W.E. is supposed to stand for Wallis and Edward. We are presented the story of this famous love affair from the point of view of Wallis. Normally presented as the vulgar, loud and immoral outsider, she is here seen as a woman abroad who is manipulated by her hapless, cloying royal lover, wooing her away from her true love Ernest Simpson. Once Edward has put his commitment to her above his allegiance to the throne, Wallis knows she can never leave him. All well and good, possibly, but W.E. insists on blatantly connecting Wallis’ story to that of Wally (the names are an indication of this film’s subtlety), a present day wealthy American in Europe who is obsessed with Wallis Simpson while contending with her own oppression, in this case violent domestic abuse.

The two stories exist in parallel and at times actually mingle to the extent that Wallis and Wally can touch, share the same space and console one another. It also means that the present can be forced into the past – most extraordinarily with the horrifying anachronistic sight of Wallis Simpson dancing to the Sex Pistols. Don’t get me wrong, this can work – Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette springs to mind as an excellent and thoroughly enjoyable example – but in W.E. this clash most definitely does not. If you want to cringe and hide with embarrassment with every passing scene then W.E. may be for you.

Watching W.E. is an exercise in confusion. Madonna has inflicted on the viewer a mishmash of styles and perspectives. Wallis (Andrea Riseborough) and Wally (Abby Cornish) are our heroines but neither is likeable. Watching Wally express her independence and inner strength by spending thousands of dollars on a pair of Wallis’ gloves in an auction is so immorally horrible that you’ll be hard pressed to find the slightest piece of sympathy for her plight. Historical events are brushed aside – not least the Nazi sympathies of Wallis and Edward – and the Duke of York (why oh why are you in this Laurence Fox?) is little more than a tragic and weak footnote.

There are minor compensations – the costumes and sets are wonderful – but these stand little chance against the travesties of script, perspective, direction and taste. Madonna unfortunately shows little understanding of the history she’s endeavouring to present. She would have done much better if she had either listened to its voice or left it well alone before bludgeoning it with a mallet.

Avoid!

The plot is simple even for me – Loki (Tom Hiddleston), Thor’s adopted brother, otherwise known as the Ugly One, decides to wreak vengeance on his more attractive brother by destroying the planet he cares so much for – Earth. To do this he needs the cosmic cube Tesseract, which scientist Dr Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) refers to as ‘she’. This blue cube is a gateway through which all manner of hybrid organic robotic auk-like creatures can descend to destroy the planet. After Loki steals the Tesseract from Shield – rather easily – Director Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) must call in his scattered ‘team’ of megalomaniac misfits, the Avengers. Admittedly Dr Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) isn’t a megalomaniac but he does transform into a monumentally destructive and angry green Hulk monster, which creates its own problems for the mission.

The Avengers, then, assemble – and we’ve seen them all before: Thor (Chris Hemsworth looking as gorgeous as ever), Iron Man or Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr with, I’m glad to say, an awful lot less Gwyneth Paltrow), Captain America (the boring one played by Chris Evans), the Hulk (but actually only Dr Banner was invited), the Hawk (Jeremy Renner and not hugely reliable), the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson, the token woman). After an hour of testosterone-releasing posturing, in the second half we get down to business with a spectacularly fabulous battle between the invading aliens (riding something like aerial segueways) and our Avengers. And they are put through it. As expected, the rest of the world can rest easy while New York City takes an alien hammering.

What surprised me is that after all these films, the battle sequence of The Avengers is an edge-of-the-seat, heart-thumping bonanza of a battle. It’s violent, bloody, exciting and quite literally jaw-dropping. The kids near me in the cinema were literally jumping up and down (which was a little annoying). Without doubt, The Avengers is well worth seeing for its second half alone. It was brilliant.

But what also surprised me – although it shouldn’t have done considering that The Avengers was directed and written by Joss Whedon of my beloved Firefly – was the style, quirkiness and humour. It’s not often a moment in a superhero movie makes me laugh so loud and unexpectedly with just a little moment that passes in an instant but is so, so funny. There were at least three moments like that here. One in particular. I’ll get the blu ray just so I can rewind it over and over.

It’s hard to complain about a film when it has actors as good as these. Robert Downey Jr is at his best – much, much better than in Iron Man 2 – and as for Mark Ruffalo… What an actor.

Largely, then, my experience of The Avengers was positive, which did surprise me because my expectations were low, especially after Captain America. But, I did leave the cinema hoping (and I know I’m onto a losing bet with this one) that this is the end of it, that the series will put itself to bed on this high, and not do an Iron Man 2. I do not want to see Samuel L Jackson in this Fury role again. Robert Downey Jr seems to revel in his Iron Man persona and I’d hate to deprive him of it but Mark Ruffalo deserves so much better than playing the Hulk. As for Joss Whedon, he is a master of original scifi. I’d love to see more of that. I have a whimsical hope that the success of this film may allow that to happen.

Obviously, Chris Hemsworth can return as Thor as often as he likes.

So, there you go, I liked a superhero movie and the chances are you’ll like it too, but please…. NO MORE!!!

A spoiler PS so please don’t read this bit:

What did all that business about the cards being in the locker and not in the pocket mean? Is this an in-joke that can only be understood if you’ve read all the comics backwards?

Dr Alfred Jones (Ewan McGregor) is some kind of fish scientist, passing his days by making fishing flies and throwing darts at his boss. He spends his evenings feeding his pond fish as some kind of therapy for an unhappy marriage. He is given the distraction he needs by a preposterous morale-raising government project. He is tasked by Patricia Maxwell (Kristin Scott Thomas), a fearsome press secretary, to work on a scheme proposed by Sheikh Mohammed (Amr Waked) to transform the desert canyons of the Yemen into rivers rich with running salmon. The fact that this project costs many millions of pounds and will benefit one person seems by the by. Helping Dr Jones is Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Emily Blunt), an investor with control of Sheikh Mohammed’s ample purse. This project, should it work, which Dr Jones believes is highly unlikely, will enable the personable Sheikh to fish without the regular trips to Scotland but the theory is also that the voting population will look kinder upon politicians photographed salmon fishing alongside the Sheikh. Apparently, an awful lot of voters fish. Even more, presumably, eat fish.

The charm of this film is undoubtedly in its stars. Kristin Scott Thomas is deliciously snappy, spitting out many of the script’s best lines, but Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt play gentle, vulnerable souls, who each have their issues at home and, in Blunt’s case, some very real heartbreak. The dialogue is funny and often sweet which, after seeing a movie in which battleships and aliens fight each other to ear-deafening annihilation, is not necessarily anything bad. But among the laughs are some scenes which I’m slightly ashamed to say made me sob my eyes out. But then I am very sentimental when it comes to romantic dramas that involve animals.

The scenery is fantastic. We move from the rich fast-flowing, tree-lined waters of Scotland to the arid deserts of the Yemen, complete with tents pitched around fires, before breathtaking sunsets.

There is some ridiculousness in the plotting, not all of which involves salmon, but I was prepared to forgive it because I had a truly wonderful night in the cinema, laughing and crying, making a complete fool of myself. Sometimes, that is exactly what I want from a cinema trip. If I don’t leave the theatre after a romantic drama looking blotchy and red-eyed and wanting to hug the world then I don’t count it a success. Salmon Fishing in the Yemen passed this tricky test.

I would normally warn you at this stage whether spoilers are present in a review but in this case such a warning would be unnecessary. If there is a single plot turn that you haven’t guessed before you even enter the cinema then I would be surprised. It’s a fair bet that you could pre-guess the dialogue as well. And so, safe in the knowledge that you’re not in for too many surprises, you might as well hunker down into your cinema seat with a steady stream of high-sugar snacks and give in to two hours of big noises, big explosions, big ships, even bigger spaceships and the biggest dose of political correctness you’ll have seen in quite some time.

Americans and Japanese forces join together to beat an alien invasion of Pearl Harbor, discovering that by working as one they can save the world. An ex-army soldier who lost his limbs for his country can now get back a sense of self by winning earth an extra day. Luckily for him, by his side he has an attractive physio who not only happens to be the daughter of the admiral of the fleet but is also the fiancee of the loose cannon who saves the day – Hopper (Taylor Kitsch).

There are actually two Hoppers – Stone (Alexander Skarsgård) and Alex (Kitsch). But while one brother (Stone) is a shiny beacon for all navy officers, the other isn’t, although he still enters the navy at the ridiculously senior level needed for him to defeat an alien military force almost single-handed. Introduced to us as a long-haired fool who would do anything to impress his future bride Sam (Brooklyn Dekker), including stealing a chicken burrito no less, Alex finally gets the chance to prove his worth to Sam’s father Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson) just before he is kicked out of the navy for good. Unfortunately, it takes the loss of over 20,000 lives in Hong Kong and the annihilation of several battleships off Hawaii before he can do it.

Several years ago, NASA sent a greeting out into space from Hawaii towards the one planet that might just support life, Planet G. Unfortunately, the inhabitants didn’t understand English – possibly because they look like close relations of the walrus – and instead decided to attack earth with an amazingly small number of ships. Sealing the islands under an impenetrable bubble, the beardy, ugly aliens have to use the satellite dishes of Hawaii to ask their home planet for help. This is because their communications vessel unfortunately landed on top of Hong Kong. Trapped within the bubble along with Hawaii are just a few ships with the weight of the world on their shoulders. Very few inhabitants of the islands get a mention but inconveniently Sam and her wounded soldier with a big chip on his soldier are trapped on top of the mountain with the satellite dishes that Alex must destroy. Edge of your seat stuff.

It is very easy to dismiss a film like Battleship, not least because it deserves it. But there is something rather likeable about a film that is consciously very cheesy and fully aware of what everyone will say about it. It has Rihanna as a hot-headed monosyllabic gun-toting sailor! Surely it would never have done that if it didn’t mean for it to seem daft? Throw in some gags and a huge dollop of sentiment – wounded soldiers and retired sailors both get a standing ovation here – and you’ll be rooting for Alex and his band of misfit loveable survivors. It all seems tongue in cheek and even the aliens aren’t totally horrible. If a human doesn’t fight them then they don’t view them as a threat and won’t kill them. Admittedly a lot of humans do bite the bullet but maybe that’s an innocent mistake and all the aliens want to do is get to know us and other walruses?

Director Peter Berg clearly had a lot of fun with Battleship making the loudest explosions he could possibly make. The alien spaceships and weapons are different enough to be interesting and their abilities are consistent as are their weaknesses – something that could not be said about the ridiculous aliens of Battle Los Angeles. Taylor Kitsch does indeed have star qualities and makes for a likeable action hero and as such he does help one get in the mood to have fun with the cheese and silliness. The film looks good and it looks expensive. It’s also pleasingly content in its 2Dness. Battlefield is, though, preposterous and as daft as flying cows but when all is said and done it has two things going for it – 1) battleships, 2) aliens – both of which do exactly what they say on the tin.

However, I’m still not convinced that Berg actually played Battleship…

1. Five young adults visit the extremely remote cabin of the cousin of Curt. The enticement here is that Curt is played by Chris Hemsworth of Thor fame. I do hope, though, that you don’t love him for his hair.

2. A horror story with a bunch of teens is very well trodden ground. It’s fortunate, then, that this film has more twists in it that the Corkscrew rollercoaster of Alton Towers.

3. All the usual types are here: the lap dancing beauty (recently dyed), the pothead with a brain beneath the fumes, the big sporty muscular hunk, the unknown entity with a soft heart and a nice body, the virgin who also has a very good body. Further afield there is the tobacco-chewing red-eyed red-necked creepy gas station guy type.

4. There is humour mixed in with the horror. I can’t tell you what any of the jokes are as they’re too spoilery.

5. If you like thriller novels then you’ll like some of the ideas behind this. I just can’t tell you what they are as they’re too spoilery.

6. Josh (Bradley Whitford) from West Wing is in it.

Verdict: Despite combining elements from The Hills Have Eyes (can you believe that was 2006?) and other films I could mention but can’t because that would be too spoilery, The Cabin in the Woods is an enjoyable horror with enough shocks and twists to keep you entertained. However, I would argue that the first half is much superior to the second, I just can’t tell you why. The twists are not hard to spot as the story progresses and the horror is not too horrific: no more than 3 out of 5 on the horror scale.

While not as good in my opinion as the hype would suggest, The Cabin in the Woods is a fun film with some pleasing twists that is much harder to review than it is to watch.

Please all watch the film so that then we can talk about it?

Anonymous is not like any of Roland’s other films. This time he steered clear of apocalyptic scenarios, bad weather and invading aliens, to tell the tale of a story that has always intrigued and interested him – the speculation that William Shakespeare’s plays had in fact been penned by someone else, Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford. This was a personal project but because it was also a Roland Emmerich project, it would still be full of spectacle and done on a grand scale for a big budget. It would also retain that preposterous element.

The William Shakespeare of Anonymous is a word-fumbling, thuggish lout of an actor who accidentally falls into and upsets a scheme between Oxford and playwright Ben Jonson to pass off Oxford’s plays as the work of someone else and get them on the stage. An Earl with the ear of Queen Elizabeth I cannot be seen wasting his time as a writer and poet, a scandalous profession in these days when a play was viewed by many as an act of sedition. Bigger events are afoot, however. The Earl Of Essex, Elizabeth’s old advisor William Cecil and his son Robert – here suggested as the hunchback model for Richard III – are running rings around each other and the ailing Queen. With the threat of Spain and France still very real and Mary Queen of Scots’ son James standing in the wings, Elizabeth’s throne continues to tremble, even after all these years. No wonder then that she enjoys the relief of a good play, not to mention a handsome playwright. Elizabeth’s abandonment when watching one of ‘Shakespeare”s tragedies is so extreme she even undoes her corset in full view of a polite audience of courtiers.

There is barely a soul in Anonymous who is not up to some kind of mischief – soldiers, advisers, playwrights, the mob, the Queen, nobles, families – they’re all plotting and getting hot under the collar. Oxford’s situation is not helped by being married to the play-hating daughter of William Cecil and nor is her situation helped by her husband being mutually adored by the play-loving Queen. In this alternate reality, the Queen is not backwards in coming forwards with her loving subjects and she makes regular use of convenient nine-month long Progresses around her kingdom. One such Progress followed her liaison with Oxford, the produce of which has an impact on this story.

But aside from all the shenanigans and intrigues and plots, what makes Anonymous such a surprisingly enjoyable piece of cinema is its theatricality. Actors dressed in the most superb costumes populate extraordinarily sumptuous sets. Elizabethan London is splendid – its theatres, streets, river, palaces, dungeons and bridges. It is all presented on the broadest scale with vast panoramas across the city or along the Thames, populated by what looks like a cast of thousands. The theatre scenes of which there are many are a huge highlight of the film. The presentations of the plays, before the most enthusiastic emotionally-involved crowds, complete with jealous playwrights nevertheless moved to tears by the beauty of the lines being delivered in front of them, is fabulous. Perhaps one shouldn’t be surprised that the best parts of a film about Shakespeare’s plays are the plays themselves. Watching scenes from Henry V, Richard III and Julius Caesar you really can understand why these plays were viewed with such suspicion by nervous politicians. They were stirring stuff and the mob were very happy to let themselves be stirred up.

Oxford himself – played almost unrecognisably by Rhys Ifans – has to suffer the indignity of watching an oaf claim his plays and receive the adoration due to him. He has become an observer of men and while that inspires his plays it doesn’t do much to impress his wife or father-in-law. Robert Cecil (Edward Hogg) is a pantomime villain whereas David Thewliss gives some depth to William Cecil. Vanessa Redgrave clearly has a marvellous time playing an Elizabeth I who is fighting off the dotage towards the end of a long life. Having Vanessa’s daughter Joely Richardson play the Queen as a younger woman is both clever and effective. Jamie Campbell Bower as the young Oxford is far less so. I had a fair amount of trouble marrying the two together.

There is a lot of flitting to and fro between the years throughout Anonymous, there is also quite a mix of scenes on stage and off, with Elizabeth’s court itself presented as a type of theatre. All this is in keeping with the film’s structure as a play – Derek Jacobi as himself opens the film on a theatre stage in the present day, purposefully reminding us of Shakespeare’s use of narrator at the beginning of Henry V.

All of this is well and good and certainly makes for a feast for the eyes and ears. However, where the film falls down is in its plotting. Emmerich is only able to let off a few fireworks in Anonymous, he therefore makes up for this lack of explosive energy so beloved by him in his other films by blowing up the reputations of Elizabeth, William Shakespeare, the Earl of Oxford and Ben Jonson instead. Yet, as a tribute to the plays themselves, it is second to none.

We’re all extremely familiar with pirates these days but the pirates in this film – that is, Captain Pirate, Pirate with Gout, Albino Pirate, Fish in a Hat, Number Two and Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate, to name but a few – are outpirated by that most wicked of all Victorians, Queen Victoria herself. Captain Pirate voiced, alarmingly convincingly, by Hugh Grant is determined to win the Pirate of the Year competition for the first time in 21 years. This isn’t easy when the only reward on your head is a couple of dragoons and a pen. And then there’s the competition, Cutlass Liz (Salma Hayek), Black Bellamy (Jeremy Piven) and Peg Leg Hastings (Lenny Henry).

So when Captain Pirate sets out to prove he is a worthy pirate and fails to find a ship to plunder with any more booty on it than Charles Darwin (David Tennant), there is only one thing for it. Darwin talks Captain Pirate into sailing to London to enter the Scientist of the Year competition to display Polly the Ship’s Parrot. This is because Polly is in fact a dodo, a remarkably placid and easy going fat bird that died out, allegedly, over 100 years before. In return the captain would be given untold booty, qualifying him perfectly to win the great pirate prize. It was all going so well until Evil Vicky (Imelda Staunton) decides that there can be only one owner of the last surviving dodo and it isn’t a pirate.

For ninety minutes or so, the viewer is transported into a world of subtle-ish jokes and utterly non-subtle sidesplitters. The slightly older members of the audience will enjoy the evolution and survival of the fittest jokes, the Edgar Allan Poe-ish elements to this 19th-century world and the character assassination of one of Britain’s most famous monarchs – this is no Emily Blunt Victoria. But everyone will laugh at the silly mix of shipmates, especially, for me, the pirate that looks more like a chair and the especially curvaceous pirate, plus the Pirate King (Brian Blessed) and the visual gags of the Manpanzee.

This film doesn’t have the pathos or added depth of other recent animations such as Despicable Me, Wall-E or Up, nor does it have the cuteness of Kung Fu Panda (my personal favourite) or the big laughs of Ice Age (the new one – Continental Drift – trailered before Pirates! and it looked hysterical) but it does present a pleasingly ridiculous tribute to three of Britain’s most famous contributions of recent centuries: Queen Victoria, scientists and pirates. However, the fact that this film has been renamed Pirates! Band of Misfits almost everywhere else suggests that only Brits find scientists amusing.

Normally at this stage I would give a brief synopsis but the plot of Wrath of the Titans is so slight and contrived that it no longer owes much at all to the Greek mythology to which even Clash of the Titans gave a nod. Nevertheless, I’ll have a go. In a nutshell, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) unites with a son of Zeus, Ares (Edgar Ramirez), against Zeus (Liam Neeson) himself. His aim is to sap Zeus of his godly strength and give it instead, like a golden drip, to their father Kronos and bring him back to life. Bearing in mind that Kronos had been imprisoned in the ‘prison’ of Tartarus by his sons after he tried to kill them all, it seems like a rather daft thing to do and no explanation is given. So, in what is basically a big family scrap, Zeus’ other son Perseus (Sam Worthington) joins up with Poseidon’s son Angenor (Toby Kebbell) to rescue Zeus from evil uncle Hades. And Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) helps too, mainly to provide female interest, especially as Gemma Arterton was sensible.

There is no depth to the characters and there is no soul to the story. If you care about a single person or god in it then you’re doing better than me. The only being I felt sorry for was myself. The dialogue is bad and the acting is absent. Toby Kebbell has a valiant go with Angenor, attempting to turn him into a lovable rogue, but his effort is wasted. Bill Nighy is shameless as Hephaestus, re-enacting previous roles with previous accents (mostly Davy Jones from Pirates). As for Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes, I’m idealistically disappointed that they could be tempted by liberal pay cheques to return to this shambles.

There are few words to describe Sam Worthington’s efforts here and none of them are polite. He might have been bad in Clash of the Titans, but in Wrath of the Titans he’s downright diabolical. He does little to disguise his boredom, instead he inflicts it on us. He has no charisma, he’s charmless and he makes no effort to appear remotely ‘Greek’. I left the cinema adamant that I would do everything in my power to avoid all Sam Worthington movies in future – though going by his performance there there might not be too many of them to worry about.

The special effects were fine – Tartarus was an impressive cavernous, volcanic dungeon – and the monsters were reasonably imaginative, as was the Titan himself, Kronos. However, I was so bored by this stage that I couldn’t care less, I just wanted to be put out of my misery. The 3D was so dark and shoddy that all the action sequences were so blurred and unclear the film was robbed of any potential redeeming features. I saw this film in a large theatre. There were three other people in it – two walked out (noisily) and the third was fast asleep with his hood over his face. Unfortunately, I stayed conscious.

There is one positive to come from this viewing. It is extremely unlikely that I’ll see another film as bad in 2012. I’m also hoping that this is it. Surely the Titans couldn’t be so cruel as to inflict more clashing and wrathing on the modern world?

The Hunger Games is set in the future at a time when what is left of the United States has been turned into Panem, a police state divided into twelve Departments, with ever increasing poverty and hardship as their distance from the Capitol grows. At one time there was a Department 13 but 75 years before the novel begins there was rebellion and war which resulted in the annihilation of this furthest region. The state continues to remind its citizens of this time – and punish them -by holding an annual Hunger Games. Each department is forced to choose one boy and one girl to enter an elaborate arena and fight to the death. Only one can survive. But this is also a reality show, with every moment screened, and so what is torment for the Departments is sedation and entertainment for the pampered, painted and preened inhabitants of the Capitol.

When the child Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) is picked as ‘tribute’ for Department 12, her elder sister Katniss volunteers to take her place in the Games. Alongside her is Peeta, a boy who once saved her from starvation. Katniss enters the Capitol and the extravagant horror of it all, leaving behind Prim, her damaged mother and her closest friend, the boy she hunts with, Gale (Liam Hemsworth). After some days in the Capitol being cleaned up and played with, the Games begin – and all hell breaks loose.

Not everyone who sees the film will have read the book and, no doubt, it is a different experience if you’re not aware of what is to come. Nevertheless, both experiences are equally valid thanks to director Gary Ross who does a fine job of replicating the spirit of the novel, bringing it to life on the screen. The poverty and drudgery of life in the ghetto of Department 12, the ridiculous extravagance of the Capitol and, above all, the terror of Katniss, Peeta and the other competitors and the absolute horror of what these youngsters are being compelled to do – they’re all here. Katniss shakes with fear before entering the games, the camera itself shakes at the violence (no doubt as a means to comply with the 12A certificate but it also works on other levels). There might not be the bloodshed and mutilation of the novel but the fear and the awfulness of it all are conveyed extremely effectively.

As mentioned, Jennifer Lawrence is superb as Katniss, holding the film around her. There aren’t too many films in which a young woman is centre stage throughout, especially a young woman who is as inspirational a heroine as Katniss. And next to her is Peeta played by Josh Hutcherson. Here are two young people, almost strangers, forced together with the very real prospect that they will have to kill the other. Watched by cameras day and night, and playing for rewards from sponsors, they have to give the audience what they want and, in their case, it’s starcrossed lovers. So, are they in love or aren’t they? Both young actors convey this ambivalence very well. Josh Hutcherson also does an excellent job of interpreting Peeta’s quiet strength and confusion.

President Coriolanus Snow (one of the many Roman names in the film) has more of a role here than he does in the first novel but that is probably to prepare us for his part in the later films. It’s hard to imagine a more suitable actor than Donald Sutherland for this man that Katniss describes in the novel as smelling of roses and blood. Other stand outs include Lenny Kravitz as Katniss’ ‘designer’ Cinna, Elizabeth Banks as the doll-like Effie and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, a previous winner of the Games from Department 12 and so the mentor of Katniss and Peeta. This is not an easy role. Something has turned this man into a drunken sot of a slob and our feelings to him throughout the novels (as are Katniss’) are problematic, but Harrelson breathes life into a character who could have been more caricature in the wrong hands. There are moments that stand out too, not least the chariot ride into the arena, but there are others and you’ll recognise them when you see the film.

The next film, Catching Fire, is due in the theatres towards the end of 2013. Knowing what is in store makes the wait almost unbearable but having seen The Hunger Games I know now not to be anxious. That the trilogy is in safe hands.

If you haven’t read the books and if you enjoyed the film, do read all three before the release of Catching Fire. I think it’ll be worth it.

Read my review of the novel The Hunger Games.

I am painfully ignorant of Edgar Rice Burrough’s Barsoom novels, the first of which introduced John Carter to the world in 1911. But their stories of Mars (Barsoom), populated by combative humanoids and giant four-armed green Martians, the Thark, have done much to influence a century of science fiction. Unfortunately, this meant that the trailer’s focusing on Avatar-esque aliens and Attack of the Clones-like stadium battles obscured this originality nicely. Changing the name from John Carter of Mars to just John Carter did little to entice those of us ignorant of Barsoom. And just look at the terrible poster.

Nevertheless, if you made it inside the cinema, I think that there’s a good chance that you would have been wonderfully lost in Burroughs’ imagination and director Andrew Stanton’s interpretation of it for a full two hours. The story is a most excellent one – John Carter is a confederate officer from Virginia who has been damaged in the American Civil War. When searching for gold in a cave, he encounters a robed stranger whose medallion transports Carter to the dry, desert planet of Barsoom. John Carter is a source of wonder to the brutal Thark because of his gravity-defying ability to leap and jump incredible distances and heights. Becoming almost the pet of their leader Tars Tarkas (Willem Defoe), Carter escapes and finds himself caught in a great conflict between the humanoid cultures who are killing the planet with their war, manipulated and encouraged as they are by the mysterious and evil White Martians, led by Mark Strong. Caught in the middle is Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) and it becomes John Carter’s mission to save her – although she’s more than capable of looking after herself.

This exciting and romantic adventure plays out against the most magnificent and epic backdrop – deserts, plains, canyons and mountains mix with great cities and flying ships, populated by a cast of thousands, of different species and appearance, with the lone human caught in the middle, who has caught the imagination of all because of his non-Martian power to jump.

The film looks good. The 3D is unobtrusive but enhances the depth of the landscapes and inflates the scale. Taylor Kitsch is a fine John Carter, athletic and brave, but he has work to do to live up to the cast around him. Lynn Roberts is especially good as the feisty princess while Willem Dafoe is superb as conflicted Tars. Then there is Ciaran Hinds, Dominic West, Mark Strong, Samantha Morton and, my particular, completely biased favourite, James Purefoy.

But when all’s said and done, the stunning visual effects of John Carter are more than matched by the engrossing story, the great dramas played out between the different protagonists, the love story, and the mystery of this Virginian finding his place in a new home, so far away and so alien. The world of Barsoom comes to life here a century after its creation and I’ll be sure to go back to the original stories to discover more about John Carter and his Princess of Mars. It’s such a shame that Disney didn’t seem to realise what a jewel it had created.