It was immensely enjoyable, offering a number of features that I felt made it stand out from other shooters. Tactically positioning yourself whilst conversing with your team in order to gain the upper hand in a shoot-out or creating a significant distraction in order to let your team-mates rescue some hostages was deeply satisfying, and when I heard a sequel was on the way, I was extremely pleased.

The first thing that struck me about Global Offensive was definitely the graphics. I know, I know, graphics don't make a game, but HOLY SHIT, SHINY! I mean, the beta comes with classic maps, including CS_Office, which I played constantly when I first got Source, and to see the familiar environment with a completely update graphics engine is enough to set me on nostalgia overload. A big change (in my opinion) also comes in the form of the weapon selection menus. Rather than giving us the previously established rectangular windows, with weapon purchase buttons laid out in order of power and price, we are given a wheel of sub-categories, such as Pistols, Heavy, SMG and Rifle. Whilst it isn't a drastic difference, it was certainly noticeable.

As for the gameplay itself, it's....well....Counter-Strike. I can't really think of a better way to describe it. The controls are all the same as before, the actions you take are the same. You still save hostages or defuse/plant bombs or merely shoot the crap out of anyone that comes around the corner. This is definitely not a bad thing. People sometimes want change, but Global Offensive certainly seems to be following the opinion that "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". Sure, there are changes to certain things. The cross-hair is different (though, you can switch to classic in the options menu), the team scoreboard looks different, but all in all, this is familiar to anyone who has played the previous installment.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is expected for release during Summer 2012.

Review: Max Payne 3

Premise

Okay, bear with me here, because I played this over three days what with having other stuff going on. Right, there's Max, a disgruntled ex-cop who drinks heavily and takes his own body-weight in pills on a daily basis. He's contacted by a guy who was at cop school with him (it's like Hogwarts, but with less spells and more crime scene photos) called Raul Passos. Basically, Max is convinced by Passos to be work with him as a bodyguard for the Branco family, which consists of Rodrigo, his wife Fabiana and his brothers, Marcello and Victor. The game's story ranges from protecting the family from a gang of kidnappers, to uncovering certain conspiracies, which I won't reveal here.

The Good

With regards to the story, this is definitely a strong game. As usual with Rockstar, we're offered a mixture of dark comedy and harrowing drama. It's a rare occurrence for me personally to play through a video-game nowadays without skipping cut-scenes because they're slowing down the gameplay. Following Max after the events of Max Payne 2: The Fall Of Max Payne (2003) as he falls deeper and deeper into his drunken misery is extremely intriguing, and I certainly felt like I wanted to know more. I have to admit now that I haven't played the previous entries, but this game made me want to dig them out if possible and give them a go. I probably should if I'm going to retain any sort of credibility in terms of reviewing the third entry in the series.

My credibility aside, lets talk about gameplay for a second. Dear implausible deity, the words "satisfyingly superb" don't even come close to describing the shooting mechanics for Max Payne 3. I know that there might be some people who don't like Rockstar's typical aiming style, yet every aspect of it is improved tenfold by bullet time. Yes, bullet time, that one thing you know about in the Max Payne series that's not got anything to do with alcohol. Gone are the days of shooting people in the face at normal speed. To hell with every other action game, I can't play without the option to dive through the air in super slow motion, firing my gun repeatedly into the crotch of an unfortunate NPC.

The Bad

Character development, my favourite aspect of any piece of media, is certainly...there in this game. Thinking about it now, I'm not really that sure about it. I mean, yeah, I know who Max Payne is now, thanks to the character talking about his dead wife and daughter every five minutes, followed by a short whine about how he thinks he should be killed soon. However, everyone else is sort of just in the game for the sake of giving us supporting characters. They play their part, that's fine, but you don't find out much about them. The people you're meant to be fighting may as well be faceless. The big bad at the end of the game is a character that's barely featured. I seem to recall that he's in one cutscene. The same can be said for the people you're meant to be protecting. Whilst the story was compelling enough, at no point did I think to myself "I care about these characters and what happens to them." This is a real shame, since Rockstar usually offers quite a few likeable characters. To give an example, there's no character in Max Payne 3 that you warm to like, say, Little Jacob in GTA4.

The Ugly

Yeah, that's right, Two-Face is in this game.

For those who skipped to the end...

A superb and well-written game which offers us extremely entertaining gameplay with a fast-paced action heavy storyline is let down by poor character development.

As a final note, I should technically mention the multiplayer. I haven't ACTUALLY had a successful online game, as it keeps disconnecting me. I'm not sure if it's a problem with the servers, my wireless or simply that people don't want to play with me. I have played some multiplayer, emphasis on the word "some", as it lasted about three minutes and it consisted of me dying, a lot. Still, it was fun, give it whirl.

8/10

Review: The Avengers

I might as well start this reviewer nonsense with a bang, and what bigger bang is there than this years smash hit film, The Avengers.

I just made myself feel violently ill.

Wait, no, not that one. The good one.

Premise


Is there really any point in me writing out the premise? I mean, you've seen it, haven't you? You just have. It's a statistical likelihood that I'm not going to argue with. Oh, very well. Right, first things first, Loki, the villain of the film Thor (2011) is out for world domination. He has an army of alien beings called The Chitauri to do his bidding and he's not afraid to use them. Of course, Earth isn't just going to roll over, close its eyes and take this without a fight. Nick Fury decides to bring together a team of, lets call them, superheroes. We've got Iron Man, Thor, Black Widow, Captain America, Hulk and Hawkeye (everyone's favourite). They have to put aside their differences ("My suits better, it's got lights and everything!"-"No, my suits better, everyone likes it. Unless you're a communist!") to fight this extraterrestrial threat and form The Avengers.

The Good

Right off the bat, I'm going to make a strong statement. This film was superior....to The Dark Knight. (By the way, pun intended!)

Wait! Just! A! Minute!

Okay, sure, the story is action oriented. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but cinema history shows us that films that follow the formula of "Stuff blows up, aw hell naw, shit just got real" generally don't receive critical acclaim. This film already has. If it were any other film, I'd complain about the lack of character development, but fuck you very much, they've all already been established in other films. So yah boo to you, naysayers! As such, there's free reign for these characters to just get on with it, in a manner of speaking. Character development is important, but in a superhero movie, that usually comes with an origin story, and they're drawn out to the extreme (see Batman Begins). With The Avengers, if you have any sense, you'll walk into the cinema knowing who Iron Man is, knowing why Thor has a hammer, knowing what flavour ice cream Hulk likes best (psst, it's mint choc chip).

The beauty of this is, we get a rather entertaining story, where we already know the characters from their previous "adventures", and we're already aware of their particular traits. We know before the film even starts that Tony Stark and Steve Rogers are going to clash. One's a flag saluting, goody two-shoes patriot, the others Robert Downey Jr. It's bound to happen. The action's fantastic, the story is entertaining and the characters are all likeable. Even the villain. Loki is genuinely a fantastic part of this story, offering both humour and menace to the proceedings.

So, here's what I meant by my first statement. The Dark Knight is great. It really is. However, I stand by what I said about origins and how they can drag. Harvey Dents origin in The Dark Knight did drag. I spent most of the film waiting for The Joker to come back on screen. He brought the entertainment value. The Avengers rarely drags. I saw it again last week for what I THINK was the sixth time (I'm not sure), and yes, after six viewings, the middle of the film seems to slow things down ("Come on, where are the explosions? Why are we not hearing Tony Stark tell more HILARIOUS jokes? Why is every shot not focused on Scarlett Johansson?") However, this is after repeat viewings, all in quick succession (although I did ask that last question in the first screening. Someone needs to make a Black Widow film).

The Bad

.....um......hmmm....nope, can't think of anything.

Okay, it's not perfect. There are some iffy shots here and there, where I did wonder why director Joss Whedon hadn't gone with a better take (are you telling me that Black Widows hair can break a mans nose?). However, I guess that's just Whedon. We had this stuff with Buffy. I can't tell you how many times I've noticed a shot in that show where the foot just about misses the guys face during a roundhouse kick, or suddenly Sarah Michelle Gellar is replaced by a woman in a bad wig. I get the feeling that Joss Whedon is the kind of director who will use takes which have these errors, with the thought that "No-one will notice, and if they do, it shouldn't matter." Whilst this is an almost admirable way of doing things, I'm afraid it is noticeable and it does matter. Nothing tears you out of a story like a glaring visual error. However, there aren't many of these errors in The Avengers. In fact, I'm having trouble remembering any more than the previously mentioned "hair whip" attack.

The Ugly

Weird alien freak is weird

For those who skipped to the end...

This is a damn fine movie, for both fans of comics and people who haven't even touched a book (although the latter might have trouble understanding words and talky). It's got a bloody amazing cast, who all do a fantastic job. The worry of an ensemble piece is that one person will have every scene in their pocket (I think that's an adequate metaphor). I was partially worried that this was the case when the poster came out and Iron Man was most definitely in the foreground. I'm happy to say I was wrong to worry. You will love it, and if you don't, you're clearly unstable, and get away, I don't want to join your church, please stop following me, I've called the police.

10/10 (Yeah, that's right, not 9, 10)

I might as well use this bloody blog, it's going to waste otherwise!

That was a long title. I'm terribly sorry if this inconvenienced you.

Hello there, no-one. I, of course, assume that no-one will read this, and it will most likely disappear into the bowels of the internet. On the off-chance some unfortunate soul DOES stumble upon this nonsense, I offer a second apology.

Yes, I am back, or rather, I am here, since I didn't really go anywhere. It is I, Leo Dukes, procrastinator extraordinaire, and I bring tidings of self-loathing and adamant assumptions that I can do nothing of any worth. *mental note: stop being negative*

Smiles all round from here-on-in

So, positive. Second year of university over. What's on the horizon for this poor sod?

....

I'll get back to you with that. In the meantime, I shall be using this bafflingly empty blog to review things I feel like reviewing. Games, Movies, Books, whatever. I came up with about ten good insults for Dark Shadows earlier, but I've forgotten all of them, just like the point of the movie. HO HO, HE GETS IN THERE WITH A ZINGER!

Johnny Depp is not amused, though I doubt anyone else is either.