Captain America: The First Avenger

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting much from Marvel's latest blockbuster. For starters, I know absolutely nothing about the character (only that he was introduced to American audiences during the Second World War in an attempt to boost public morale). I also believed that Captain America: The First Avenger would act as one long trailer for the much anticipated Avengers film, arriving next summer (in the same vein as Iron Man 2). How wrong I was. True, there's nothing deep about Captain America; it embraces its patriotic roots and plays off its propaganda beginnings. There's no self doubt or inner demons plaguing our hero here. For once, it's all about the fun and Captain America excels in it. It's no Dark Knight but it certainly outshines 2011's other super hero flicks: Thor and X-Men: First Class, both of which I thought were brilliant. 

The First Avenger follows Steve Rogers, a boy desperate to join the army and help fight for his country in the Second World War. He is soon transformed into a super soldier, becoming Captain America, supporting troops oversees before he himself is plunged into the midst of battle, attempting to stop Red Skull, Hitler's head of weaponry, from using a tesseract energy source for world domination. Yes, the plot is preposterous, but it really doesn't matter. Captain America was created to promote America, and that's exactly what the movie adaptation does. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen so many stars and stripes in one film.

I believe Thor and Captain America work because of their uniqueness. They break the mould, if you will, of the generic super hero movie that we are all now accustomed to. Iron Man, Spider Man, even The Dark Knight to some degree, (although in no way am I criticising the latter) all take place in a city location. Frankly, it's beginning to get tiresome. The majority of Thor, however, takes place in the mythical world of Asgard, while Captain America takes place on the front line of World War II. It's a refreshing take on something that's been done thousands of times before. On that note, director Joe Johnston has done a terrific job of mirroring the streets of forties New York. This could, in all honesty, be your typical war drama. 

Chris Evans, after his disappointing, if not disastrous turn as the Human Torch in Fantastic Four, is perfect for the role of Captain America. I suppose, in hindsight, it was Evans who encouraged my reluctance to see the film in the first place. After all, it would be so easy to turn Cap into the cheesy, gimmicky joker that Evans played in one of Marvel's worst film franchises. There's no need to fear. The action is fun, but there are moments of seriousness that allows Evans to actually act. The Human Torch, truthfully, was a very two dimensional character. Surprisingly, Captain America is one hero who doesn't mind killing people; this is war after all. (One particular scene with a propeller comes to mind. Nasty.) Hugo Weaving as Red Skull brings nothing particularly interesting to the role. He does, at times, embrace the awful cliches that seem to epitomise Hollywood's portrayal of evil. It's a shame, but the film's positives outweigh these minor criticisms. Even the film's supporting cast, Stanley Tucci as Abraham Erskine, for instance, is brilliant. Credit must also go to Hayley Atwell as love interest, Peggy Carter, a Brit who holds her own amongst the film's strong, American cast.

It'll be interesting to study Cap's character arch in The Avengers. After all, his transition into the present could surely be a premise for a whole other sequel. It's almost a shame that Evans has to sacrifice his screen time in order to make way for the others. Maybe Captain America 2 before The Avengers would have made more sense. I will, however, reserve complete judgement on this until I see The Avengers. 

 

‘A weak man knows the value of strength and compassion,’ Tucci mutters to Evans during the course of the film. This is very much the theme of the movie. Captain America: The First Avenger won't win any major awards, but it will entertain the child inside of you, and, if you can stomach Alan Silvestri's overwhelming, patriotic soundtrack, you may leave the cinema feeling very satisfied indeed. Remember to stick around for a post-credits trailer for The Avengers. 

 

"You know what?" I said to my friend, who attended the same screening. "I'm no comic book nerd, but that just got me very excited." Congratulations Marvel. You've set everything up for The Avengers very nicely. Very nicely indeed.

 

My Rating: * * * *

Game of Thrones: Season One

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground,” Cersei Lannister spits at Ned Stark in HBO’s adaptation of George R.R Martin’s epic. Truer words were never spoken. I suppose I must congratulate HBO on actually pulling it off. The sheer volume of Martin’s first instalment is enough to dissuade any producer from taking on such a burden, yet David Benioff and D.B Weiss have ruthlessly plucked chapter one of A Song of Ice and Fire and turned it into Game of Thrones. To the untrained eye, Thrones is fantasy, yet this is a presumption that needs to be cast aside. Benioff’s and Weiss’ adaptation is a tale of politics and power play, set in Westeros, a quasi-medieval world that visually resembles our own history. As such, there are hints of realism here. This could be, dragons and pet dire-wolves aside, a historical drama depicting the feud between three families that revolves around the Iron Throne. 

It’s impossible to sum Game of Thrones up into a coherent paragraph that’s a viable length for a blog. I will, however, have a go. It’s all about power. Having it, wanting it, in some cases even lusting over it. Three feuding families, the Lannisters, the Starks and to a lesser extent, the Targaryen’s, fight for the Iron Throne, the one thing that will give them the power they desire so much. Game of Thrones truly is devastating; the advantages of such power are highlighted to a degree by King Robert Baratheon in, of course, the most crass way possible. “I just want to drink myself to an early grave and f**k girls,” he says, or something to that extent. Yet the repercussions of such power is when Game of Thrones really gets going. Families are torn apart by dividend loyalties, tyrants become rulers and dark secrets lurk around every corner. This isn’t just about the magic. This is fantastical opera that rivals even that of J.R.R Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. Martin has created an entire universe. Major players of the game of thrones are scattered thousands of miles. Race, religion, sanctions; they’re all here in what has to be one of the most disturbing series to hit our screens this year. 

There’s no real resolution to Game of Thrones’ first season. After all, this is only the first piece of the puzzle. The map during the opening credits (well done Ramin Djawadi on the theme music, by the way) only alludes to the mass expanse of Westeros. There are, I feel, a whole host of places waiting to be explored. (Notice how the opening sequence changes depending on where the action of the episode takes place). One thing I must comment on is the closeness to the book. I’m astounded Benioff and Weiss have managed to stick to the original text with such detail. The ten hour adaptation gives Game of Thrones a little more room to breath. Had this been a two hour film, Martin’s genius text would have been massacred.

Game of Thrones succeeds because of character. It’s the one thing that drives the plot and it’s the better off for it. If anything, Game of Thrones is centred around humanity with all its perfections and, of course, its imperfections. There are no heroes or villains; the Starks, I suppose, are the ones we are meant to root for, yet even they possess dark motivation that blows any morality out of the water. We perceive the Lannisters as the ‘villains’ yet Cersei, the King’s wife, is purely motivated to do the things she does in order to hide her affair from the husband that never truly loved her. Acts of desperation can be misconstrued as acts if bitterness and revenge, but in Westeros, it is every man (and woman) for himself.

Sean Bean is fantastic as Ned Stark, and I won’t waste my time writing about the legend that is Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister), who emerges as the fan favourite. For me, however, it is Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen who really shines. Exiled as a young girl, after a coup on behalf of Robert Baratheon sees her sadistic father overthrown, Daenerys is thrust into an arranged marriage by her brother who yearns for his rightful place on the Iron throne. Clarke, a relative unknown, is simply superb in her subtleness. For her, the events of Game of Thrones are a journey that sees her grow into a ‘Khaleesi’, or Queen, in her own right. Many have overlooked the Targaryen plotline. If you have, I implore that you go back and take another look. Clarke could well emerge as the star of Game of Thrones and rightly so. If anything, I’m rooting for her to get the throne. It will be interesting to see how she develops during the second series, which will, of course, be an adaptation of Martin’s A Clash of Kings. 

Visually, Game of Thrones is incredible. Weiss and Benioff really use medieval Europe as their inspiration, avoiding the fantasy clichés that dominate most pictures. The effects really are astounding. Every second counts. High sweeping scenes of Westeros (which is actually Northern Ireland and Malta) seem to relish in the beauty of such scenery. Winterfell, Lord Stark’s home, is the epitome of bleakness. At times, there is a translucency to the backdrop of this place, a cold, hard outlook that represents the harsh winter, a stark (pun intended) contrast to the rich and warm colours of the Baratheon household. Game of Thrones’ cinematography is stunning in detail. Maybe some of it is lost on a television screen. This is where my interest is piqued as to what the visual would be on a cinema projector.  

Needless to say, Game of Thrones’ first season has been both shocking and rewarding. It’ll be interesting to see how an adaptation of the second book goes down. Producers have already confirmed that the very long Storm of Swords (which will be Game of Thrones’ third season) will depart from the book, a move that  has been given a negative response from fans. If you felt as if Game of Thrones was lacking in pace (I don’t know why you would!) and only picked up towards its finale, stick with it. Yes, you may think you’ve seen the biggest shock the show can offer (end of episode nine, anyone?) but there is plenty more where that came from. *Cough* Red Wedding *Cough*. Fans of the book will know what I mean. Fans of the television show will have to wait. One thing is certain, however. Season two is going to be one hell of a ride. I, for one, cannot wait until play resumes.

Mildred Pierce (HBO)

THIS POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS.

Kate Winslet is my favourite actress. Fact. Yes, Titanic made her a household name and dominated the box office for the best part of a year, but her latest performances are the ones worth raving about. Winslet’s Oscar win in 2009 for her portrayal of Hanna Schmitz in Stephen Daldry’s adaptation of Bernhard Schlink’s The Reader was rightly deserved as was her double Golden Globe win, one of which went towards her work in Revolutionary Road as April Wheeler. Two years later, after a much deserved break, Winslet is back, starring in the HBO mini-series adaptation of James M. Cain’s hardboiled novel, Mildred Pierce. Winslet’s decision to return to the screen in an intimate and small, television project is a genius career move. After all, over-exposure can be dangerous in Hollywood. Winslet now has the freedom to appear in a smaller projects that still demonstrate her stunning acting abilities. Winslet has been nominated for an Emmy. Quite right I think, as Mildred Pierce, quite frankly, is one of the best pieces of television I have seen in a long time and cements HBO’s status as a station that invests in new, exciting and visceral projects.

Mildred Pierce depicts a self-sacrificing mother during the Great Depression, and her struggle to provide for her family after she divorces her husband. Attempting to uphold her family’s status in a world where money is everything, Mildred yearns for the love of her narcissistic daughter, Veda. Heartbreaking, astonishing and totally absorbing, HBO’s five-part adaptation is essential viewing. 

This mini-series, as I understand it, sticks close to Cain’s novel as opposed to the 1945 film noir adaptation starring Joan Crawford. Having only seen the mini-series, I cannot compare although I understand that Crawford’s version turns the story into a murder mystery, something which is both insulting and detrimental to the original text, of which I hope to read soon. Ending more or less the same way as Cain’s book offers Winslet a character arch that is most likely, much more fulfilling as an actress. After all, Mildred’s uprising and the reasons for her spectacular downfall make a fantastic story, without the intrusion of the added murder plot present in the 1945 version. 

I cannot say this enough, but Winslet is fantastic. It is in her subtleness and her quietness that she really shines. I am now convinced that Winslet can turn her hand to anything, such are the range of emotions that she portrays. Her struggle for Veda’s love is painfully realistic as is her bewilderment when she fails to receive this love. If we step back and observe the overall picture, Mildred, regardless of all her success, is just a mother crying out for her daughter. The saying, ‘money can’t buy you happiness’ comes to mind here. Her one aim in life is also her flaw and Winslet conveys the obliviousness of Mildred in a bold and striking manner, her facial expressions a physicality of her state of mind. 

Winslet’s portrayal of Mildred, however, does not come without its criticisms. After all, as one critic states, ‘Cain created a woman of modest roots who becomes obsessed with giving her beautiful, snobbish daughter a better life and discovers a knack for business: Mildred is not long a victim and she isn’t always sympathetic.’ I have not read Cain’s novel, and so I may not be qualified to make such a statement, but for me, I do not think Winslet portrays Mildred as a victim. Yes, she may look the part of the victim, yet as I mentioned earlier, she is totally oblivious as to why she is not earning Veda’s love and so desperately moves on to attend to her daughter’s next whim. She does not have time to be a victim. Only when she discovers Veda’s true intentions does she realise her mistakes and even then she eventually moves on with her life. ‘To hell with her,’ Mildred mutters in the closing scenes of episode five. 

The supporting cast are just as excellent. Guy Pearce as Monty and Evan Rachel Wood as the adult Veda play brilliantly off each other, especially in the last episode where their motives are revealed. Even Morgan Turner as the young Veda oozes hatred and has a fearless and chilling, deceptive quality about her. Maybe it would have been better to introduce Wood earlier in the series. Turner does a fantastic job of getting audiences to sympathise with Mildred, yet the leap in age and time is so sudden that Wood is given the hard task of making us despise Veda all over again, such is the difference. However, she manages to pull it off. Her final scene with Pearce, where Mildred discovers their affair, is gut-wrenching and the slow motion technique only adds to the disorientating revelation. Veda, as a character, is evil, yet deliciously dark in the way she wraps her mother around her little finger.

Along with the 1930s soundtrack and the authentic thirties backdrop, Mildred Pierce is a television series that possesses the qualities of a feature film. This is a feminist period piece, a drama that stands out amongst the reality television that seems to dominate our screens these days. With five, one and a half hour episodes (adverts included), Todd Haynes and Jon Raymond’s screenplay is in no way rushed. While this has drawn criticism from a certain Stephen King who says it’s ‘too damn long’, I have to disagree. Haynes’ remake allows us to contemplate Mildred’s character and her perspective on life. We live the pain that Mildred lives, we feel her desperation and fall as she falls. This is not just a show, it is an emotional experience. Mildred Pierce dabbles in themes that include death, loss, love and hatred. Themes like these cannot be brushed over lightly. Haynes ensures they receive the justice and recognition deserved. 

HBO is fast becoming my favourite station for television shows. Mildred Pierce is quality drama and with the epic Game of Thrones also under their belt, 2011 is looking to be quite a year for them. I watched Mildred Pierce on Sky Atlantic, hence the late review. (It only finished in the UK last night). Shame on Sky for waiting so long in airing this mini-series. Television like this, deserves to be seen.

You can purchase Mildred Pierce on DVD from the US here, or from the UK, here.

What Happened on the Sanctity Architect

Dev is a refugee. At the age of seven, alien spacecraft appeared above her homeworld and covered it with napalm, burning it to the ground. Thrust into the family’s ship and ferried off the dying planet, she is the survivor of a superior race called the Progenitors’ destructive warning: to leave their artefacts alone.

Twenty years later Dev becomes understudy to one of the scientists on the Faculty ship Sanctity Architect. She has grown up, moved on and buried her frightful past.

But unbeknownst to Dev, her life is about to collide with the Progenitors once again. They destroyed her planet, boiled its atmosphere away, burnt her parents alive – and now they need Dev’s help.

Nicholas J. Ambrose’s What Happened on the Sanctity Architect is a revelation. I, for one, have never been a fan of the science-fiction genre and there are few pieces of literature, if any, that have managed to convince me otherwise. After reading Sanctity Architect, however, I think I’m finally ready to change my mind. After all, it is character and plot that take precedence in Ambrose’s novel. Yes, simple enough, yet whenever I’ve read (or attempted to read) a science-fiction novel, the overall arch of the story is always eclipsed by the author who douses their readers with their knowledge of science, technology and anything else they feel they must include to make their novel part of the genre. Not here. The science in Sanctity Architect rightly plays a supporting role with nothing but characterisation to drive the plot towards its thrilling and devastating climax. 

Gone are the long streams of ‘techno-babble’ that would usually dominate this kind of novel. Ambrose is careful not to segregate any readers, a clever strategy for his debut. Yes, there are moments where character’s conversations revolve around science, yet it is finally understandable. There is great intellect here, yet Sanctity Architect does not insult its readers by containing scientific nonsense that not even the smartest of us can understand. However, Ambrose really shines when the pace picks up. Chapter Three, titled ‘Dev, Dreaming’ is a notable example, containing passages that will terrorize and haunt. The tension that Ambrose creates is at times unbearable, relentless in its ability to continue throughout the majority of the novel. This makes for one gripping finale, although I will not go into that here.

Loss of humanity, for me, is a major occurrence in the novel and it is interesting that Ambrose should highlight this in such a bold way. Indeed, at times he even promotes the loss of human antics as an advantage, this ‘upgrade’ hindered only by Dev’s reluctance to surrender to the ‘norm.’ This is where Sanctity Architect really shines. Although subtle, the idea of what it means to be human packs a powerful punch when we look at the story overall. Conflict arises in the novel as humanity and technology fight for dominance. There are hints of feminist values; Dev stands up for what she believes in, and although her actions inevitably have their consequences, she is a strong character with humanistic morals, a rarity in a world where outer space is oppressive and non-humans (Cam) cherish their patriarchal 'personality.' The best novels are those where characters embark on a metaphorical journey, whether it end with their downfall or their uprising. In an effort to keep this review as spoiler free as possible, I shall not divulge as to which Dev is destined to, yet the change is there, and with it, differences in thematic significance. Although at times it may be seen as a burden, Sanctity Architect, is, essentially, a novel about humanity.

It seems hardly worth it to mention the one criticism I have. It is, after all, a minor blip. Ambrose has a tendency to chop and change scenes in quick succession during the novel. This happens rarely, but when it does, I feel it damages the structure that the author has brilliantly crafted.  It is a literary technique that has been placed there for a reason, yet I prefer the passing of time, more often than not, to be described, rather than an overuse of cutaways and page breaks. Again, it’s only my opinion, and a very minor criticism.

It will be interesting to see where Ambrose goes for his next novel. I will be waiting eagerly for his second book and I anticipate many re-reads of his debut. Totally original, What Happened on the Sanctity Architect is a standout example of what science fiction literature should be about. Heart breaking, action packed and extremely frightening, Ambrose’s novel is one that will stick with you for a long time. 

You can purchase What Happened on the Sanctity Architect for the Amazon Kindle here or in print here. Why not visit the official website of Nicholas J Ambrose for up to date news on his latest releases?

It All Ends...

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS

'It All Ends...' This is the tagline that has dominated the majority of billboards across the UK and the rest of the world. The moment has arrived. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is here, and it really is the end. What a way to finish the series that has enchanted both children and adults alike.

Director David Yates has done a fantastic job bringing the series into maturity. Part 2 is relentless in its portrayal of death, sacrifice and revenge. The final four films belong in a completely different league to their predecessors. Yates has really delved into the source material, made it his own and presented a brutal finale to author J.K Rowling's legion of fans who will no doubt scrutinise every second of film. The split in Rowling's final book has allowed room for much more detail in the final two films. Whilst Part 1 was very much a 'road movie,' Part 2 is dominated by the final battle that Yates would obviously have to relegate to a ten minute slot had Deathly Hallows been a one, 120 minute film. As such, the film picks up directly after Voldemort finds the Elder wand. After a thrilling break into Gringott's bank, Part 2 is very much centred around Hogwarts and its fate. There is no real beginning, middle and end. We must remember that this is only half of the story.

Yates plays with our knowledge of history. Part 1, I always thought, mirrored the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust, the Ministry of Magic adopting Nazi-esque tendencies in their pursuit of muggle-born wizards. Part 2, in its portrayal of the destruction of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is blatantly inspired by the images of 9/11 that are so deeply ingrained in our memories. This is, if you will pardon the cliché that now accompanies every Potter film, the 'darkest' of the lot.

Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have improved with each film and Part 2 is no different. Radcliffe proves himself as a leading man in what is essentially an action film and with support from Grint and Watson, the trio ensure that the series goes out with a bang. It is a testament to the series, surely, that many of Britain's best return for what can only be described as less than a cameo appearance. Jim Broadbent (Slughorn) and Emma Thompson (Trelawney) have a total screen time of three to four seconds. However, it is Alan Rickman as the deliciously ambiguous Professor Snape that steals the show. Receiving the emotional pay off that fans have yearned for since the series began, Rickman makes the most of his moment in the limelight and rightly so. His final scene is brilliantly emotional, a small moment that stands out amongst the chaos of the final battle. These scenes, where Yates strips the theatrics to raw human emotion, is where Part 2 really excels.

There is no need to comment on the special effects. They are, as one would come to expect from a series of this calibre, of the highest standard. Yates ensures this visual feast does not cloud the characterisation that he has spent time carefully crafting since the fifth film.

The music, by Alexandre Desplat, simmers with tension. For once, 'Hedwig's Theme' is not overused and the final 'Nineteen Years Later' epilogue is accompanied by the rousing and climactic orchestral that ended the first film, a welcome look back that makes us aware of just how far this series has come.

I cannot comment on the 3D. I purposely went to see Harry Potter in 2D. I, for one, believe that 3D adds nothing to the overall experience (apart from the higher ticket price). Unlikely to entice new followers, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 will certainly please those who have grown up with the franchise and the characters themselves. A rollercoaster of a film, Yates has driven Harry Potter to a fitting finale. While it may gloss over the mythology of this magical world, Part 2 is a stunning end to the most successful series in cinema.

My Rating: * * * *

Launch

THE REVIEW will launch soon...