Archive | August 2011

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) – Review

Despite the overly wordy title, ROTPOTA delivers the goods when it comes to excitement levels. Commendable popcorn entertainment – 7/10

Dir. Rupert Wyatt

“Stupid monkey! He’ll learn who’s boss soon enough”, proclaims Dodge (Tom Felton) – the cruel guard at a primate holding centre. But as we know from the 6 previous Planet of the Apes films 1) that monkey isn’t stupid 2) that monkey will show the humans who’s boss and 3) that monkey is an ape not a monkey, hence the name.

When I heard that this film was coming out I thought, “Oh no! Not another back-story/gritty reboot/prequel movie.” It’s not that they’re all bad – I enjoyed Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Star Trek and to some extent X-Men: First Class – it’s just to keep things fresh it’d be nice to see a few more originals. Having said this, there is undoubtedly artistic scope for a POTA back-story.

James Franco leads this one as Will Rodman, a scientist trying to defeat Alzheimer’s through the development of a genetically engineered retrovirus which he tests on chimpanzees. One such chimp, named Bright Eyes, is displaying increased cognitive function when she escapes and is shot. Subsequently – and relatively inexplicably – all funding from the programme is cut, leaving Rodman in despair at seeing his research wasted. All the chimps are put down except one – Bright Eyes’ newborn son. Against his initial intuitions Rodman takes the baby chimp home and keeps him in order to continue his research. Naming him Caesar (Andy Serkis), he and his father, Charles (John Lithgow) incorporate the chimp into the family, leading to troubles further down the line. Rodman conducts his clandestine research, despite the risks, in order to rid his father of dementia and eventually the hard work pays off as he produces a drug which returns his father to his former self. Meanwhile, Caesar’s intelligence increases exponentially, as do his levels of aggression and strength.

When Caesar attacks a neighbor in defence of Charles, Will is forced to put him in a primate facility run by the unsympathetic Landon (Brian Cox). Here Caesar becomes brutalised because of the way both the humans and other apes treat him. Matters then escalate and the pace of the movie quickens: Will develops a stronger drug as Charles’ mental state declines once again; whilst Caesar enacts a plan to firstly become leader of the apes in the facility and then break out and escape to Muir Woods over-looking San Francisco. From there, we assume he will plan his revolution in earnest.

There was much to enjoy in this film. Firstly, the CGI is fantastic; aside from one scene when Caesar is young, the apes look incredibly lifelike. Like Lord of the Rings, District 9 and Avatar before it, ROTPOTA has capitalised upon the ever-improving special effects technology and increased the extent to which audiences can emotionally engage with extraordinary events and characters. The lifelike and human qualities of the apes – which are accentuated by their increased intelligence – enable us to not only empathise, but actually side with the apes in their battle for liberty. Of course, we are recruited to the ape cause because of a number of additional factors: the evilness of the pharmaceutical company, Gen Sys, for whom Rodman reluctantly works; the gruff negligence of Landon and viciousness of his son Dodge; and to a lesser extent the anger and ignorance of Rodman’s neighbour, Hunsiker (David Hewlett).

Secondly, like in Lord of the Rings when he played Gollum, Andy Serkis steals the show as Caesar. Whether we wish to call it performance-capture or just plain old acting (Serkis has announced there is no difference), Serkis handles this difficult role with such physical brilliance. Caesar’s relationship with Rodman is believable and his transition from youngster to full-grown chimp to revolutionary leader is well measured. My only criticism is that his final words (yes words!) are cheesy and unnecessary.

Lastly, despite his limited experience of film-making at this scale, Rupert Wyatt delivers on the action scenes. San Francisco provides a stunning backdrop with the final showdown making full use of the Golden Gate Bridge. The apes move over San Francisco Bay by swinging under the bridge, by climbing into the mist or by powering through the middle – sometimes on horseback to reference the original. What this amounts to is an exciting and imaginative final sequence through which Wyatt has ensured he will receive future work in the blockbuster arena.

What has been neglected, however, is both the screenplay and the development of the human characters in this film. It lacks the wit, satire and intelligence of its predecessors and Franco plays Rodman with a remarkable lifelessness. The relationship between Rodman and his boss Steve Jacobs (David Oyelowo) is oddly placid – there should be sparks flying in these scenes but the nervous and frustrated energy that we should encounter is absent. In addition, the opportunity to fully engage with the ethical debate surrounding Rodman’s research is sidestepped as Caroline (Freida Pinto) doesn’t question the reason for Caesar’s intelligence for several years, despite being a primatologist.

If we focus on the apes then this film is excellent; however, when we look at the whole then some rather obvious flaws emerge. Basically, the apes are great and the humans aren’t so. Then again, I suppose that is why this becomes their planet. Whoops! Sorry if you haven’t seen the original 1968 film, I have just ruined one of the best endings in movie history. But never mind, the ending scene of ROTPOTA alludes to a possible sequel, so there’s always that to look forward to.


Bridesmaids (2011) – Review

“Do you want to tell a cop about it? We’re just like priests except we would tell everybody afterwards” – Bridesmaids is good but has received much more credit than it deserves – 6/10

Dir. Paul Feig

Bridesmaids has received a wealth of positive criticism and been surprisingly successful at the Box Office despite being up against high profile summer releases such as The Hangover: Part 2, the final Harry Potter and Transformers 3. Inevitably, because of the extent of the accolades this film has received, I went into the theatre pondering: A) Is this film as good as everyone says? And B) If it isn’t, then why all the praise? But before all that, let me explain what Bridesmaids is about.

The main character is called Annie (Kristen Wiig) and her best friend (Lillian, played by Maya Rudolph) is getting married. Annie responds to the news with a mixture of jealousy and excitement. At the wedding Annie is to be ‘maid of honour’ and she plunges herself into the role wholeheartedly but misguidedly. You see, Lillian has made a new friend called Helen (Rose Byrne) who appears to be trying to take over Annie’s role as best friend. Annie, who is Lillian’s lifelong friend cannot understand why they are getting on so well, I mean they’ve only known each other for like a few months!! The thing is, however, Helen is rich, glamorous and crucially, good at organising weddings. In stark contrast, Annie’s attempts at organising the requisite pre-wedding events are calamitous to say the least – with both cringe-making and amusing results. As Lillian and Helen become increasingly good friends, Annie feels sidelined and betrayed. On top of this Annie’s life in general is not going so great: her business failed, her boyfriend left her, her English housemates are weird and annoying, her male friend/guy she sleeps with sometimes (Ted, played by John Hamm) is a horrible bastard. On top of this she hates her job and her boss, her car is rubbish and she’s broke. So Annie’s life is going badly and she feels like her best friend status with Lillian is under threat. During the course of the film we see Annie behave in an increasingly insane manner in the run up to the wedding.

Bridesmaids is a comedy and it did make me laugh – that is the first box ticked. For example, the scene where a sudden bout of food poisoning ruins a dress fitting is rather amusing and it culminates in a particularly hilarious incident as Lillian breaks down in the middle of the street, with a wedding dress on, to relieve herself. In addition, Kristen Wiig – who also co-wrote the film – exhibits a fair amount of charm and comic flair. The real star, however, is Annie’s love interest, Officer Nathan Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd), who has some great lines and delivers them in a wry and self-deprecating manner. In fact, his down-to-earth character is refreshing amongst a collection of caricatures.

The English room-mates are grotesque and ridiculous. Ted is completely over-the-top in how rude he is to Annie: “This is so awkward. I really want you to leave, but I don’t know how to say it without sounding like a dick” and “I wouldn’t want to make you explain what our relationship is to all those people. That would suck for you” are a couple of his lines. Undeniably, they’re not bad lines, but the problem is that there’s too much that’s over-the-top in this film; too many extreme, cartoon-esque characters. There is the naive newlywed, the cynical mother of three who’s bored of her husband, Helen is the spoilt princess-type, Megan (Melissa McCarthy) is the delusional fat one with no shame – a rip-off of Zach Galifianakis’ character in The Hangover. Even Officer Nathan Rhodes seems to be THE most down to earth guy EVER! With whom Annie predictably ends up.

The whole film is a bit too obvious and runs very predictably – basically it lacks subtlety. This, of course, is exactly what we have come to expect from an Apatow movie and I don’t have any particular problem with that. Apatow Productions has produced some very funny films and entertained excellently over the last few years. I have a problem, however, with the extent of critical acclaim this film has received. In short, it isn’t that good. So then, why all the praise? I think possibly it’s because Bridesmaids is written by women and features women doing blokey jokes – ones involving poo, farts and fat people – and there’s a feeling that this should be encouraged. Maybe not, but that’s my theory. You can make up your own mind. Certainly Wiig should be encouraged, she seems pretty good; but then again, people from the Saturday Night Live team usually are.

Trailer Reel

This week we have a lot of trailers to get through, so without further ado lets get to it.

First up, Ryan Gosling has a new film coming out: Drive. It’s about a talented Hollywood stunt driver who, at night, does getaway jobs for armed robbers. He’s a bit of a loner but can’t resist his neighbor Carey Mulligan, a young mother at risk of being dragged into danger by her ex-convict husband. To protect her, Gosling takes a job to pay off her husband’s protection money but things go wrong and he’s left with a bag of cash in his trunk. Now forced to evade mobsters, he soon realizes that they’re after more then just cash, causing him to take the fight to them.

I have always rated Gosling and paired with the rest of the cast, this looks like it could be an enjoyable watch. It’s also refreshing to see a film that’s not a remake, sequel or prequel. Judging by the Cannes award it received, Drive also has a capable director behind it. Looking at the trailer, it undeniably has style and a badass soundtrack to go with it. Promising to offer plenty of drama, action and 80s nostalgia, Drive is out in cinemas on the 23 September.

Now this one looks very interesting, its Ralph Fiennes’ directorial debut, Coriolanus.

Anyone recognize the title? It’s one of William Shakespeare’s plays, although it’s not one his most popular ones. It was set in Ancient Rome and focused on a dishonored soldier hell-bent on revenge against the people he once help set free. Fiennes however has decided to adapt Shakespeare’s play by placing it in the 21st century, in a war torn country, making it relevant and relatable. Will it be any good? Past efforts to adapt Shakespeare to the modern age have been dismal; Baz Luhrman’s Romeo & Juliet is one of the only successful adaptations. However, with a great cast and the screenwriter of Gladiator and The Last Samurai on board, this might just work. We will have to wait until January 2012 to find out.

Taking a break from interesting new projects, we can now look at a trailer from the Spider-Man re-boot, The Amazing Spider-Man.

I’m still not convinced that we even need another Spider-Man film just yet, let alone a re-boot. It seems too soon to be trying to restart the series from scratch, I guess we have the rising popularity of comic book films to blame and judging from this trailer we can expect things to be even more emo then the last one. The trailer shows us a reclusive, depressing young man that is given extraordinary abilities when bitten by a radioactive spider. With these new abilities Peter Parker becomes the Spider-Man. It is evident from the trailer that director Marc Webb is looking for an emotional re-telling of one of the most successful comic book heroes. It does have the benefit of Andrew Garfield as its lead – its not that I hated Toby Maquire – but I do feel Garfield is more likable. The original Spider-Man is widely regarded as one of the better comic book movies, time will tell if this can live up to its predecessor. Let’s just hope they leave those terrible first person CGI sequences in the trailer; that shit looks naff.

Right, this next film has been creating some waves at film festivals, its the new trailer for Like Crazy.

Well, this film looks emotionally tiring. Honestly though, the premise of the film deserves some recognition. Felicity Jones is a British student who goes to America to study, there she meets Anton Yelchin and they eventually fall for one another. However, after their time at college is over, Jones overstays her visa and is deported back to England. Banned from entering America ever again, the two young lovers have to overcome this hurdle to keep their relationship alive. Highlighting just how debilitating long distance relationships can be and with the actors involved, this may be one romantic drama worth seeing. Despite my reservations with these sort of films, chances are this will be a powerful tale handled well by director Drake Doremus.

That’s all for now but we will be bringing you another edition of the trailer reel soon – sorry pun not intended.

Super 8 (2011) – Review

“Stop talking about production value, the Air Force is going to kill us” – With a great opening act and a nostalgic feel, Super 8 is a good summer blockbuster – 7/10

Dir. J. J. Abrams

Super 8 is a film that looks to the classic 1970s and 80s summer blockbusters for its inspiration. Super 8 aims to pay homage to the Super 8mm films of the past and also to one of director J.J. Abrams’ long time mentors, Steven Spielberg. This would be fine, except that Spielberg is the producer of Super 8 and paying homage to yourself is weird. This film is as close to a replication of Spielberg’s style as you will ever see, in parts it could have easily been a Steven Spielberg directs rather than presents.

With the story set in the fictional town of Lillian, Super 8 focuses on a group of kids helping out their friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) make an amateur zombie flick on a Super 8mm Camera (a home 8mm format made by Kodak for those who are not complete nerds… ahem). The film starts off with the morbid scenes of a young boy named Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) struggling to come terms with the loss of his mother; refusing to attend his mothers wake, he sits outside on his swing. As the scene unfolds we come to understand that he doesn’t have the best relationship with his Dad, Jackson Lamb (Kyle Chandler), and it is suggested that his job as Deputy Sheriff has tended to come before his son. Skip four months down the line and we find Joe leaving school with his good mate Charles. As it is now the summer holidays, Charles wants to shoot his own Super 8 and submit it to a film festival. After enlisting the help of a girl from school called Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning) to play a major part, Joe and the rest of Charles’ friends pull their weight to help out in making this movie.

To make sure they get things right, the group of friends decide to sneak off at night to an old abandoned train station to rehearse and once picked up by Alice in her Dad’s car (without a license! tut tut) they head to practice their scene. Joe, Charles and the two other boys have zero acting ability but Alice stuns all of them with an impressive performance. This is cut short however as they get interrupted by the sound of an oncoming train, which for Charles means a chance to better ‘Production Values’. As they scramble to set up the camera, things take a turn for the worse as they bare witness to a disastrous train crash. Fearing for their lives, they weave in and out of the descending debris from the wreck that literally rains down on them; a scene that is absurdly over the top but brilliant. After evading the carnage, Joe witnesses a strange disturbance in one of the toppled cargo freights as something inside breaks free from its steel prison. Not keen on finding out what it was, the crew have to move from the area quickly as the authorities close in on their position, however, not before grabbing the camera that inadvertently filmed the whole crash. Whatever was in the train, we soon learn, was valued cargo to the US Air force and after sealing off the area and selling the local police duds, things start smelling like a cover up, Area 51 style.

Without spoiling too much, it doesn’t take long to figure out that the cargo on the train is nothing less than extraordinary and more importantly, not from this planet. As strange occurrences start happening across the small town and people go missing, the kids learn more about the new threat through the footage from Charles’ camera.

Thankfully, it is not until the final act that the ‘Cloverfield’ plot line comes to the fore of the story, it plays out in the background, but Super 8 for the most part is concerned with the children’s determination to shoot their flick. It keeps these two plot lines running smoothly alongside one another for the most part, but come the latter stages of the film, it starts to lag and fails to match the quality of the brilliant first act. Why is this? Well, I wouldn’t want to point fingers but I struggle not to blame Spielberg, the longer the film goes on the deeper we descend into familiar Spielberg territory, culminating in a very unsatisfying ending that seems forced – not to mention sickly sweet.

But to say it is Spielberg’s fault directly would be incorrect, because it’s Abrams’ preoccupation with demonstrating how he can be like Spielberg that gives the film a lack of an identity. Clearly, Abrams is fulfilling a lifelong dream in working with Spielberg, but in parts it feels like he is placing scenes, such as the ending, deliberately to entice memories of decades past and mimic his mentor’s style. Setting the film in 1979 is a clear statement from Abrams: Spielberg established his trademark during the 1970s and 80s and films like E.T. have a clear and profound effect on Super 8. Unfortunately, as much as Super 8 tries its hardest to be a Spielberg film and despite Spielberg’s involvement, it falls short of creating the same personal touch that is his trademark.

Super 8 is not a bad film in any way, it just lacks a mind of its own and resultantly feels too formulaic. Nevertheless, it has a lot going for it: the first act alone is worth seeing and the performances are solid, especially Elle Fanning who proves she has as much ability as her sister (man that audition scene is impressive). Those that grew up on films like The Goonies and E.T. will probably welcome the waves of nostalgia this throws at the audience but others may be unimpressed by its formulaic final three quarters and ending. Nevertheless, this trumps most of what we have seen so far in 2011 and I would put it up there with one of the better blockbusters on the big screen this year. Oh and stay for the credits, there is an amusing screening of Charles’ film with references to Romero.

Transformers (2011) – Review

Michael Bay has failed to understand the criticism levelled at Transformers 2 and still struggles to shake off his habits of racial stereotyping, obnoxious film-making and leery shots on his female leads – 4/10

Dir. Michael Bay

 Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen was an extremely bad movie. Don’t believe what the box office figures would suggest, T:ROF left a lot of people unsatisfied. Even the man himself (Michael Bay) along with lead actor Shia LaBeouf admitted that the second film was a poor show and they reassured us that its sequel would not suffer from the same problems that plagued its predecessor. However, something about all this sounded a little off to me. Maybe it was the nagging feeling I had that Bay couldn’t for the life of him fathom what it was that people didn’t enjoy about being slapped around the face repeatedly with special effects and explosions. T:ROF was loud, obnoxious and completely aimless in its plot direction. But wait a minute, don’t jump the gun I said! Hold those negative thoughts I began telling myself. Try to keep a positive outlook, I proclaimed! Perhaps there was a small chance that Bay didn’t have some PR man’s hand up his arse, like a puppet, sprouting out words Bay didn’t understand. Maybe he was being honest and maybe he genuinely intended to reassess his directorial stance and return to making perfectly average films, the type that entertain enough to stop your brains from melting and slipping out of your nostrils, like The Rock (seriously, his only enjoyable film). So, I half-heartedly convinced myself  that this one might not be terrible, and don’t get me wrong, I was never expecting anything that was good, but I was convinced that he couldn’t possibly shoot a complete critical dud this time around, not three times in a row surely. Well, not so, he has done it again! Unbelievable. Michael Bay is the devil.

Undoubtedly this film is better than the second Transformers film. There is at least an attempt to add some order to the plot. Nevertheless, there are still moments when the plot progresses abrasively from one scene to the next. The reason for this could have been to try to save time, however if this is so then I would have to question why they didn’t just cut out some of the Sam Witwicky story. If I was being generous towards Bay then I should commend his scope. Despite all his shortcomings there is a grandness to Bay’s set pieces that seem unrivaled with other action crammed movies, apart from Inception. In Dark Of The Moon, the feeling of war and destruction is successfully conveyed as the whole world is invaded and Chicago is decimated.

Having said this, many of the pitfalls of T: ROF are repeated. The film starts with a battle between Decepticons and Autobots on their home world. We are told that one ship held the key to victory but it became damaged and spiralled off into space. This is followed by a montage of the space race back on earth, consisting of some real footage and some fictional scenes that include an odd-looking CGI JFK. This culminates in the launch of Apollo 11 and we learn that NASA didn’t lose contact with the astronauts, they intentionally cut off contact in order that the alien spaceship which crash landed on the moon could be investigated.

Strangely, I didn’t hate this part and whilst it felt a bit hammy, I welcome Bay taking the time to set up the plot. Unfortunately, the momentum and structure built by this start is made redundant by what follows: an overly long segment spent enduring the mind-blowingly mundane world of Sam Witwicky. Who actually cares if he is struggling to get a job? Who cares if he is jealous of his girlfriend’s boss? Who cares if he is feeling lonely without his robot buddies? What film is this anyway? I thought this was Transformers? Where are they?! Because let’s be honest there is more personality in their nuts than in Shia LaBeouf’s whole body. How this guy gets into any movies is baffling, does he really hold that much star power? Because if not, then what does he have? I can’t understand why so much screen time is given to a character with the depth of a puddle. Although LaBeouf’s acting soars high above anything Rosie Huntington-Whiteley can muster, she is a model not an actor. I don’t resent her in this movie for that reason but her presence left me missing Megan Foxx (much to my surprise!). At least she had more than that one expression which Rosie has nailed down – the pout.

This was not the only thing that left me confused. Strangely, Bay has decided to throw all seriousness out the window and include some bizarre moments that I’m sure he considers to be ‘comic relief’. On several occasions at random, some wacky and insane character will come and piss about on-screen for a while! It was highly frustrating and I had the urge to shout ‘GO AWAY’ or look around and ask if I was imagining this. By the time Ken Jeong appeared as Mr. Chow (from The Hangover) I was beyond caring. It would seem this is just Bay’s sense of humor and it is one that I will never get.

It seems that Bay has acknowledged his critics but not fully understood them. Criticized for being all about action, he slows down the pace at times, but all this means is more time with Sam Witwicky. It is also strange to find the likes of Francis McDormand, John Malkovich and Patrick Dempsey in this film. It’s like Bay has employed ‘real’ actors to increase the film’s credibility, however, their scenes feel disjointed and out-of-place.

What more can be said about the latest Transformers movie – it is all I expected it would be. Bay still struggles to grow up and shake off his habit of racial stereotyping, obnoxious film-making and leery shots on his female leads. It looks good at least and the set pieces are much, much better than T:ROF, nevertheless, the improvements are marginal. This is another stinker from Michael Bay, but oh well, at least we have got Transformers 4 to look forward to…

Captain America: The First Avenger – Review

Captain America: The First Avenger doesn’t take itself too seriously and displays an element of retro verve – a harmless summer blockbuster – 6/10

Dir. Joe Johnston

‘Captain America: The World Police’ is what the title should really be. As I sat in the cinema watching Captain America, I had to suppress the urge to shout out “America, Fuck Yeah!” every time the Cap’ did something heroic. As much as I am sick to death of writing and saying the word Marvel, I’m not going to trail off into the standard anti-Marvel rant. Holding my preconceptions behind I went into Captain America determined to ignore the mega disappointments that have been Marvel films.

Captain America: The First Avenger is the last of a series of character focused films that precede the 2012 film The Avengers. Marvel’s big project is set to have the likes of Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor and Captain America working together as one team named The Avengers. In previous films, Marvel have repeatedly reminded us about The Avengers. Iron Man 2 was just one big billboard for the forthcoming film – with cameos left, right and centre, the film was over-stuffed with characters. Thankfully, Captain America: The First Avenger avoids this pitfall and spare a few minutes in the film, we are given the Captains story only.

Captain America: The First Avenger is set during the 1940s at the height of the Second World War. Steve Rogers is a sickly, physically inept young man who is determined to join the fight against Hitler. Unfortunately, Rogers’ medical record prevents him from being eligible from serving on the front lines, constantly being passed on to the factory positions. Rogers’ luck changes however when a German scientist (Stanley Tucci) overhears a conversation between him and his friend that demonstrates he is the perfect candidate for his super soldier programme. It doesn’t take much persuasion on the scientists part to convince Rogers to volunteer himself to the programme and soon enough he is transported to a secret facility in Brooklyn to conduct the experiment. The experiment requires the soon to be super soldier to step into a pod and receive a serum that will transform Rogers. The transformation is excruciatingly painful but the Captain pulls through and completes the process, leaving with immense strength and the perfectly chiseled body, the Captain is placed on the national stage to pose as a hero. Meanwhile, a very devious Nazi by the name of Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) has acquired an ancient supernatural device that could threaten the world. Schmidt is the leader of Hydra, a research division in the German army that doesn’t seem to be concerned with the same issues as Hitler and the rest of the Nazi party. With this new threat looming, Captain America takes matters into his own hands and convinces the Army to place him at the forefront of the action. Partnered with a team of specialists and British operative Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), Captain America takes the fight to the Hydra division and Schmidt himself.

Now, I have never read a Captain America graphic novel and never intend to but I imagine that this is a  plot line that respects the source material; Captain America has a comic book sensibility that works well for it. It never takes itself seriously and retains an element of retro verve throughout. The film really does have fun with its 1940s setting and the role of the Hydra division helps in keeping things nice and camp. The use of Captain America as a symbol of patriotism and strength seem perfect for the period and the way he is manipulated to encourage citizens to buy government bonds for the war was a nice touch.

Chris Evans fits in well as Captain America, its the earlier stages of the film that requires the most from him and I have to say he was enjoyable as the leading man. His relationship with Hayley Atwell feels organic and the British actress is refreshing as a tough, capable yet attractive lady. Hugo Weaving is in his element again as a completely over the top villain, his addition to the cast makes for a highly entertaining character.

However, its not the performances or the unashamed fun of the film that disappoints. Captain America’s latter stages let down its first half. At times the action and subsequently the plot feel a bit aimless and underwhelming the further it progresses. The CGI also seems to fluctuate in quality, the special effects work on Chris Evans body at the beginning of the film is impressive and so is a stunning visual of space at the film’s climax but there are scenes that aren’t so awesome – notably the train scene is just ridiculous.

Captain America is what some would call a harmless summer blockbuster, meaning that whilst entertaining it’s ultimately a forgettable venture to the cinema. Kudos though for its decision to have fun with the iconic hero, making this immeasurably better then Green Lantern could ever hope to be.