Original Alien Art Director Roger Christian is quoted as saying “Ridley told me some of his ideas when we were here in Toronto. He has a very clear understanding of where this should go. They kind of stopped dead one of the greatest horror franchises there’s ever been, and it had legs to go on. So I’m hoping he’ll revive another three. The world certainly wants it, and the fans want it—everybody.”

I am not sure where this could go but a trilogy would seem to point in the direction of a whole new cast and story arc, which would be a good thing in the hands of Scott.

UPDATE: Yahoo stole the story from Shadowlocked like a bunch of hacks. Shame on them. No linky for you.

• Robots. Big ones. Hitting each other.
• A straight forward narrative.
• A good laugh.

What did I get? All three. In spades. But for some people, this seems to be a problem and I am not sure why. I love Transformers…it is to all intents my childhood encapsulated and since seeing the first version of Bayformers, it is there. Has anyone actually watched the old cartoon series recently? Is the dialogue and plotline not truly appalling in places? I think so.

There’s only one animated TF which stands above the parapet as a solid piece of work that is the 1986 movie. I love that film and what I love about it is that it still has the heart of these characters, but in an ever so slightly serious setting. This is the same as the Michael Bay movies.

You cannot take this franchise seriously, it is by definition a big dumb movie, but that seems to embarrass people from going to see it and kicking back for a few hours. I crave more of this rubbish! Nay…demand it! It is a work of art at doing what big dumb Hollywood does best and should be regarded as such. These films will never be Lawrence of Arabia. Or Goodfellas. Or Jaws. They are what they are, and what that is they do that very, very well. The comparisons with “kids toys” making serious movies (a la The Dark Knight) are so way off the mark – Superman Returns in part bombed because people could not identify with it. Batman Begins was great because it set and identifiable tone. There is not such tone here – Transformers is like looking though a window into the House of Fun. People are tall and skinny and not at all realistic.

I think part of the problem is that some “critics” (e.g. Mark “Pompoused Windbag” Kermode) have to see this film to offer a critique. And they don’t want to. They know it isn’t going to be right for them; but they are not the target demographic. But they seem incapable of offering anything other than their own perspective. Some critics say stuff along the lines of “well…if you liked the first you might like this” while other basically cast you out of the sensible public peer group and point fingers. There is nothing abhorrent about TF2. Nothing over the top offensive; sure there’s a dash of misogyny there, and frequent use of certain stereotypes but some people claiming the Twins are racist is plain stupid. And even the fact that Shia Lebeof’s college class seems to be comprised of the most “attractive” people possible is nothing that High School Musical doesn’t portray anyway. I wish these people would get a grip and stop taking blatant stupidity seriously.

That’s the film in a nutshell: two and a half hours of blatant stupidity. And I thought my £6.90 admission was bloody well spent. If you want a good ride then see it. If you are offended by big dumb explosions…stay away. Roll on Transformers 3.

I know it sounds a little over the top, but The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has changed my life. Never in a million years did I think that a film could have such an impact on me. It is a little hard to define in words the true scale of this as both a motion picture, and a work of art but I am truly, breathtakingly staggered by it.

So, you guessed I liked the film? Well where do I start? Firstly, David Fincher has done a remarkable job and this film marks him as one of the truly great directors. It is visually stunning, from the lighting and colours that depict the warmth of Benjamin’s elderly childhood, to the brightness and clarity of the world as he grows younger in it.

The acting is superb, with both Pitt and Blanchett shine as the two age confused lovers, and we see an immaculate spectacle of virtually seamless special effects throughout. Literally, you are left wondering how did they do that? The film is the cutting edge of technology, but never once does it oppose the story telling. As a viewer you have to pinch yourself that you are not pointing out artefacts of digital processing – there is just very little to indicate that this is predominantly computer generated. Fincher’s shrewd use of light and shadow always leaves room for the audience’s interpretation, taking the pressure off the effects slightly, and making them all the more believable. But there is nothing I can say that hasn’t been pointed out by other reviews so Google them…

(Check out Andrew Chan’s excellent review here… but only read this link if you want to hear from a soulless fish wife who cannot say anything constructive.)

Brad Pitt deserves all the awards you can throw at him. Always the consummate actor, in this role his ability reaches new heights. The look of wonder on his face as he witnesses an early father figure reciting a play to the look of horror on his face when he fears a scolding from his mother are marks of genius. You believe Benjamin is experiencing a life of wonder in his eyes, and Pitt plays it perfectly.

Now this might seem a little over the top considering the main protagonist is ageing backward – a silly contrivance of a plot device in some people’s eyes. However, this can in some ways be ignored as the soul of the film – and I mean that literally – exists in the characterisation of Benjamin Button. Some reviewers have criticised the film for not having enough character development but I really thing they are missing the point. Benjamin is on the edge of the world in most respects, told that he is going to die any day now, surrounded and exposed by friends and strangers to the passing of life and waiting for the impending end. This gives him the perspective to look with bright, inquisitive eyes each and every day – to relish in the wonder of being the best you possibly could be no matter how short of time you are.

There is strong character development throughout, especially in Cate Blanchett’s Daisy. We see her grow from a precocious child to a promiscuous young woman that is sometimes extremely unlikable. As I watched her path cross with Benjamin as the years progressed, I sometimes ached for things to go right for them even when it was obvious they could not. One of the key strengths is that the film is very heartfelt. There is chemistry between all the principal cast members that gives a level of realism in sometimes unrealistic circumstances that I think is unrivalled in cinema history.

This film has been remarked as being Fincher’s most mainstream film to date – almost as if he has sold out slightly but this is too easy a stick to poke at him. All of his films have focussed on strong aspects of humanity from the extreme’s of Fight Club and The Game to the primal fears portrayed in Panic Room. And maybe he had become pigeonholed for more aggressive storytelling traits, but I think that his approach is 

very similar with Benjamin Button – the only difference is the carefully crafted script by Eric Roth which ultimately has a lighter tone. Well maybe not lighter…but different. The tools are the same and Fincher tells this story about humanity as it should be told. Any other director would have had problems, and I think that the pitch would have been significantly different if Ron Howard had developed this years ago as originally intended (reference the saccharine!).

But the main thing I want to say about this film, is how I have utterly been knocked sideways by it. It was an extremely special experience for my wife and I, and I can say in all honesty that we sat in the cinema together and fell in love with it. The core of the film is the passion and soul that makes the vast majority of other films look cold. It is a film that teaches you about love, and loss. About overcoming adversity and living a life as fully as possible. I have been lucky never to go through the pain of mourning a loved one and from this film I think I can appreciate that feeling somewhat.

Now why would that be a good thing? I am not sure to be honest, but I feel alive because of it. They say you don’t appreciate them till they’re gone, but the experience of this film has shown that the prospect of saying goodbye to my wife and daughter is unbearable, and seeing Benjamin say goodbye to his family had incredible emotional impact. The inevitable end of his life was extremely hard to watch, and bordered on being harrowing due to the poignancy that strikes to the very core of your being. Quite simply, if you are not moved by this film, you cannot have a soul. I just feel as though I have more of a life to live, more of the world to see, and a longing to spend more time with those I love. All because the film’s repeated theme that “you never know what’s coming to you” rings true.

In many films that seek to shed tears there is usually something that tips it slightly, that brings the feelings of guilt for falling for the climax only to be pet down by poor acting, trivial dialogue or soppy music. But never once does the story descend in saccharine as the drama is precisely sculpted by David Fincher almost to the point of perfection. Tension is alleviated with a laugh or joke here or there when required, and the music frames the picture excellently. The pacing of the movie flows like the tide, always appearing to be natural and never forced. Fincher has raised the bar of cinema very high indeed.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is part love story, part adventure, part feel good movie and part fairy tale. It is beautifully sad, but makes you appreciate your life in a way that I never thought possible. In the days since seeing Benjamin Button, I have thought of little else. I can say on reflection it is one of the best films I have ever seen and maybe could be the greatest film. This is not because it is perfectly made, but because it has a perfect heart. The only shame is that we will not see any more of Benjamin’s adventures, or his life with Daisy – the three hours of the film could never be enough in my eyes even though I felt that I have lived a complete life with him.

Go see this film and revel in its beauty. I cannot wait to see it again.

I have not read the Twilight saga but am intending to start on them tonight! So from my perspective, I am looking at the film on its own merits, and on the whole it was a very enjoyable movie. Not amazing or fantastic. But solid and very good.

The criticism that the film gets seems to be wholly misguided. As if the “target audience” is the only potential group of people who want to see a film that is to all intents a romantic depiction akin to Romeo & Juliet or A Room With A View. The plot is driven by the setting of the pacific north west being a haven for vampires, but this is a character device. One half of the main protagonists happens to be a vampire but this could as well be set 50 years ago and the male lead be black against a white middle class female heroine. If taken at face value, there is little to argue about.

Adaptations from mainstream books are always fraught with controversy, and by all accounts this is a fairly faithful example of source to screen translation. But it was readily apparent in some scenes that there was either an major glossing over, or a nod and wink to chapters of the book. After speaking with The Wife, if was clear that much of my objection to a small number of scenes were indeed pivotal chapters, and for those who have this “inside knowledge”, these seem to sit well. For myself, the aerial shots and spinning camera work while Edward and Bella lie in a very wet looking field seemed to drag. But who am I to know that this accounts for two whole chapters n the source material.

From this perspective, I would say that Catherine Hardwicke slipped up. Nods and winks are great when cracking a joke as to why the X-Men aren’t wearing yellow spandex, or that a VW Beetle is parked next to the 2007 Transformer equivalent, but they don’t carry so much weight when dealing with the build up of something so pivotal as two characters falling in love. In this respect, the major chink in the armour of the film is this “insider knowledge”.

But overall, a very enjoyable film.

“Like the recent Batman sequel — which has become the highest-grossing film of the year thus far — Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as “The Dark Knight.” Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.’ DC properties. “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,” he says. That goes for the company’s Superman franchise as well.”

This is plain stupidity – there is little “darkness” about Superman. The character is just dull. The fact that he got top honours in the recent Empire’s Top 50 Comics Characters indicates how little understanding there is for the creation. Incidentally, 83% of Empire readers voted Superman to be lower.

I am not a huge Superman fan primarily because he is dull. The few Superman comics I own are multicoloured tales that neither captivate nor offend. They are boring, and that pretty much sums up 2006′s Superman Returns; you enjoy it while it is on screen, but it is predominantly forgettable. And to think that Bryan Singer jumped ship from what was surely going to be a different beast with X-Men 3 to do that breaks my geeky heart.

You cannot reboot Superman and make him darker as there is little darkness there. The way to make Superman a success is to take the character driven elements of growing up in a difficult situation, having difficulty adjusting and yet trying to the right thing. In many ways, the original Richard Donner films covered that pretty well, although the first Spider-Man took the concept to a new level. Also, I think there is little for “humans” to identify with. He is an alien who can pretty much do whatever he wants, but doesn’t – there’s no spark to the character at all.

A Superman reboot could work well, but it ain’t Batman. You’d think they would know that, right?!

There’s a great article in the Guardian about Adam Sandler. In the main I agree with it…although the vulgar side of his humour doesn’t bother me, but it makes a good point in that too many people take his films at face value without actually looking a little deeper. I am not saying they are works or art, but the majority of Sandler films have a genuine human quality which generally makes you feel good about the subject matter.

The film is epic to say the least. From the opening shot over the skyscrapers of Gotham City, you get the impression of scale. The brief sojourn to Hong Kong gives you the impression, this is real. Gotham is real. Could Batman be…real?

Reality is the keyword, I reckon. At no point during this film do you have to suspend your disbelief for too long. They even open up the real world scenarios of what is and isn’t possible by name dropping the U.S. military Skyhook (actually called the Fulton surface-to-are recovery system). OK…so Bats is a little more flashy than your average stranded G.I. Joe, but there is still the possibility that binds the Dark Knight to the audience.

Each character is very well used, and notably not over used. Unlike many superhero films, the characters serve a purpose, and give us a sense of history. You know just enough of even the new characters for you to become involved in their drama, and this applies especially to Harvey Dent. I love what is done with this character from start to finish. I expected not to like him, and to relish his downfall into the Two-Face persona, but I wish it didn’t happen. Harvey is in many ways the emotional centre of this film, and not Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Not that the main character is sidelined at all, but it doesn’t seem like Batman is the main character of the piece (if that makes any sense…probably not). The film is an ensemble of intertwining personalities, each with an agenda and a path to travel. And the moment you realise this, is the moment the curtain comes up, with an ending that leaves you gasping for more, while pondering if it was an ending at all.

In many ways (and maybe deliberate) this is the Empire Strikes Back of the franchise. I cannot see the Nolan brothers going for a fourth film, nor Bale et al. to be honest. I think there is an end point in sight. It’s another couple of hours away…but it is there in the distance. And speaking of which, the 2 and a half-ish hours that were spent did not drag…but neither did they fly by. I felt the screen reached out and held me just long enough to experience the film, and I don’t think I have felt like that since Lord of the Rings.

Heath Ledger is damn good in his role of the Joker. And no one will ever play it the way he did, which is a very good thing. A problem with it is that his character obviously has a future in this Batman universe, so how they are going to fit that in I don’t know. Probably lock him up in Arkham Asylum for the fourth instalment when all the original cast and crew have vacated the plot, which will inevitably happen (an inevitably disappoint). But does Heath deserve an Oscar? No. Probably not. He did well, but it isn’t the sort of role which would merit an Oscar. It doesn’t matter how good he was, the Joker is not Oscar material. He may be one of the most menacing, evil and anarchic silver screen villains in history, but Oscars don’t go out to that type of character.

One thing to pick up on is the reference in the media that this is not a “comic book” movie. It’s a “crime thriller” or something like that. Mark Kermode on Radio 5 was taking great exception to this, but as per usual I think he missed the point. In a similar way to referring to Road to Perdition as a comic book move doesn’t really fit, neither does The Dark Knight. There has never been a superhero film like this, and the tone is one of a human drama in amongst some mighty technological gadgetry and amazing characters. It breaks the mould, and gives the genre something new to aim for (which even Batman Begins could not do). So I think it is fine to call it a thriller or a crime story or a comic book movie. You don’t have to take exception to it not being called a comic book movie as the end result is one of many things.

One thing I do take exception to is the presence of children in the screening. This is not a film for children. Most of the content will go over their heads, but this argument that “it’s only comic book violence” is tosh. When Batman interrogates the Joker, he might not leave much of a mark on him, but he leaves a hole in the wall behind him. Violence is violence, and if there is no consequence, no explicit context then it is unsuitable for children. And by saying that, I believe the The Dark Knight has these things present and correct. There are scenes in this film which are ultraviolent. You might not see the aftermath and gore, but the intent is there. But it just seems that a lack of blood is just fine with the BBFC to pass it as a 12A and as I’ve said before with this fantasy violence argument: children are not stupid. It just seems the BBFC are.

So after all this babble, is it good. Yes. Is it great? Still thinking on that one (…maybe yes). Batman’s gruff voice might get on your nerves after a while, but nothing can deny this is a work of art in many ways. It is the way cinema should be, and sits neatly alongside its peers of Alien and Blade Runner as something to savour.

For one thing, I want Heath Ledger’s Joker to firmly wipe away all traces of Jack Nicholson. For the time, Jack’s Joker was good, but it (and Tim Burton’s whole film) now looks dated and over the top. There’s just so much more to the “real” world that Nolan has placed this version of Batman. And yes, this is a comic book movie, but why can’t a comic book movie bring fantasy within a whisker of our day to day lives? I think this is by far a more positive thing than some would have you believe in Nolan’s Caped Crusader yarns.

With rumours flying around the Heath will get a posthumous Oscar, let’s hope his performance merits it. I’d hate to see him awarded for the tragedy that’s befallen him. That said, some relatively good news comes for his daughter, Matilda Rose, who will likely receive the majority of him $20 million fortune according to Australian state law.

It’s a damn shame that Sky.com won’t let me remote record the whole think now…their listings only go 7 days in advance which is bloody silly! Regardless, the Guardian reports that C4 have recreated a 65-second promotional film which recreates the set of Kubrick’s classic horror film, The Shining.

Thinking about Kubrick’s career, I wonder in the future who we’ll be looking back on with awe at what they achieved cinematically? Certainly, David Fincher is a strong candidate. Maybe Guillermo Del Toro too.

And Ron Perlman looks like a monkey.