There are rumours drifting in from across the Atlantic that Lindsay Lohan may be about to take on a part in Zack Snyder’s forthcoming Superman movie.

According to TMZ, Lohan (or LiLo, as they call her) has been in talks to take on what it describes as a “major character” in the film. TMZ says she won’t be taking on the role of Lois Lane, but is “Dying to show people again how talented she is” after her recent brushes with the law.

If Lohan isn’t playing Lois Lane, who does that leave? Will she play super villain Ursa, a character said to be written in to the Superman reboot? It's all mere conjecture and crystal ball gazing at this stage, so only time will tell.

TMZ

The genre bending sci-fi road trip romance movie, Monsters, was warmly received by critics last year, and Gareth Edwards was roundly praised for his resourcefulness on a low budget.

While it didn't do huge business at the box office, with receipts of around $3 million and counting, the film has made a handsome return on its estimated $500,000 budget, so it's unsurprising that Monsters' production company, Vertigo Films, is now planning a follow-up. It's not yet clear whether this will take the form of a full-blown sequel or a spin-off television series, but Gareth Edwards has made it clear he won't be involved in any future Monsters projects.

"Vertigo owns the rights to Monsters, and I know they're keen to move forward with another Monsters-related project very soon," Edwards told Dread Central. "I'm not sure how involved I can be right now, and I don't think my next film really should be a sequel just yet. I'd like to do something else first, but I would definitely be open to returning at some point."

As we already know, Edwards has already signed up to direct a new big-screen Godzilla movie, a comparatively big-budget project that will, no doubt, keep him busy for many years, and is apparently involved in the making of another picture with Wanted director, Timur Bekmambetov.

All this means that, even if Edwards wanted to create a Monsters sequel, he'd almost certainly have to wait for a few years before he had time to even think about making it. Nevertheless, Edwards has given Vertigo his blessing for a continuation of the world he created in Monsters.

"I do think whoever Vertigo ends up hiring will do a great job, because they really know what they're doing there," Edwards said. "For me, if they hire someone to direct another Monsters movie, the last thing they need is for me to be hanging around, telling people how the movie should be. Whoever comes in should definitely be given free rein to put their own spin on this world, and I know they'll get the right person."

Its central performances aside, one of the strengths of Edwards' film was its suggestion of greater events occurring just off camera. His idea of a quarantined Mexico overrun with colossal squid-like creatures was a great one and it's a concept that's rich enough to justify a return visit.

/Film

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

A few films reviewed on this site raise questions as to why they're being covered here, and I'm sure to many, this is a valid question. (We can't help being film geeks, though, hence the breadth of what we tend to cover.) The same questions will probably be raised as to why we're reviewing the DVD of this film, based on feedback from the review of the theatrical release.

Personally, I'm a fan of films of all genres and will go into most films with an open mind, and as well as being a contributor to this site, I'm a huge fan of it and take the time to read the excellent material the team of contributors provide. I don't question what qualifies as being 'geek', as it's largely subjective anyway.

Subject matter aside, I feel that some of the ill will directed at this film may be because of the past of its leading man, Mr. Zac Efron. I appreciate that it's easy to be sceptical of someone who achieved his level of fame and adoration at a young age through something like High School Musical. It's something I was aware of, but it didn't interest me, so I avoided it.

However, Efron's post-HSM work has impressed me enough to volunteer myself to review Charlie St. Cloud. I found both 17 Again and Me And Orson Wells highly enjoyable, and his performance in both show that he's clearly a talented actor with genuine star quality who will, no doub,t go on to make a number of excellent movies in the future.

Sure, the upcoming slated films of a Nicholas Sparks adaptation and a follow-up to Valentine's Day will hardly appease the geek crowd, but I think it's worth giving him a chance. Don't hate the man just because he's handsome.

Efron plays the titular Charlie St Cloud, a young man with a future at an Ivy League school, on a sailing scholarship, ahead of him. However, when he's involved in a car accident that results in the death of his younger brother, with whom he had a strong relationship, his promising future is left in ruins, as he finds himself unable to leave his home town, having made a promise to his brother that he would play baseball at sunset every day.

Five years pass and we follow Charlie as a caretaker of the goose-infested cemetery where his brother is buried, playing baseball with his brother's ghost every day. Being unable to take to the water since the crash, a series of events lead Charlie to start living again.

As stated above, I have enjoyed Efron's previous work and was interested to see if this would be another strong performance to add weight to the argument that he's a strong acting talent. Sadly, that's not the case. His performance is fine for the most part, but nothing spectacular.

There are even a few instances when his performance falls flat, such as when he goes for all-out anguish and when he has to deliver some of the cheesy dialogue. How much of this is down to the writing is debatable. There's little evidence on display here that would add weight to the argument I outlined above. However, I would encourage people to check out his other work before writing him off.

The tone of the film is a little uneven, as it tries for tragic drama, with elements of comedy thrown in. But the comedic elements prove too distracting, as they fail to hit the right beats and seem at odds with the primary focus of the film. I haven't read Ben Sherwood's novel, on which the film is based, so can't comment on how accurate an adaptation this is, or whether the comedic elements exist there.

There are small parts for Kim Basinger, who's on screen for about a minute, and Mr. Guyliner himself Ray Liotta. I really struggle to see the appeal of this film for either of them, as their parts are so small and one dimensional that they're clearly above the roles, despite their best years arguably being behind them.

To the films credit, despite some awful dialogue and bad acting from time to time, there are a couple of moments that save it from being completely predictable.

For the most part, the film looks great, even if there are a few scenes where the backgrounds are clearly fake. Kudos goes to cinematographer, Enrique Chediak, whose talents were most recently seen in Danny Boyle's 127 Hours, for making an otherwise average film visually interesting.

So, ultimately, I would struggle to recommend this film, despite going into it wanting to enjoy it. There simply wasn't enough of interest on any level to make me enjoy the film or to return to it at a later date.

Extras

The features place the focus on the film's leading man with On Location With Zac Efron and Zac Efron Leading Man. The latter has those involved with the production proclaiming this film to be his passage into being a leading man. I don't agree with that, but appreciate that they're hardly going to say, "Yeah, he's done better, but you know it'll make mone.y"

There are also a few deleted scenes and a feature commentary with director, Burr Steers, which isn't overly illuminating.

Film:
Disc:

Charlie St. Cloud is out now and available from the Den Of Geek Store.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Ths review may contain spoilers.

6. Goggles And Hicks

Some of you may not have heard the sad news, but it was recently announced that The Cape has had its run of episodes reduced from 13 to 10. Chances of it returning for a second series are looking thinner than, well, the average plot of an episode of The Cape.

This episode kicked off in Afghanistan, introducing us to a pair of assassins, Goggles, a nerdy guy, and Hicks, a near-mute gun nut. Essentially, they fit neatly into the roles of Microchip and The Punisher, one stakes out the target and provides the weaponry, the other gets close enough to pull the trigger. And sometimes (as in this episode) they fly around a mobile targeting drone loaded with automated weaponry.

In case that last line didn't tip you off, this, for me, is the first episode where The Cape has finally decided to go for all-out camp action, rather than maintain the rather po-faced tone of its earlier episodes.

Not only is Goggles an irreverent nerd type who (for the first time) allows the series to take a little pop at the general audience for superheroes, the episode also introduces a similarly nerdy kid for Trip (Vince's son) to befriend. He's nothing like any kid I've ever met, but at least he manages to give Faraday's son a chance to display an emotional range beyond sullen for the first time.

If there were any doubt that this episode had decided to camp things up, when Vinnie Jones makes his cameo (which is not so much seamless, as it is stapled on), tricked into meeting Faraday in a church, he utters the series' most quotable dialogue yet: "I firmly believe in the separation of church and crime". Transfer that line into the mouth of Burgess Meredith and you could easily believe it came from the old Batman series.

Yet, more evidence of campy genre service were the villains themselves, who are initially introduced as hired killers working in Afghanistan (in an attempt to make them seem dangerous) and then spend the rest of the episode trailing the hero in a van while spying on him, placing him in various situations to provoke a reaction. I definitely remember seeing that plot in an episode of Buffy, although then it was being played for laughs.

No, instead, these guys are attempting to learn everything about our be-caped hero before they kill him. As you do. The comedy one babbles on about some kind of philosophical reason for this, but really, it's nonsense from the very start. Even when they have the perfect opportunity to kill him, they shoot him with a tracking device, rather than a bullet. If they're the best assassins around, the competition must have trouble loading a gun, let alone firing it.

All of this occurs as Faraday attempts to take a day off from being The Cape, if only to let his broken ribs heal. Not a bad idea in itself, but since he refuses to actually tell Orwell why he's doing it, he spends a lot of time getting into unnecessary fights. It's the worst kind of misunderstanding, one that only works if the characters involved refuse to act like normal people.

Some more stuff happens with Faraday's wife, but, to be honest, at this point it's clear why the brakes are being put on the series. Six episodes in, shows like Buffy and Heroes, that started off with a stumble rather than a sprint, had found their feet. The Cape is having trouble finding the starting line.

Several episodes in, we've seen the same plot several times: villain arrives, villain attempts to kill The Cape, villain is dispatched. The only development comes in the characters around Faraday, and when he gets any advancement of his own, it's in the form of a montage where he learns to ice skate.

At this point, The Cape actually manages to be less interesting than his wife and son, both of whom actually have some direction in the narrative. Even the Carnival of Crime (who, hilariously, are forced to sneak their crime around Faraday) are more interesting than the man himself.

It's a damning realisation to reach, and to be honest, one I'm not sure can be reversed in the 4 episodes we have left. But, we'll see.

Read our review of episode 5, Dice, here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

James Franco has just been nominated for Best Actor for his role as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours, a film for which he is receiving high praise. Not just that, but he's co-hosting the Academy Awards ceremony (alongside Anne Hathaway) and is rapidly becoming Hollywood's leading man of choice, thanks to his comedic and dramatic acting chops.

He will soon be seen in Your Highness ("Handle your shit, Fabius, please.") and Rise Of The Apes, all while finishing a PhD in English Literature at Yale.

Clearly, his star wattage is at its zenith, but it wasn't always so.

Fresh off his success as Harry Osborn in the Spider-man movies, Franco was cast as the lead in a number of films, many of which failed spectacularly at the box office and were met with critical indifference. However, I really enjoyed three of these four films (I never saw Annapolis) and wish to big up the forgotten films of a fine actor.

Now, there is a pattern I have noticed with certain actors. They get an early hit and receive the attention of major studios, who then cast them in a number of smaller films, which set to establish them as a leading man before hitting the big time with a latter film. In hindsight, these smaller, cult films are often met with general apathy, both by the actor and audiences in general, but have quite a strong cult following.

Take Christian Bale. Hit the big time with American Psycho and was then cast as the lead in the likes of Shaft, Reign Of Fire and Equilibrium, films that have a small appreciation, but generally not from Bale himself. He then hit the big time, of course, with Batman Begins (or The Machinist).

For James Franco, the films I enjoyed, own and feel are unfairly ignored are the following: The Great Raid, Tristan & Isolde and Flyboys! High concept, low budget, 'cult' films that I feel deserve more attention.

So, here is my chance to bring them to a wider potential audience...

The Great Raid (2005)

For me, this is one of the best war films of recent years and no-one saw it. It tells the story of a group of Rangers who are sent to save 500 American soldiers from a POW camp in Manila, as the Japanese are executing prisoners as they fall back.

More of an ensemble film, Franco stars as the Rangers' lead strategist and planner, Captain Prince. He does a good job, but as the cast features the likes of Benjamin Bratt, Joseph Fiennes, Connie Nielsen, Craig McLachlan (of Neighbours and Bugs fame), Marton Csokas, Dale Dye and a pre-Avatar Sam Worthington, Franco's not the sole focus of the film. Plus, he's more bookish than usual, which is a surprise.

Out of these three films, this would be the one I recommend the most. Shot relatively cheaply, it looks amazing and it's nice to see a modern day war film where you can see the action and what's happening. This is even the case during night scenes, something that some of the battles in the $200 million Pacific series failed to do. 

Tristan & Isolde (2006)

I love any films with swords and breastplates, especially when they're directed by Kevin Reynolds (Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, Count Of Monte Cristo) or Ridley Scott. So, with the Scott brothers producing this and Reynolds directing, my ticket was assured.

The film tells the legend of Tristan and Isolde, but grounds it a more realistic, earthy world, where England (a divided island nation) is at war with Ireland. Tristan (Franco) is the adoptive son of King Marke (Rufus Sewell), one of the leaders of the many tribes of England, who falls in love with Isolde, the daughter of the Irish king. Unfortunately, she is to be wed to King Marke ,so as to keep peace between the two countries, and Tristan is forced to choose between love and honour.

This is, as you can imagine, is pretty melodramatic stuff, and while the love story is core to the film, it does not solely feel like a romance, especially not with warring barons, Irish ambushes and tournaments to win wives. Clearly, the filmmakers know what male audiences want: swords and death!

Franco brings the same anger and angst that he put to such good use in Spider-man to the role of Tristan and is very impressive in the fight scenes as well as staring bitterly at happy couples. However, the more romantic scenes are rather awkward.

Although the film drags in places, it is a decent film and one that did not deserve to flop as badly as it did in the States.

If you're looking for a film filled with forbidden love, swordplay, treachery, guile and greed, give it a look. Mark Strong, Henry Cavill, Sophie Myles and Dexter Fletcher also star.

Flyboys (2006)

Like Tristan & Isolde, Flyboys bombed hard in the US and it really shouldn't have. Essentially Top Gun in biplanes, Flyboys is a cliché-ridden, silly but highly entertaining film.

Unlike recent war films, it forgoes the old 'war is hell' theme to provide a classic Boy's Own War film, making war feel like it was in Biggles books and The Great Escape, kind of fun. Of course, we all know that war is not fun and is hell on earth, but sometimes you just need a good old adventure film and Flyboys is exactly that. 

Released in 2007, in a summer full of sequels, Flyboys was refreshing in that it portrayed something we hadn't seen on the big screen for a while: World War I.  These days, there are very few films about The Great War, and even fewer with biplanes attacking zeppelins and, personally, it's something I'd like to see more often.

Of course, it doesn't feature the most realistic dogfights in the world, but, heck, it's fun and stunning to look at.

In a summer where Spiderman 3 cost $250 million, it was Flyboys that made my jaw hit the ground with the quality of the effects and innovation in the dog fighting scenes. They were simply stunning. Forget Sandman. You can't beat the sight of a dozen 'Huns' coming out of the sun and engaging an Allied air squadron.

Oh, and Franco. Yeah, he's okay as Rawlings, the 'maverick' of the Lafayette Escadrille, but it's really Martin Henderson who's the star of the film as Cassidy, the veteran of the war who's seen friends come and go and is simply out to deal out his own brand of justice in the air. Give it a look. Methinks you'll be surprised.

So, there we go. Three films that James Franco may have forgotten about, but for this writer are worth recommending. Sure, people will look at their box office figures and immediately write them off as crap, but it's nice to see how diverse Franco's roles have been over the years, from Spider-man to Milk and The Pineapple Express to 127 Hours. It's always good to have a wide ranging CV.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Spoiler note: if you know nothing at all about the film, note that we discuss some known plot points here. If you want to see the film absolutely cold, please do bear that in mind before reading this review!

I'd heard from numerous reliable sources that Never Let Me Go was a bleak and potentially tear-inducing movie, so I resolved to go into the film with a heart of stone and a face of poker. With the screening room packed with hard-nosed critics, I feared an outburst of weeping and snivelling might be seen as a dreadful faux pas.

Written by Alex Garland and adapted from the Kazuo Ishiguro novel of the same name, Never Let Me Go is Parts: The Clonus Horror or Michael Bay's The Island spliced with the genes of a BBC period drama.

Beginning in an alternate-universe 70s, it charts the friendship of a trio of youngsters, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightley), who have been bred and reared for their internal organs. Through the use of cloning, the world's scientists have found a way of extending life spans and defeating disease, but at a terrible emotional cost to the separate class of humans created specifically to save the lives of others.

While they enjoy a relatively comfortable, idyllic existence in a remote boarding school, they will, at some unspecified date in early adulthood, have their organs harvested over a series of operations, and ultimately ‘complete', the film's chilling euphemism for death.

Quite why scientists would provide such an expensive location for its legion of organ donors is never explained. After they've left school, they're placed in an equally beautiful cottage straight out of an H E Bates novel. Isn't this like keeping cattle in a health spa, only to turn them into beef burgers?

Presumably, these are corn-fed, free-range, organic clones for BUPA patients. Before they go under the knife, the recipients of these organs would probably ask, "Has the kidney been locally reared?"

Those on the NHS would presumably have to put up with their own range of battery-farmed clones, reared in wardrobes on a diet of own-brand cola and chicken nuggets.

These thoughts all coursed through my mind in Never Let Me Go's earlier scenes, as though the sectors of my brain that deal with cynicism were trying to prevent me from appreciating the true sadness of the film's premise. Gradually, however, director Mark Romanek's dignified, low-key direction won me over, and I began to find myself genuinely invested in the fate of Never Let Me Go's three leads.

As the inevitability of death becomes ever more present, the trio search, like the Replicants in Blade Runner, for a means of extending their lifespan, and what they discover at the end of their quest is as devastating as it is inevitable.

Although Never Let Me Go's cast is uniformly excellent, from the young actors who play the adolescent group of donors, to Charlotte Rampling as a cold-hearted teacher, it's Carey Mulligan's understated performance that really sticks in the memory, providing a wonderfully tender narration to the film's sad events.

Garfield is good, too, as the kind-hearted, yet rather dim Tommy, and his furtive, tender moments with Mulligan are among the film's finest. Knightley, meanwhile, glowers from beneath an astonishingly geometric fringe as Ruth, whose jealousy and fear fuels her own desire to win Tommy's affection.

The innocent, naive nature of all three characters, and Tommy in particular, is wonderfully depicted. Their ignorance of the outside world and the day-to-day lives of regular people are discussed in hushed, reverent terms, and they cling, with desperate hope, to rumours that their childhood drawings may hold the key to a stay of execution.

Like Gareth Edwards' excellent Monsters, Never Let Me Go makes sparing use of the sci-fi genre's familiar trappings. Instead, it's a gentle, uncomplicated relationship drama, and a genuinely moving meditation on death, and how its looming presence means that every love affair must end in tragedy.

When Never Let Me Go reached its final scenes, any traces of cynicism had been methodically chiselled away, and at its conclusion, I realised just how much I'd come to care for its characters' fates.

As the various battle hardened journalists around me coughed into their hats or pretended to wipe a speck of dust away from their eye, I, too, began to feel a lump begin to form in my throat.

Never Let Me Go is a film about the true value of love, the fleeting nature of life and happiness, and the sad fact that even free-range clones face a lonely, terrible fate.

Never Let Me Go is in UK cinemas from Friday, February 11th.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

With his latest film, Unknown, arriving in the next couple of weeks, Liam Neeson has been chatting about two projects that he's had links of various strength to.

The first is the sequel to the surprise hit, Taken, which is planned to go into production next year. The actor revealed that the script is currently being written for Taken 2, saying that this time, "he's going to get taken!"

It's unclear how serious he is about that plot point, as in the next sentence, he does say that he doesn't know much about the story, as the screenplay is being worked on. He also said that Taken 2 will be a sequel, rather than a prequel.

Neeson was also quizzed about rumours suggesting that Ra's al Ghul would be popping up in The Dark Knight Rises. These rumours don't seem to take into account the fate that befell the character at the end of Batman Begins, and Neeson has now formally ruled out any chance of him returning. He "definitely" won't be appearing in the film, which clashes, anyway, with the shoot for next year's Wrath Of The Titans.

Taken 2, though? That's definitely a goer...

IGN
MTV

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Heading into production later this year ahead of its release next March, the Clash Of The Titans sequel, Wrath Of The Titans, is about to add a new name to its cast list. Already on board are Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes, but they're going to be joined by Rosamund Pike, according to Deadline.

Pike is set to play Andromeda in Wrath Of The Titans, and it's a role that rules her out of the running for Zack Snyder's upcoming Superman reboot.

Pike had been on the shortlist of three actresses for a female lead role in the film, believed to be Ursa. However, given that Wrath Of The Titans shoots at the same time as Superman, that's her out of that particular race.

Instead, that seems to whittle the Superman shortlist down to Diane Kruger and Alice Eve, unless Snyder has someone else up his sleeve.

We'll keep you posted. In the meantime, here's that Deadline story.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Starring Clive Owen, and with David Schwimmer directing, the new thriller Trust is the latest to play on the perils of the Internet. It follows Owen's daughter in the film, as she befriends someone online and ends up meeting said person. It seems, at that point, that things start going off the rails.

This trailer does an effective enough job of putting all that across, and it'll be interesting to see how far Trust pushes Clive Owen as the father on the hunt for some kind of retribution. The film immediately gets bonus points off us for having Catherine Keener in it, too.

Here's the trailer, then. And the film arrives in the US in April. No UK release has been inked in thus far.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

As he embarks on his tour around the US to sell his new film, Red State, Kevin Smith has taken part in a live chat at MTV, in which he's outlined some of his plans for his next feature, Hit Somebody.

Hit Somebody is set to be Smith's last film as director (although, contrary to what some are saying, he absolutely won't be ducking out of the film business), and he describes it as "an analogous tale to my time in film".

Centred around hockey and based on a song by Mitch Albom, the film will spread across the 1950s through to the 1980s, and Smith is now likening it to a Muppet flick, in that he's looking to bring back people he's worked with in the past for roles in the feature.

This specifically includes Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, and Smith also said, "I'm not even ruling out [Bruce] Willis as this point. I'd duck. But I'd put a stick in Willis' hand."

Given what Smith had to stay about working with Bruce Willis before (which you can read about here), we'd be surprised the offer to pick up said stick was taken!

Smith's work on the script for the film is still ongoing, and it sounds as ambitious a project as he's tackled. For now, his Red State tour will continue around the US for the next few months, and you can find more details on that at www.coopersdell.com.

And you can get a replay of the MTV chat right here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Appreciating that you wouldn't expect Christopher Nolan's long-time director of photography to say much different, nonetheless Wally Pfister has been talking to the Kevin And Josh Movie Show about the script for The Dark Knight Rises, which he's now read.

Unsurprising, Pfister thinks it's the business. And when asked how he thought Nolan was going to top The Dark Knight, Pfister replied by saying, "I asked the same question. I read the script two weeks ago, and he's done it. Plain and simple, he's done it. It's a phenomenal script."

He continued, adding, "He's still in the process of cutting it back, because it's a very long script right now, but it's really phenomenal. And he actually had me go back and wanted me to watch, in IMAX, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight again. When I watched those I had read the script for The Dark Knight Rises and was like, 'Dude, it is a perfect trilogy.'"

Furthermore, Pfister chatted a little more about the plans to film the movie using IMAX cameras. "Our goal is to shoot as much in IMAX as we can," he said.

"We're going to put it on the screen, and put it on the screen big. And I really encourage everyone to see it in IMAX if they can, because we're really going for it this time. In terms of the action, we are all scratching our heads right now trying to figure out how we're going to do it, how we're going to do it in the amount of time we're going to do it in. The opening scene of the movie will blow your mind."

You can hear the show here. And The Dark Knight Rises is released in July 2012.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

Lost amidst the crush of Superbowl slots that were doing the rounds earlier this week is this new promo for Steven Spielberg's latest television project, Terra Nova.

Terra Nova is, basically, the story of a family living in 2149, who get transported back some 85 million years, with the idea being to build up civilisation from scratch once more. Naturally, there are hurdles to be jumped, and this trailer hints at one or two of them.

The show is set to premiere later this year.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here.

This review contains spoilers.

6.11 The God Complex

"What's the alternative? Me standing over your grave?"

I think there’s some interesting criticism that’s being aimed at Doctor Who at the moment, that I don’t agree with, but want to touch on anyway.

And it’s this: that the show is getting a bit too emotional, and too concerned with the story of the assistants. The last few weeks, after all, haven’t been about Daleks, and Cybermen, and homicidal aliens. Rather, they’ve dug into the psyche, to differing degrees, of Amy, Rory and the Doctor.

Certainly, the arrival of The God Complex isn’t likely to quell much of that aforementioned chatter. It works on a couple of levels, but one of them is most certainly the continued exploration of the state of mind of the three main players of the show.

It does this through the arrival of the Tardis at a happy, tacky 1980s hotel. Well, not that happy, as it happens. Behind each of the hotel bedroom doors is something that’s someone’s biggest fear, as Doctor Who dips into George Orwell’s world, and basically comes up with a guest house full of Room 101s. It dips into Stanley Kubrick’s world, too, with the way The God Complex is shot and presented, and there’s also the coldness of CCTV cameras to play with, as well.

The result of this cocktail is something really quite creepy.

Knowing that each of the characters is likely to find their main fear keeps the concept interesting beyond the initial set-up, and for the supporting characters, they get to take a look at what the store cupboard has for them.

Thus, there’s a brief cameo from the Weeping Angels, and a desperately sad looking clown (something Doctor Who really hasn’t explored much, outside of The Greatest Show In The Galaxy). Even better, though, were the ventriloquist dolls, but just as effective was the nerdy guy faced with a bunch of in-crowd girls. They tapped into a broad collection of fears exceptionally well.

This gave space for each of those supporting characters to be a little more fleshed out, too. Particular beneficiaries were Amara Karan as Rita, and David Walliams as Gibbis. Walliams in particular is just the kind of guest star that could easily overshadow an episode, but here, he’s treated very much as an actor for hire. He’s understated, and his believable yet dislikeable character benefits as a result.

The subtext of the episode is, for the most part, a religious one, it seems, with the clue in the name of it. But then Toby Whithouse’s script skilfully turns its focus towards the end, and while he makes his points about the power and influence of religion (your fears disappear when you completely believe), it turns out he’s pointing his finger in the direction of the Doctor, too. Faith is a far bigger subject matter than religion alone, and Whithouse explores it well, within the confines of a Doctor Who episode.

Thus, in a similar way that Vincent And The Doctor came up with a monster that was a metaphor for depression, you don’t have to dig too deep to see the parallels between the creature this week, and the Doctor himself.

Making people face their worst fears? Leaving people worshipping him, before leaving them in a worst state than they started? Wanting to be adored? A series of faces on the wall who have drifted, basically, into time, awaiting the arrival of the next? 

It’s no wonder we got the ending that we did. That the pressure, that’s been building up on the Doctor’s shoulders, led him to do what he clearly didn’t want: to let Amy and Rory go, to save them. Since he came back to our screens in 2005, the Doctor’s loneliness has been a more potent theme than it often was, and, aware of his death, the Doctor is basically saving himself from screwing up Rory and Amy (the moment were he talked to Amy about standing over her grave was particularly haunting. Adric can testify to that). Not least now that it seems the pair actually like each other.

To let Amy go, and defeat this week's monster, he had to break her faith, which reminded me a little of The Curse Of Fenric, when Sylvester McCoy’s Doctor had to do so with Ace in a far more brutal way than Smith’s did with Amy here (see? The stories had to do with the assistants before, too).

I don’t buy that it’ll hold, of course, and nobody watching The God Complex will be thinking it’s the last we’ve seen of Amy and Rory. But it’s an episode that rammed home to the Doctor just what a force he is in people’s lives, and not always for the better.

A lot of credit should go to Matt Smith here. His “I’m not a hero” speech at the end was both emotionally-charged and wonderfully delivered. We know, now, what the Doctor fears (presumably Amelia Pond was the one sitting in his room, with the fear of ruining her life), and we know when he’s going to die. We also know that he’s flying off, as lonely as he’s ever been.

I really liked The God Complex a lot, if you hadn’t guessed. I thought it was intelligently constructed, directed with skill (and not shy of tipping its hat to the odd TV show or movie), and a strong episode of Doctor Who in a series that’s had no shortage of them. I can’t find myself siding with those who are voicing frustration with the direction the show is going, although I do find the arguments interesting.

Instead, I’m firmly with those who believe that Doctor Who is going through something of a golden age right now, and The God Complex keeps the standard high.

Next week, it’s the return of Craig from The Lodger, as we rev up for Doctor Who’s penultimate instalment of the run. Expect fireworks, and no shortage of them…

Read our review of episode 9, The Girl Who Waited, here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

It’s a sad fact that, a few occasional break-through movies aside, much of Hong Kong’s cinematic output fails to gain a significant audience in the West. Released in 2008, the martial arts movie Ip Man was colossally successful in the East, but didn’t even get a theatrical release in North America or Europe.

When I noticed that Ip Man would be screened as part of London’s Hong Kong Film Festival, I jumped at the chance to see this acclaimed movie on the big screen – and I’m glad I did, because director Wilson Yip’s fusion of historical drama and gritty martial arts is one of the finest films of its type, and deserves to be seen on a big screen, preferably with the kind of excitable, receptive audience I sat with.

Set in Southern China in the 1930s, the film introduces Ip Man (Donnie Yen), a remarkably adept practitioner of Wing Chun. Although everyone in town seems to want to best him in combat, Ip is a peaceable family man, and unusually for a martial arts film, he lives a comfortable, upper-crust life in a home stuffed full of expensive furniture and antiques. That various hot-blooded men keep turning up to challenge Ip is a constant source of irritation for his wife, who repeatedly scolds him for spending too much time fighting and not enough time playing with their young son.

In this opening chapter of the film, the tone is light, the characters effervescent, and the fight scenes playful. It serves as the perfect introduction to one of the most gentle, noble souls in kung-fu cinema, and what comes next is a dramatic shift in tone.

With the invasion of China by Japanese forces in 1937, the life of and his family changes forever. His once populous hometown is decimated, as its inhabitants are either killed or starve to death during the occupation. With his opulent house confiscated and food supplies dwindling, Ip sets off to work at a colliery - the first time he’s worked in his life, he later admits.

Donnie Yen lends his character a noble, refined edge that is quite unusual in Hong Kong cinema – he’s martial arts equivalent of James Mason. The introductory section of the film, where we get to see his peaceful, well-to-do life, make the latter stages, where he finally does lose his temper, seem all the more dramatic and powerful.

The fight sequences are, quite simply, remarkable. Ip Man isn’t as saturated with wall-to-wall combat as some HK movies, but the strength of Wilson Yip’s direction, and Sammo Hung’s reliably balletic martial arts choreography, means that, when the fights do break out, you’ll feel every kick and punch.

Unlike earlier, globally successful martial arts films, such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, House Of Flying Daggers or Hero, Ip Man doesn’t make use of computer graphics or wire work in these scenes; while still extremely stylised and extraordinarily outlandish, there’s a gritty, uncompromising edge to the fights here. When an enraged Ip, in one of the film’s most spectacular scenes, takes on ten bad guys at once, you feel every single broken rib and shattered femur.

With society crumbling under the oppression of the Japanese army, Ip ends up fighting a battle on two fronts. His best friend’s factory is threatened by gangsters, while a sadistic General Miura – an expert in a particularly hectic brand of Karate – repeatedly challenges Ip and his co-workers to fight in impromptu martial arts tournaments.

While based on true events - Ip Man went on to become the foremost practitioner of Wing Chun after the war, and taught hundreds of students, one of whom was Bruce Lee - some have criticised the film’s rather embroidered view of history. The real Ip Man wasn’t forced into servitude during the Japanese occupation, never worked in a colliery, and he never fought a Japanese general in mortal combat.

It’s also true that Ip Man paints the Japanese as unequivocally evil and two-dimensionally amoral, in a not dissimilar fashion to Bruce Lee’s classic, Fist Of Fury, which also purported to be based on true events.

But, if viewed as a purely cinematic piece of entertainment rather than historical document, Ip Man is surely one of the finest martial arts movies ever made. It takes the time to establish characters that are easy to care about, and manages to convey some quite savage images of wartime occupation, while occasionally injecting a much-needed shot of humour.

Ip Man, therefore, is a martial arts movie that almost anyone can appreciate – it’s beautifully shot, remarkably choreographed, but most importantly, perhaps, it’s got a genuinely engaging character at its centre. The result is a true classic of Hong Kong cinema.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Len Wiseman’s forthcoming Total Recall has had more than its fair share of detractors since its announcement, largely from fans of the 1990s classic, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. What’s gradually becoming apparent, though, is that Wiseman’s own take on the slim Philip K Dick story, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, looks more like a remake of Steven Spielberg’s adaptation of another Phildickian story, Minority Report.

Just take a look at the latest pictures to arrive from its shoot in Canada. They show Colin Farrell at the helm of some sort of futuristic car, whose clean lines bear more than a passing resemblance to the ones seen in Spielberg’s sci-fi thriller. What’s actually going on here is anyone’s guess, but judging by the look of grim determination on Farrell’s face, we’d wager it’s some sort of chase sequence, which will be computer-enhanced at a later date.

Total Recall’s due out on the 22nd August 2012, in what will be a crowded summer for big, blockbuster movies. In the meantime, click on the thumbnails below to get a better view of Farrell and his futuristic vessel.

Coming Soon

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Seeking a quiet, peaceful place to write, Hollywood screenwriter David Sumner (James Marsden) and his beautiful actress wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) return to her parents’ old farm in the swamplands of Mississippi. The house itself is in good condition, but the barn needs work. The hurricane took the roof off, and since David isn’t the handiest guy in the world with his hands, he turns to some of the folks in town for help.

As it turns out, the crew he hires is led by Charlie Venner (Alexander Skarsgard), who at one point was the high school sweetheart of Amy. Thing is, Charlie’s still got eyes for Amy, as do most men in the town. When the stares turn into leers and catcalls, and the local color gets to be a bit too much for David, he puts his foot down, only to find out that it takes more than a little stomp to defend house and home from those who wish to engage in violence.

Does David, the meek and brainy, have what it takes to defend himself when no one else is willing or able to come to his defense? Is what we perceive as civility and principle really just a cover for our own murderous impulses? Such is the question at the heart of Straw Dogs.

If you’ve seen the original version of Straw Dogs, you know what you’re in for with the remake. It’s tough to out-do a master of filmmaking like Sam Peckinpah, but writer/director Rod Lurie does the original justice with his new version. He swaps England for Mississippi, keeps the dilapidated farmhouse and the clash between witty city boy and the earthy locals, but changes his job from a mathematician to a Hollywood screenwriter to further up the ante of culture clash.

Here, folks from the South don’t have problems with people who have learning: Southerners have problems with people who look down on them. The script, by Lurie, also makes it clear from the very beginning that David Sumner doesn’t belong in Blackwater, Mississippi. David himself makes it very clear that he feels superior to the locals, and he very subtly condescends to them while simultaneously trying to make friends with them. He tries, but it’s clear that he’s just following the axiom “When in Rome.” (Which he also says at one point, to boot.)

It has to be hard taking on a role made famous by Dustin Hoffman. Were I an actor, I wouldn’t relish taking that on. Yet here’s James Marsden, donning the circular eyeglasses and rocking the curly mop just like Hoffman did in 1971.

Marsden, to his credit, actually puts forth a surprisingly adept performance. He handles the transition from bookish, cerebral writer to shockingly effective defender well, becoming more of a “man” without becoming Superman.

Speaking of Superman, his co-star Kate Bosworth also handles the material well, especially the key, challenging scene on which the movie depends. Alexander Skarsgard handles the role he’s given well, and James Woods is a scene-stealer every time he’s on the screen. Make no mistake, this cast is stellar.

The only real problem I have with the movie is one I have with pretty much any remake. If you’re not going to make things different, then what’s the point of doing a remake? Yes, there are some subtle differences in the two versions, but they’re similar enough that there’s no real reason to do it again. Were people not paying enough attention to Straw Dogs before now? Was the fact that it was old keeping people from seeing the movie? I just don’t get it. I mean, this is a good remake, but it’s still money that could have been spent to do a new project.

That said, Rod Lurie has crafted a very good movie. It’s suspenseful, gritty, and doesn’t shy away from the things that made the original so controversial in the first place. It retains the truth of Peckinpah’s original, and that’s a pleasant surprise in and of itself.

US correspondent Ron Hogan isn’t a fan of remakes, but for some reason Straw Dogs has proven itself a worthy return to the original material. Find more by Ron daily at Shaktronics and PopFi.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Japanese director, writer, actor, tap dancer and comedian Takeshi "Beat" Kitano has a string of fantastic credits to his name, from his spectacular debut, Violent Cop, to his stunning turn as a sadistic teacher in the classic Battle Royale.

Kitano has also written and directed the great-looking Japanese mafia drama, Outrage, which will get a limited theatrical release in the US on the 2nd December. If there’s any justice, it’ll make an appearance in UK cinemas soon, too. It's a full-blooded drama about rival yakuza gangs and their struggle for dominance, and has already received glowing reviews at Cannes. And judging by the first official US trailer, below, it looks great – even if the gravely voice-over is a little distracting.

If Outrage does get a UK theatrical release, we’ll be sure to let you know.

Apple Trailers

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Given that the making of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises has been accompanied by a large collection of fan-snapped images of the production, we’ve been exposed to some intriguing pictures from the assorted sets of the movie.

This latest image isn’t one of those, but in the spirit of completeness, here it is. It’s a picture of Christian Bale sitting behind the wheel of a Lamborghini. Presumably because his FIAT Punto was in the garage.

Elsewhere, Gary Oldman has been nattering to Contactmusic about the lengths that Christopher Nolan is going to in order to keep the finale of The Dark Knight Rises under wraps. Granted, this is fairly routine for Hollywood now, but Oldman revealed that “Christopher doesn't want anyone to ruin it and I completely understand that. The newer people on the film go to his office to read the script. They sent mine out, but it had to be hand delivered directly to me and nobody else. And the final few pages were missing. I went along and talked to Christopher and in person about the ending. Then I locked it away in my head”.

Finally, the story we (temporarily) posted about no Morgan Freeman in The Dark Knight Rises? It was nonsense. Apologies, and we've trebled our caffeine intake to stop it happening again. That should do the trick.

The shoot of the film continues, although it’s nearing completion now. And The Dark Knight Rises is arriving in cinemas in July 2012.

Contactmusic

Read all that's known about The Dark Knight Rises here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Appreciating that it didn’t have too much competition at the box office over the weekend, the nonetheless staggering business that the 3D reissue of The Lion King rustled up these past few days in America must have opened up some eyes.

The film brought in an opening weekend of $29.3m in the US, comfortably winning the weekend. Second placed Contagion scored $14.4m, whilst the brilliant Drive had to content itself with $11m (the second week running that a terrific film has underperformed at the US box office, after Warrior).

What’s particularly interesting about the success of The Lion King, though, is that it arrives on Blu-ray in a month’s time, and yet it can still motivate lots of people to go and watch the film on a big screen. Granted, some of the success will be attributed to the decision to do a 3D makeover on the movie. But we suspect it’s something a bit more primal than that: people just wanted to see The Lion King on the big screen again.

And this is something that DVD, for all its benefits, had damaged. Disney in particular used to cycle many of its movies in a pattern of cinema re-releases that tended to arrive a few months ahead of a VHS release. And the likes of Snow White in particular always used to be capable of rustling up a spare $40m at the US box office, back when that was regarded as a lot of money. Which is still is, to be fair, for a film that’s basically getting another run at the big screen, without notable production costs attached.

This meant that many generations got to discover the likes of The Jungle Book, The Aristocats and Pinocchio on the big screen. But that’s not happened for a long time now, outside of the likes of an IMAX makeover of Beauty And The Beast, and the odd, small-scale special re-release.

What’s particularly impressive about The Lion King re-release, though, is just how much Disney committed to it.

This wasn’t shovelled out on a few hundred screens in the States. No, it was rolled out to 2,330 cinemas. That’s about half the number you’d expect for a massive blockbuster, but about the same level as films such as the Straw Dogs remake, and new Sarah Jessica Parker vehicle, I Don’t Know How She Does It (both of which also debuted in the US this weekend).

But can this herald, then, a return to earlier days? Those days before quality home cinema, when the real cinema was regularly deemed the best place to see a movie, whether it had been released previously or not? Sadly, we doubt it, but there are signs of promise.

We’re a week away from a limited re-release of Jurassic Park in UK cinemas, and, of course, we had Back To The Future pop back onto the big screen last year. We’re also promised a big screen outing for Ghostbusters next month. And let’s not forget that Toy Story and Toy Story 2 had a 3D big screen re-release.

This is all encouraging, and it’s a sign that film chiefs are willing to take a gamble on a wider re-release than we’re used to getting.

The next big, expensive wide release on the calendar, though, will be Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 3D, which might make $30-40m in total on its US run, we’d wager, but is unlikely to light the touchpaper for a more regular collection of older films getting wider releases (it's arguably the wrong film for that). Titanic 3D is going to follow, too, but these are high profile projects, and currently the exception to the rule.

What’s more likely is that Disney, at least, is likely to take more of a gamble with its animated back catalogue. Certainly it’d be great to see the likes of The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty And The Beast and The Hunchback Of Notre Dame getting sizeable theatrical re-releases. These were films that never really got the chance for a second stab on the big screen, given that DVD arrived in the midst of Disney’s usual theatrical re-release schedule. Furthermore, Disney also seemed to lose confidence in the box office power of its older animated titles in the last two decades, which didn't help.

But it should have that confidence back now. And while we can live without a 3D makeover, and while few older Disney titles are going to make the kind of money in a weekend that The Lion King just has (this is the firm’s biggest-ever hand drawn animated movie, after all), there might just be hope of seeing films destined to for occasional one-off big screen outings getting a more substantive, and wider run. Here's hoping...

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

With nearly $300m in the bank off its theatrical release alone, the last Resident Evil movie, Afterlife, turned out to be the most successful to date. As such, a fifth film was a shoo-in, and Resident Evil: Retribution is earmarked for release in around a year’s time.

Milla Jovovich is returning again, too, and she’s been using her Twitter feed to keep people up to date with the project. What’s more, she’s gone and teased a couple of extra details, too.

Firstly, she said, “Chris, Claire and K-mart have been captured by Umbrella”. She then added that “We will have the Las Vegas parasite”. If she actually meant Las Plagas, the virus introduced in Resident Evil 4, then that's something that will require little introduction to fans of the videogame franchise.

With regards casting, Jovovich said that the roles of Barry, Ada Wong and Leon will be appearing in the movie. Jensen Ackles, however, has not been cast in the role of Leon, as had been suggested.

Coming Soon has a round-up of what Jovovich has been saying, here.

Follow Den Of Geek on Twitter right here. And be our Facebook chum here.