WHATEVER WORKS (2009 - Cert 12A)

Larry David. Is there anyone in the world better suited to play the Woody Allen character in a Woody Allen film? If you've seen Curb Your Enthusiasm, you'll know that David's grumpy, narcissistic, say-whatever-is-on-your-mind approach is perfectly suited to a lot of Woody Allen's writing. It seemed to me that Allen was on to a winner here, he's found something he's been after for years. You'd think he would be shouting it from the rooftops, he's found his muse, marketing this film until he's blue in the face. Instead, it made very little impact, causing barely a ripple. Released after the much talked about Vicky Christina Barcelona, and before Midnight in Paris (which is apparently Woody Allen's return to form and his best film in years - people forget that they said the same thing about Vicky Christina Barcelona). I know Allen is prolific in his output but you would still think that a film starring one of the most championed comic minds in the land would spark some interest?

It's a very small film. By that I mean that Allen isn't trying to add a location as a character, as he has been tempted to do with the other two films mentioned above and many others. Instead it's set in New York. It's not particularly ambitious. It plays to David's strengths, as Boris Yelnikoff he is misanthropic, grumpy, he hates people, he's critical of everything and he's terrified of getting sick. What Allen lacks in imagination in character creation he makes up for with cracking dialogue. He calls people mindless zombies, cretins, imbeciles. They become catch phrases that elicit a chuckle every time they are muttered. There are some wonderful put downs and observations, classic Allen in many ways, to cite them here would do them a disservice. 

It pains me to say it as a huge Larry David fan, but the early part of the film is let down to an extent by him. Much of the opening is him speaking directly to us, breaking down the fourth wall, lengthy monologues. Unfortunately, and I say this with a heavy heart, he isn't that good an actor. In Curb he is mostly improvising, and you can tell that he is, he's smirking and thinking on the spot. It works in the context of the show. In Whatever Works, Woody Allen is giving him his words, and the delivery is forced and stilted. It isn't natural and I found it hard to get past that. His character's limp is even alarmingly inconsistent.

As the film progresses though this becomes less of a problem. Partly because I got used to it, it became part of the many eccentricities of the character, but mostly because the scope of the film opened up a bit and other characters are centred on much more. Evan Rachel Wood is the love interest from Mississippi, Patricia Clarkson and Ed Begley Jr as her parents, Superman-to-be Henry Cavill as someone competing with Boris for the girl. All are substantially better actors than David and, sensibly, Allen lets them all do their thing. Rachel Wood and Clarkson in particular stealing the show. The former playing the epitome of ditsy South Country, while the latter makes what on paper is a totally implausible character shift seem the most natural thing in the world, all while continuing to be funny and interesting. 

To explain how the plot and various relationships develop wouldn't really be fair, there is some joy to be had from seeing it unfold and implode. However, if you've seen a Woody Allen film, you'll already know that. 

It's saved by a very short running time, 87 minutes, you don't have time to get bored and take issue with problems with the film. It's perfectly enjoyable, the funny lines are in there, the crazy characters pop up and cause mayhem, it's all as you would expect from Allen. It also saves itself by wrapping it all up with a nice message and an explanation of what the title of the film means. That is what has stayed with me, not the gags, not the lines, not the characters, certainly not Larry David's acting, but that takes us back to what the film is about - different strokes for different folks. Someone out there will love this, my girlfriend certainly did. Whatever works.

ELECTION (1999 - Cert 15)

Film Four is always good for chucking a little nugget my way. And so it was again, when I came across Election, the film where it all started to go right for director Alexander Payne. A lot of praise has been heaped on him of late for The Descendants (and Oscars in fact, one for his writing credit and a couple of nominations for best director and best film). I must admit that I've not yet seen that film, but it was Sidways which really put Payne on the map for me. A real man's rom-com, with a sneery, self-deprecating quality, something that I'm told is a feature of all of his films (except perhaps Jurassic Park 3, for which he has a writing credit - invested factoid of the day). That is one of the main reasons why I approached Election with high hopes.

High hopes that were thankfully met.

In today's politically troubled times, don't be put off by the title, it's not the sort of democratic process that you might fear. Instead it centres on a campaign to become High School President in full-on suburban Omoha. Matthew Broderick is Jim McAllister, teacher of the year who is in charge of the whole process. A very young Reese Witherspoon is Tracy Flick, irritating class boffin, know-it-all, overly ambitious, self centred but yet still popular, and is also the only candidate for President. That is until McAllister decides to get involved, and to teach Tracy a bit of a lesson, and convinces polite, popular and frankly dim, football hero Paul Metzler (Chris Klein - yes, Oz from American Pie) to run against her. You don't need to be a post-graduate in genre convention to know that things don't turn out quite how everyone would expect.

The high school election thing, particular to us reserved Brits, is a strange idea, and the oddness and unfamiliarity does serve well when it comes to comedy, but it has to be said that the plot isn't really the driving force of why the film works so well. It serves as a traffic policeman trying to keep erratic drivers in revved-up and unreliable vehicles on the straight and narrow. The drivers and cars in this case being the characters and the writing. Payne is mischievous in how he structures the film. It veers this way and that, you are never really sure who the narrative is fully focused on, therefore you never really know who you are meant to be behind. He also serves up some nutty, unpredictable and odd personas up on screen. The casting of Broderick is a master stroke. He still looks stupidly young (he would have been mid-late 30's at the time of this film), and you can still see him as Ferris causing chaos. Here though he is the institution, he is the bad guy. He's no Rooney though, there is still a cheeky rebellious side to his character, without it there wouldn't be an opposition to Tracy and the film wouldn't go anywhere. What you are effectively left with is Mr Bueller, this is what may have happened to Ferris (in fact this may make a superb double bill with Ferris). I've never been overly convinced by Broderick in the acting stakes but he is very good in this. Even when things start to go really wrong for his character, at home as well as at school, he proves that he is able to do the emotion as well as the cheeky, spritely joviality. 

Witherspoon is a strange one. Somehow, I really like her, yet when I look at her filmography, I realise that she hasn't really done anything that I really like, nothing that I consider much good anyway. Walk the Line I hear you say, yes she was decent in it, but it was predictably generic and that lessened her role. Water for Elephants? Ok, again, she was decent, but the film is instantly forgettable. So why do I like her? That question doesn't matter any more, because I have found a reason - Election. Despite her character being so nasty and irritating, she does it in an over the top and funny way, you can't help but like her even though you know that this character should be despised. Part of the appeal is that she isn't afraid to make herself look stupid, she's an attractive girl, but she will happily make stupid faces, chuck herself about and gurn until the cows come home. It's a performance that worked and got her noticed, she received a Golden Globe Nomination. It clearly helped set her on the path she is firmly on now.  

Witherspoon and Broderick are backed up nicely by Klein (doing the same thing he did in American Pie, safe and steady), Jessica Campbell as Metzler's vengeful and possibly lesbian sister Tammy, Phil Reeves doing the headmaster thing very well and Mark Harelik as McAllister's disgraced friend and former colleague. All of them, chipping in very well with humour, twisted bitterness and occasional oddities. 

Payne really gets the best out of his cast, but it's also helped by the skilled writing (he was nominated at the Oscars for best adapted screenplay). The snappy dialogue, internal monologues and voiceovers all all perfectly pitched, the laughs keep coming and the story zips along nicely. Diablo Cody is getting a lot of plaudits for her screenplay style in recent years, but it seems to me that Payne was doing it a long time before she ever was, and arguably, much better. 

If you've not seen it, it may be that this film passes you by, lost in the limbo of late night showings on Channel 4. Don't let it, seek it out, it's well worth it. 

CABIN IN THE WOODS (2011 - Cert 15)

I don't really know what to write about this film.

Luckily for me, the first thing I read about Cabin in the Woods warned me to go in completely unprepared, to have any knowledge of the plot would lessen the impact, ruin the surprise. It's like Christmas, that odd shaped present under the tree, you are dying to know what it is, you peel back the corner of the wrapping paper and have a sneak peak. You're chuffed when you find out what it is, it's what you wanted in your letter to the big man, but when it comes to Christmas morning, you go through the motions, you smile in the way you are expected to, the emotion is removed.

The week before the release of the Cabin in the Woods, I came across an article on the BBC website posing the question, 'Do Trailers Reveal Too Much'. As it's a subject I also feel very strongly about I started to read, only to discover that it started to go into the plot of Cabin in the Woods. I darted away from my desk, asking a colleague to close down my browser. Phew, that was a close one.

As I sat in my cinema seat on a chilly Monday night, waiting for the film to start, I realised how excited I was. I couldn't remember the last time I had gone to see a film I knew nothing about, I had not preconceptions, I hadn't seen the best bits in a trailer, I hadn't been drip fed images of the film from the marketing department and I hadn't had to endure the stars doing press releases about what their character has to endure. What's all the more impressive is that the hype of the film had been created by the very idea that it was best to not know anything about it. I suppose it's too much to ask the entire film industry to take note of that fact.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know what to write, I'm going to be very careful, I want to give absolutely nothing away (unlike a number of reviewers in the written press over the last week or so). I'm even taking the unprecedented step (for The Orca) of not including a trailer in the post.

Essentially the title gives away all that you need to know. It's about a Cabin in the Woods. That, to anyone who has watched a horror film in the last 40 years, should be enough to at least give an indication of what this is all about.

However, a collaboration between Joss Wheddon (Buffy, Angel and Serenity among his writing credits) and Drew Goddard (writer of Cloverfield and episodes of Lost) is unlikely to play by the rule book. What follows is pure enjoyment, a roller coaster ride that never lets up, but one that manages to take time to comment on the genre and what makes us watch horror films. It's funny, it's gory, its at times scary, and very importantly, it's clever. It the new generation's Scream.

I don't really want to tell you much more. I suppose I can touch on the cast, the stand out name is Chris Hemsworth (who with this and Thor, is becoming a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine), he is decently supported by Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Fran Kranz and Kristen Connolly. No one is going to get an Oscar here, but it's what you would expect, the most important thing is that none of them are annoying.

Right, that really is your lot. All that remains to be said is that I urge you to go and see this. Yes, it may well be a bit of a marmite film, and I certainly wouldn't take your gran to see it, but you really should give it a go. The most important thing though is to approach it as I did, resist the urge to watch the trailer on Youtube, don't start reading a review in Time Out, don't even let your mates who have seen it tell you about it. Just go an see it, put your seat belt on and give yourself over to it. Don't resist it and you will love it.

CHRONICLE (2012 - Cert 12A)

Do you remember that first episode of Heroes? When we first meet Clare the cheerleader? Seen from a distance via a handheld camera she jumps from a great height and lands with a dull thud, only to get up straight away, crack her bones back into place and walk away seemingly unharmed. Remember that? Well Josh Trank and Max Landis, the director and screenwriter of Chronicle, clearly do, because their film is essentially an extension of that short scene (complete with the found footage premise - more on that later), while also asking what may have happened had Peter Parker been a stroppy teenager. 'With great power comes great responsibility'. What if that power falls into the hands of someone totally irresponsible?



Three high school mates (1 geek/social recluse, 1 class heartthrob/school president and 1 normal bloke) take a break from a barn rave and find a meteor in a hole in the ground. After the encounter they discover that they all have the power of telekineses (if you're not sure what that is, there is a handy explanation/blatant plot exposition in the film). As they begin learning how to use their powers it's all fun and games, messing about in the garden and playing practical jokes. It can't stay like that forever though, the dynamic in the relationships shift and it plays out like an angsty teenage drama. Only with teenagers that can move cars just with a thought.

I didn't go in with particularly great expectations, it's a rubbish name, the trailer did make it all look a bit silly. And I had reservations about the found footage thing, surely time has been called on that for the moment. Perhaps it was those relatively low expectations, but I came out surprised at just how much I enjoyed it.

It's not nearly as fluffy as the trailer and 12A certificate would suggest. It starts with the suggestion of one of the characters being abused by his father, a mother spends much of the film on her deathbed, this isn't light viewing. As the character's powers ramp up a bit, the film continues to get darker, violence is not remotely cartoony, people don't just get up after a punch, they bleed and stay down. The characters are interesting, fully fleshed out and well acted (Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell and Michael B Jordan (I wonder why he felt the need to add the middle initial...)). Despite the inevitable cliche or two and the occasional clunky dialogue usually associated with this type of film they never irritate or grate. In fact, it's quite the opposite, they all have a certain charm, particular in the light hearted section where they test out their abilities, they are genuinely funny. Once the barrier of character likeability has been broken down, the battle has been mostly won. Remember how irritating the opening scene of Cloverfield was? The smug personifications of contrivance walking around a loft party? That, thankfully, does not apply here.

It's far from original though. It clearly rifts, references and relies on a whole host of films, TV shows, comics and video games - X-Men First Class, Smallville, InFamous and Heroes to name some. I think that the makers of the film believe that their USP is the handheld cam/found footage device. However, as we have seen in recent years it's a tool that's powers are really on the wane, unless you do something really interesting with it (like with Trollhunter), it feels tired and worn. If you are going to use that device then you also need to really believe in it, and it struck me that Trank and Landis didn't. They deviate from it in two ways, firstly (I'll come on to the second later) by utilising a female character and her social media video blog to give a second 'eye view'. Unfortunately for Chronicle it is even more of an obstacle in suspension of disbelief than the usual irritant of the person behind the camera trying to justify why they won't turn the camera off - 'I've got to document this dude'. It created an immediate barrier between me and the content. I couldn't help but roll my eyes, and then it started to lose me.

Having said that, it didn't lose me for long. As we reach the climax the tone gets darker and darker and it is far from predictable. When it paused I was pleased to see that I really was on edge and eager to know where it was going.

Well I'll tell you where it went in the end.

For those of you that watched the first series of Heroes, do you remember how it had you all the way through, cliffhanger after cliffhanger, twists and turns, all the while hinting at and alluding to a climax of huge proportions, a face off between good and evil, a coming together of all of the powers that each episode cleverly unravelled and brought to the fore? Then you reached the end, and although it was good, it was gripping, and it did work, you couldn't help but wonder where the fizz, bang and wallop was. Well it was clearly put in the loft to be saved for when Chronicle would be made. Wallop indeed. This is also where the camera footage idea shifts again, all be it slightly and less disastrously. Wisely, the film-makers realised that showing what they wanted to show on one handheld camera was going to be a stretch and, frankly, a bit silly, so there is a collection of CCTV, news coverage and in police-car camera footage. It all works very well actually. Watching what you're seeing in silent CCTV is impressive to see and manages to have much more impact than you would imagine. Impressively, the film also has the conviction to keep the momentum of it's increasing darkness all the way to the end.

All in all, a much better film than I expected. An interesting, well executed (aside from a couple of gripes), exciting companion piece to the flood of big budget, glossy and daft superhero films streaming out of the studios.

Ideal for a double bill with X-Men: First Class.

THE HANGOVER: PART 2 (2011 - Cert 15)

The one thing that offends me most about The Hangover: Part 2 is the title. Not the whole thing (I am partial to a hangover myself occasionally), just the Part 2 aspect. Almost as if Todd Phillips really believes that this is something more than it is, a larger, epic story arc that this movie is just a fraction of. The Godfather this ain't.



Before wading in here, I've got to say that I enjoyed the first film. It was funny, with funny characters, particularly Stu and Alan (Ed Helm and Zach Galifianakis), and as a massive fan of Las Vegas, I've got a bit of a soft spot for it. Admitedly, further viewings of the film have seen my enthusiasm and patience start to wane but all in all, it was a good comedy. I felt the need to qualify that because I wouldn't want my hatred of the second instalment to be misconstrued as a sense of humour failure.

The real problem with Part 2 is that it just isn't funny. I did not laugh once. Not even smiled. Fundamentally this is a problem for what is billed as a comedy. The same formula of the first film is applied to a different location, Bangkok. Phillips clearly thought that losing the same character, but somewhere else would be a stretch too far so instead we lose Stu's soon to be brother in law a couple of days before the wedding. The same three chaps wake up, Stu, Alan and Bradley Cooper's Phil, in a bad hotel room in Bangkok and have to put the pieces together.While the wake up scene in the first film was funny, unexpected and felt a little fresh, on this occasion we know it's coming and it feels immediately tired. We have all seen pictures of the face tattoo, it's on the poster, in fact there was even stuff in the press about Mike Tyson suing because of it (well done publicity department). So a joke that may have caught us off guard, has instead been bled to death before the film has even started.

And that's the problem with the whole film. The same jokes are used again, Todd Phillips and his 'writing' team, believing that the fact that we know what's coming next will be funnier than actual jokes. The baby is replaced by a drug dealing monkey (yes, I know, on paper it sounds funny but I assure you that the reality is not. In fact, the spying monkey in the first Indy film beats him hands down). Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) is back again through arguably the most tenuous plot line ever conceived, Stu's taste for ladies of the night (not vampires) crops up again, as does a Mike Tyson cameo.

The writers then seem to lose even more confidence in their ability to write a good joke and send us on a nonsensical action plot where Paul Giamatti turns up to collect some cash and leave me wondering what on earth he is up to. Car chases, gun fights, double crossing all take place, relentlessly smashing me in the face to the point where I was left feeling completely numb.

I can't even be bothered anymore to continue to tell you how awful The Hangover: Part 2 is. It's not funny, it's not entertaining, it's not a patch on the first film and it stinks of a sequel made solely with cash registers in mind. Having said that, if that was the aim, it's succeeded. And then some. Hollywood is after all a business and this film has taken £34 million (the 5th most this year) at the UK box office alone, despite it suffering awful reviews and being terrible. The truth is that because of the success and widespread enjoyment of the first film, the second film was always going to rake the cash in, it just would have been nice if someone actually paused and considered making something good.

During his recent press appearances for the DVD release of the film, Bradley Cooper has said that a third is on the way, and, hold the front page, it may have a new structure. What that deviation entails has yet to be seen, but it could be a bold move, and if they bother to write some jokes, it could make amends for this monstrosity. It could of course just be shite as well.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN (2011 - Cert 15)

I blame Judy Garland. It's all her fault.

Let me explain. Five days before my first trip to the flicks in a while (to see Marilyn) I went to Richmond Theatre to see a play that had done the rounds all over the country and a stint in the West End. It was called End of the Rainbow and shared a few similarities with My Week With Marilyn, the main ones being that they both attempted to show us a different perspective on a top female icon of the last century (Rainbow being Judy Garland and Marilyn obviously being Marilyn Monroe). Both were also set in London, chronicling a small portion of their lives as they hit the UK for work (a run of concerts and a film respectively).



Before I turn this into a theatre blog though, I must first concentrate on Marilyn and why it simply didn't work for me. I think I can boil it down to one problem, boring characters. Quite a big problem and I know what you're saying, Marilyn Monroe, how can she and the the film possibly possibly be boring? I don't think it can be blamed on the actors, Michelle Williams in the case of Marilyn herself. She certainly looked the part and sounded the part. She even moved like her, she clearly must have studied a lot of footage of Monroe as it looked very authentic. However, because the character is written without any depth whatsoever, it becomes a very flat impersonation more than anything else. We are meant to think that Monroe is insecure, delicate, misunderstood, a tortured genius. This is portrayed by us enduring what are effectively bloopers on set as she struggles with her lines without the help of a touchy feel director. Then with the kind words from fellow actors she perks up a bit. That's it. That's what the writer (Adrian Hodges) thinks counts as characterisation. Perhaps it's to be expected from a writer of Primeval. He has managed to turn a 20th century icon, a goddess into a dull, boring, woman. Then there is the other main character, the 'My' of the title, Colin Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne). Again, perfectly decent performance but the character just wasn't interesting. Much of the film is him in rooms, being told useful information by other characters, without any real explanation as to why a third assistant director on the film (effectively a tea maker) has become everyone's confidant. It doesn't feel as though he is pushing his own narrative, he is a passenger in the whole piece, but he really should be a driver. It makes his character feel bland. This consequently meant that the relationship between he and Marilyn just didn't resonate with me, it didn't work, and most importantly, I didn't believe it. There was constantly a sense that they might not both live happily ever after together, but I ultimately didn't actually care.

The two dimensional nature continues elsewhere. A whole host of good actors, Judi Dench, Emma Watson, Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, Derek Jacobi, even my mums friend Karl Moffatt (yes, I am name dropping) try their hardest with very limited material, all figures that don't feel essential to the story, more incidental and an excuse to get another big name in there on the cast list. Only Kenneth Branagh as Laurence Olivier comes out with any real credit and satisfactory screen time.

Another problem is that it's simply too nice, too polished, not daring enough. Monroe's drug problem is shown by jars of pills by the bed, arguments are muted with lots of arm waving, no real histrionics. It feels middle of the road, lacking any punch whatsoever. Like David Haye brushing you across the face with a small bean bag. You expect more, you want more, it just doesn't deliver.

So what did Judy Garland do wrong? Nothing, quite the opposite, but that's the problem. Because Rainbow was so good, I think she may have contributed to ruining My Week With Marilyn. Admittedly the subject matter of Rainbow is a little darker in tone (it builds up to Garland's premature death at the age of 47) but it was much more subtle in it's portrayal of a fragile star, much more affecting and so much more interesting. Had I not seen End of the Rainbow, or had it not been quite so good, perhaps I would have enjoyed Marilyn more, because it's not a terrible film, I've seen far worse, it's perfectly ok, a fluffy, good looking, mildly amusing way to pass an hour and a half. Unfortunately though, it's nothing more than that.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011 - Cert 12A)

With The Avengers project Marvel Studios really seems to have got the knack of the Superhero genre. It's found it's place, it's voice. It's the perfect compliment to the art house film sensibility that Christopher Nolan's Batman films have created. While Nolan seeks to arguably stimulate first and entertain second, with Iron Man (not so much Iron Man 2) and Thor, Marvel's Louis D'Esposito leaves us in doubt as to what his sole aim is. Glossy Friday/Saturday night blockbuster entertainment. The films that The Fantastic Four yearned to be. Fun, exciting with a nice solid emotional foundation.




The pitch perfect series continues with Joe Johnston's (Jurassic Park 3, Jumanji) Captain America. It's the usual brand of comic book nonsense, although this time it's USP is that it's set during WW2. A digitally reduced (in size, not there ladies) Chris Evans plays Steve Rogers, a weedy American kid who is desperate to fight in the War, only to be refused because he's not fit enough, and he's, well, tiny. A sinister German doctor picks him for a special project by the US Army, to create the ultimate soldier (not Universal Soldier Van Damme fans). The lesson here of course is that a real hero is not necessarily the strongest man out there, but the most determined, the bravest. It clearly lacks the depth in theme of The Dark Knight and even Rami's Spiderman films but it's done in such a way that it doesn't feel laboured, it just works. Pitch perfect once again you see.

Despite the period setting, Hitler is not the bad guy. This isn't Tarantino after all, it's a Superhero film. Instead we have a rogue wing of the Nazi party led by Hugo Weaving's Johann Schmidt (Weaving evoking the nastiness and pantomime villain-ness of his agent in the Matrix), AKA The Red Skull, intent on winning the war and ruling the world, aided by Toby Jones' brilliant scientist. Yes I know what you're thinking, this is quite a cast, with some proper thespians. It doesn't stop there either, Tommy Lee Jones does his thing as Colonel Chester Philips, Hayley Atwell as the love interest, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark. A lot must be said about these big names adding a good deal of gravitas to the piece, but they aren't just turning up, saying some lines and taking their cash. They all put in good performances, the bad guys have the most fun but Atwell manages to avoid being annoying which is no mean feat in these films where women tend to be there for eye candy and plot development. All in all, good stuff from the cast lifting it above other special effects laden drivel.

I use the word laden, although that is harsh. There are obviously effects there, and when they pop up they are impressive, but it doesn't feel heavy on the CGI. In fact, brace yourself, the effects seem to be used for the benefit of the film and not just for the sake of it. The most impressive use is in the downsizing of Evans for the puny Steve Rogers. It's certainly very impressive and not at all distracting, which is an achievement in itself. If there is a criticism to be had of the action and effects is that it takes a hell of a lot (no pun intended) from the two Hellboy films, metal machinery that has an almost supernatural and magical quality.

It's a clever film as well, a 15 minute chunk of which explores the role that propaganda plays in a war and what it really means to be a hero. For example, can good be done fighting the war at home. It's a lot more thought provoking than you expect and it did catch me off guard. In a good way, like eating a posh kebab. It has an unexpected quality. There is also a lot of joy to be had in experiencing this film as part of a bigger picture, a cinema universe created by Marvel studios. We know that it's working towards a grand stand finish, there's plenty of in jokes such as seeing Tony Stark's (Iron Man) dad making his name as the weapon developer that we only hear about in the Iron Man films, we wait for Sam L Jackson's one-eyed Nick Fury to turn up and we wait to see how on earth Captain America ends up in the present day (spoiler alert - tenuously).

Captain America feels like a continuation of the other films, which is as it should be. This is not really a sequel and it's certainly not a completely stand alone film. This is shaping up to be one of those rare breeds, something that can be released as a box set and feel as though that's how it's meant to be. Apart from Hulk staring Edward Norton, we'll forget about that one.

Roll on next summer. Bring on The Avengers.

Oh and if you're wondering, It's probably my favourite of the Avengers films so far. It goes in this order:

1. Captain America
2. Iron Man
3. Thor
4. Iron Man 2
5. Hulk