SevenStitches

This is possibly the most intelligently made animated film I've ever seen, along with been one of the most down to earth entertaining ones to boot.

Viewing the life of superheroes in a previously unexplored fashion, "The Incredibles" functions as not just a self aware parody on regular superhero clichés but also as a genuinely thought provoking study on how the constraints of mediocrity in society can sometimes oppress those who wish to excel and reach higher heights deserving of their potential. That and the jealousy that can emerge from those that look on these individuals with envious eyes. On top of all that you have a wonderful comedy dealing with the obstacles of middle aged superheroes past their prime and handling normal family life. All of this is exceptionally covered without any dilution, with all the right questions explored and all the right funny bones tickled with witty dialogue, fantastic vocal performances, wonderfully developed characters and an engaging story line. It truly is a film for all ages.

I haven't even mentioned the unbelievable animation, Pixar's best at the time (and still a marvel three films later) that allowed them to render impressively varied vistas, beautifully expressive characters and spectacular action sequences that rival the best of the live action superhero genre.

Director Brad Bird would go on to direct Pixar's "Ratatouille" (2007) with a far more subdued hand but nevertheless retaining a lot of the wit that he showcased as a writer here. However by a very small thread I'd tip this to be his best work out of the three films he's directed (his first was the excellent "The Iron Giant" (1999)) and it's also probably Pixar's greatest achievement too. Now lets see if Andrew Stanton's "WALL-E" can top it.

"Spider-Man 2" eclipsed my expectations of what to expect from the mega-popular superhero franchise. Not only did it ramp up the quality of the action set pieces and visual effects considerably from its predecessor (the entirety of what most action blockbuster sequels encompass) but it also tracked and maintained the natural progression of all the characters involved, based on what was left after the first film. It wasn't afraid to further explore the emotional weight that comes with been a teenage superhero, nor to flesh out a villain that was sympathetic and not entirely malevolent. This, along with the perfect interplay of comedy and dazzling action made SM2 in my opinion the perfect comic-book movie. No surprise then that I had high hopes for this second sequel (as if no one else did!). From what had already passed and with a considerably bigger budget ($250 million +, the trailers prove that alone), Sam Raimi and co. were looking to once again up the stakes in all areas. But surely no one can beat the "perfect" comic-book movie?

All is rosy and right with our friendly neighbourhood Spiderman at the outset of his latest adventure. In stark contrast to what began the first sequel, the man sized creepy crawly is the toast of the city, now balanced perfectly with alter ego Peter Parker's straight A student life and blooming Broadway beau Mary Jane Watson, who is now aware of Peter's secret. However, not all is serene under the screen. Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn, is still seeking revenge for his father's death and now that he knows who's behind the mask of his adversary, he can finally squish the bug from the source by continuing is father's legacy as the New Goblin.

Enough for the latest episode you say? Well barely half an hour in, at least three more plots surface; during a night under the stars for Peter and MJ, a meteor strikes covertly close by, subsequently releasing a writhing, crawling black ooze that manages to hitch hike home with Peter that same night; a rival photographer in the form of Eddy Brock (Topher Grace) is slithering his way into the Daily Bugle as Spiderman's new photographer, much to Pete's disdain; Flint Marco (Thomas Hayden Church) is a runaway criminal and allegedly the real killer of Peter's Uncle Ben (a major plot motivation) who ends up accidentally trapped in an elaborate experimentation chamber that turns him into a disintegrating sand monster, aka the Sandman.

So after two paragraphs I've basically described almost the entire setup act. This is nothing we haven't seen in the trailers and even more is yet to come. There's the case of Spidey's black suit, Gwen Stacey (Bryce Dallas Howard) as the rival love interest, Venom and not to mention how all this affects Peter and MJ's relationship. People who are familiar with the comics or have seen the trailers will be aware of most of these plot points so I'm not going to elaborate, and for those who aren't aware, well, I don't have the space.

Yes, Spider-Man 3 is stuffed when it comes to content. The filmmakers have clearly seen this as possibly the capper on the trilogy so they decided to add in as many popular characters, villains and stories as possible while settling a number of plot lines started in the first two films. What results is at times an immensely entertaining film with action set pieces and special effects that out do its predecessors, trademark moments of zany and self aware comedy (Spidey empties his boots of sand after a long bout with the Sandman, asking himself "Where do these guys come from?") and our favourite characters portrayed perfectly by skilled actors. But by the end there's a distinct sense that everything else that the other films nailed could have gone smoother had they reduced the content.

This movie has enough to span at least two and to be honest that's probably what should have happened. While the black suited Spiderman is partly the result of the Sandman's existence, due to Peter's thirst for revenge for his uncle's true killer (feeding the black clinging symbiote), it could have been left for another film, leaving Peter to deal with the Sandman, Harry and MJ here. That's more than enough to engage for 2 hours. As much as I loved Peter's new attitude with the black suit and all the comedy that ensued, the development needed more time to illicit the sense of struggle in the character (Black Spidey is hardly seen in action nor are the symbiote's origins thoroughly explained).

Venom is another example. Probably the most infamous villain in the comic books, he's given nothing more than 20 minutes of screen time here, making him seem like a complete after thought, just shoehorned in for popularity's sake. He looks cool and his eventual appearance sticks to the source, but it's too little of too much too late. Along with the black suit, Venom should have been reserved for another film. New villains, especially of this ilk, need that time to develop. Venom and Sandman each deserved a full length feature at least.

Despite these annoying flaws, there's no denying Spider-Man 3 is still a very entertaining comic-book film due its incredible action (New Goblin vs Peter can take the prize for that), gorgeous special effects (Sandman's first appearance is a short film in and of itself due to its beauty alone) and show stopping comedy (Bruce Campbell once again has a hilarious cameo). It's never boring despite the length and the pacing is fairly consistent. It's also the most fun you'll have at the movies thus far this year, so I recommend it for that alone. But as an entry in the superior Spider-Man saga, it falls behind number 2's stunning all round quality and even number 1's tight plotting. In the end, they really couldn't improve on the perfect comic-book movie. Go figure!

Roland Emmerich's Godzilla remake is an old enough film now to have a solid consensus on its quality laid upon it. Common knowledge would say that it was a very bad film. And yes, technically speaking it's not the best by any means. The plot's like swiss cheese, acting on most fronts is perfunctory, which compliments the script's quality nicely (if unintentionally) and the whole thing borrows and cannibalises many, many monster/sci-fi genre conventions. And you know what, ever since i first saw it on the big screen, i still enjoy it. Maybe that's because i was so young at the time that i couldn't care less about the finer qualities of cinema (i was, and still am to a limit, a self proclaimed monster movie nut) and have seen it so many times from then onto the present that i haven't had time to mature to its faults in between viewings. I'm not saying its a great movie by any extent. In fact there are moments where I admit it is very poor. But it does enough things right to stay afloat.

Staying pretty close to the fundamental concept of the original Japanese "Gojira", "Godzilla" is all about a phenomenally massive, radioactively mutated reptile, causing mayhem and destruction to the nearest mass populated metropolis. It's up to the local scientists and militia to find out where this thing came from, why its here and how to stop it. That's not the most concise version of the plot, but it's not too bad either. Lets elaborate on the new stuff.

Changes have been made to Americanize the story, two of which are obvious; the lizard wasn't a result of the Horoshima fallout but of French Pacific Island nuclear testing; the city under siege is Manhattan, not Tokyo. Attempts at modernising the tale for a contemporary, more environmentally conscious audience have resulted in turning the monster into a fish eating, asexual, egg laying creature just trying to find a suitable nesting site, thus he (why is it called a he if it's pregnant?) isn't just destroying stuff because it's a nifty past time. The person who finds this out is a biologist Nick Tatopolis (Matthew Broderick), who's dragged out from his study of Trenoble earthworms to deal with this slightly bigger specimen. Him, along with the US Army led by Colonel Hicks (Kevin Dunn), track the beast from early sightings and boat attacks on nearby island chains up to the big apple itself. They aren't alone. A French secret service group led by Philippe Roache (Jean Reno) is on the same trail to clean up the mess his nation indirectly caused. On top of all this we have Nick's college sweetie Audrey Timmonds (Maria Pitillo) in the city pursuing a news reporter career, with help from cameraman Victor 'Animal' Palotti (Hank Azaria) and his wife Lucy (Arabelle Field), with a chauvinistic anchorman Charles Caiman (Harry Shearer) getting in the way. (You can choose to ignore the last plot strand if you wish)

So that's Godzilla without the big 'plot twists' that take place at various points, but will no doubt be anticipated by any conscious individual watching. The main story and characterisations have never been the monster/action/disaster flick genre's main attraction and that's no more true than it is here. All the players are caricatures and genre stereotypes and any attempts at depth (Nick and Audrey get back together after a long hiatus) are dealt with very poorly, but thankfully its not enough to sink the whole ship. Its left to the actors to carry all the scenes that don't feature the titular monster (too few) and most of them do the best they can with a script that does nobody any favours. Shearer, Azaria and of course Reno have good comic moments and seem to take the script as the preferable but unintentional tongue in cheek variety, Reno especially, hamming it up as the dude who knows the score and goes through the whole ordeal with a knowing confidence and swagger. No one else makes an impression. Broderick is adequate for the lead but nothing more. Pitillo, despite looking gorgeous, comes off kind of annoying as the love interest, playing it in semi-dumb blond mode (still, that girl is hot!).

The movie is successful in two areas, the first been Emmerich's once again not very subtle but still amusing political satire on America, from their gun ho culture in neutralising threats, the scathing media, to the mispronunciation of Gojira that becomes Godzilla. Genre movies are also parodied (although that could be kind talk for outright plagiarism) from the likes of Dino DeLaurenti's "King Kong" to "Jurassic Park" (featured in a horrendous chapter containing Baby Godzillas), plus the Mayor of New York, Mayor Ebert, is a caricature of the real movie critic Roger Ebert.

The monster itself is the second and most noteworthy success. A concoction of both the original Godzilla and modern day reptilian design, it's a marvel to look at. Yes, the fact that it's a CGI creation is unmistakable, but it transcends the dated technology with a soulful performance, present mostly due to the way it's animated, with a lot of naturalistic detail in its behaviour, instilling feelings of intimidation, awe and endearment (its phenomenal size adds to the intimidation factor). The action scenes are directed and choreographed with Emmerich's nack for large scale destruction and special effects, and both are therefore top draw. There are some stand out sequences, the most memorable been when Godzilla first takes a stroll through Manhattan which is both awe inspiring and exciting.

Godzilla is no masterpiece, not even a good film in some areas and as far as remakes go it doesn't rank highly. But it's an enjoyable piece of fluff that overcomes its glaring faults by been occasionally funny (sometimes unintentionally), satirical and containing a handful of well orchestrated action sequences featuring one of the best movie monsters in recent film history.