Thor (2011)

2012 #37
Kenneth Branagh | 115 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

ThorDirector Kenneth Branagh brings all his Shakespearean know-how to one of the most innately successful of Marvel’s recent superhero movies. Perhaps lacking the mass appeal of Iron Man (specifically, of Downey Jr), Branagh spins a yarn of gods and mortals, humility and responsibility, without stinting on action or humour.

In the title role, Chris Hemsworth is an instant star; as his evil brother, Tom Hiddleston also seems to be commencing a considerable career. Too much building to The Avengers is its only major flaw. I had no interest in Thor before; now I’m desperate to read some of the comics.

4 out of 5

Marvel Avengers Assemble, aka Marvel’s The Avengers, comes to Sky Movies Premiere from Friday 15th February at 4pm.

In the interests of completing my backlog of 2012 reviews, I decided to post some ‘drabble reviews’ of the stuff I watched longest ago. In the future I may update with something longer, but if I don’t, at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

My reviews of the other Marvel Phase One movies can be found at the following links: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Captain America: The First Avenger; plus, the first two Marvel One-Shot shorts.

January 2013 + 5 Films That Deserve Sequels

I’ve decided to give these monthly updates a mini overhaul for 2013, to make them more interesting and engaging for you, dear reader. That means a variety of regular sections beyond just the list of films I watched. I’ll introduce them as we go, so without further ado…


What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

I introduced this the other day, so look there for a full explanation. Naturally enough, I’ll be giving monthly updates on my progress.

So, I know, the suspense must have been killing you since Monday — but I can now reveal that this month’s selection from the “12 for 2013” is… City Lights.

I’m not intending to progress through the films in any particular order, but this is both the oldest (1931) and shortest (83 minutes on PAL DVD). Next in age is Bicycle Thieves, and in length is… Bicycle Thieves. So, there you go.


January’s films

The full list for January includes…

It Happened One Night#1 Underworld: Awakening (2012)
#2 It Happened One Night (1934)
#2a A Trip to the Moon (1902)
#3 The Extraordinary Voyage (2011)
#4 Django (1966)
#5 Underdog (2007)
Dredd#6 Dredd (2012)
#7 Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part II (2013)
#7a You Only Live Twice (1967)
#8 Armored Car Robbery (1950)
#9 The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec (2010)
#10 City Lights (1931)


Analysis

Rather than just list the films, isn’t it more interesting to try to ascertain what — if anything — that means? I think so. So here’s putting that in perspective, as to how I normally get on and the such like.

Sometimes statistics can be very revealing, displaying correlations you might not expect but are evidently there. Unfortunately, my January viewing is not one of those times. You might think how many films I watched, or even how quickly I watched my first film, would be an indicator of how high my final tally will be, but past years show this just isn’t the case. For example, on four years I’ve watched film #1 on New Year’s Day — 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012. Their respective totals were 129, 100, 94 and 97. The two years I didn’t (2010 and 2011) were my most successful Januarys ever, both reaching 12 films. In 2010 my final total was 122; in 2011, it was 100.

With a total of 10 for January, 2013 stands two ahead of target pace (the speed which would see me reach precisely 100 films in precisely 365 days), is double 2008 and 2009, and equal to last year. Should I keep up this pace, I’ll end the year having seen 120 new films. Then again, one of the few correlations you can see is that January’s total has never been an accurate indicator of my average viewing.

But hey, there’s a first time for everything.


Finally, each month I’m going to compile an informal little list on a topic inspired by a film (or films) in that month’s viewing. This month it’s…

5 Films That Deserve Sequels

  1. Dredd
    DreddFans have waited decades for a decent cinematic translation of the iconic 2000 AD lawman, and they finally got it last year. The filmmakers mooted a trilogy; the pathetic US box office take seemed to put the brakes on that; but now it’s doing great business on DVD and Blu-ray. Who knows if we’ll get a sequel, then, but the exciting future world depicted in the first film deserves further exploration.
  2. The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec
    The Extraordinary Adventures of Adele Blanc-SecAnother mooted trilogy that seems to be in limbo — when you look into the first film, no obvious quotes crop up denying a sequel, but the first was released in 2010 and there’s no sign of a follow-up being in the works. I don’t know how well it went down in its native France, but I thought it was a daft, exciting, funny entertainment and I’d love to see more.
  3. Eastern Promises
    Eastern PromisesA sequel has been on and off ever since David Cronenberg’s London-set Russian gangster thriller gained some popularity on its release back in 2007. Though the original resolves its main plot, it leaves many others tantalisingly dangling. I only quite liked the film, but I was left salivating at the potential for some kind of crime epic held by a continuation.
  4. The X Files: I Want to Believe
    The X Files I Want to BelieveI don’t really mean a sequel to the standalone(-ish) second X Files movie, but a third film in the series — more a direct sequel to the first movie and the end of the TV series. 2012 would’ve been the perfect year for it, but a poor critical and box office reception for the second film (coming up to five years ago now) seems to have killed any chance.
  5. Unbreakable
    UnbreakableM. Night Shyamalan’s leftfield take on the superhero genre is, for my money, the best of his films. Ever since it first came out he’s talked about how the entire movie was originally just act one of a longer piece, and that he might produce the rest as the next two films in a trilogy. Instead, he’s made numerous unrelated but increasingly bad films. Time to return to your last great one, M.?

And one that doesn’t — well, shouldn’t get one:

    Toy Story 3
    Toy Story 3As Christopher Nolan said while describing his decision to make The Dark Knight Rises, “how many good sequels are there? …are there any great second sequels?” Whether he bottled lightning three times is widely open for debate, but there’s little doubt that Pixar managed it. Toy Story is a brilliant film; in my estimation, Toy Story 2 is even better; and Toy Story 3 is their equal, a beautiful capper to a generation-defining trilogy. So if managing to make a good sequel is rare, and managing to make a good second sequel is nigh impossible, why even consider trying it again? Nonetheless, there’s been rumours of a fourth Toy Story. I sincerely hope it never happens.

Agree? Disagree? That’s what there’s a comments section for! Which films do you think should (or, indeed, shouldn’t) get the sequel treatment?


Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

The year’s shortest month is often one of my best for total viewing, usually finishing in the low to mid twenties. How will 2013 fare? It can’t be any worse than 2009, when I only reached seven.

Plus, it’s the Oscars, which means I’ll sign up for Sky Movies for a bit at some point. Actually, that’s probably why February usually does so well…

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part II (2013)

2013 #7
Jay Oliva | 76 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | USA / English | PG-13

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part IIThe two-part animated adaptation of Frank Miller’s comic, regularly voted among the top three stories ever told in the medium, concludes here. If you’ve not seen Part I, I recommend you start there — I imagine you could follow much of Part II without it, but why bother?

In the second half of Miller’s tale, the Joker is being released from incarceration to appear on a talk show, apparently reformed. Batman doesn’t believe a word of it, but the new police commissioner isn’t about to let Gotham’s vigilante have his own way. Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., a President concerned about the ramifications of Batman’s return has a little chat with a red-and-blue-clad chum…

Miller’s original work is most often consumed as a graphic novel these days, but it was originally published as four individual parts and is consequently quite episodic. What screenwriter Bob Goodman has done with his adaptation is manage to make it feel like a story of two halves, with each movie being largely self contained — you could stop at the end of Part I and feel you’d had an entire tale, I think. Here, elements from Miller’s fourth chapter are introduced earlier (at least, that’s how I remember it, but note I’ve not read it for years), lending Part II the sense of being a whole movie, rather than two back-to-back shorter tales.

Dark Knight fight!Nonetheless, a pair of big battles form the cruxes around which the story works: Batman vs the Joker, and Batman vs Superman. I won’t spoil the outcomes for those who’ve not read the book, but both are excellently realised on screen. Action can be tricky in comics — you’re stuck with a series of still images to convey fast-paced, often intricate movement. I also generally have the impression that action sequences are not 2D animation’s forte — too many frames need to be drawn, too many different angles to make it quick and exciting enough. The Dark Knight Returns is one of the exceptions, however, and the two big sequences in Part II — as well as a couple of smaller ones — outclass anything in Part I, which was good in the first place. I’d go so far as to say the Superman fight improves on the novel’s version, at least in a visceral sense — Miller delivers Batman’s internal monologue and a certain pleasing disregard of Supes, while Oliva wisely skips any kind of voice over and delivers the entire duel blow for blow. It’s a fantastic climax.

It’s also quite dark and brutal, particularly during those action scenes. Translate this shot-for-shot to live action and I don’t imagine they’d get away with a PG-13, even from the violence-friendly MPAA. Producer Bruce Timm revealed in one interview that they were concerned they’d get an R even for the animated version. The UK Part I classification of 15 is much more in step with the content.

The JokerThe story may provide some déjà vu for those only acquainted with live-action Batman, because Christopher Nolan borrowed liberally from Miller’s TDKR for his TDKR, The Dark Knight Rises. This is even less obvious than the Batman Begins / Batman: Year One issue, though, because most of what Nolan used is in Part I, and most of the story he told wasn’t remotely similar. Still, you may spot one or two correlations.

As Batman, Peter Weller’s vocals are largely fine but sometimes lack heft. His rousing speech to a massed army sounds more like a weary chat than a bellowed rallying cry, which is just poor direction… or an uncooperative star, I don’t know which. Lost and Person of Interest star Michael Emerson makes a great Joker though, understated and calm but with a loony edge. He wouldn’t be right for every tale of the Clown Prince of Crime — sometimes you need Mark Hamill’s crazed cackle — but for Miller’s older, sneakier version, he’s bang on. Elsewhere, Ariel Winter’s shining moments came in Part I, and Mark Valley is a bit of a limp Superman — this is pretty much a piss-take of the Big Blue Boy Scout, but the voice doesn’t go OTT to match. Indeed, never mind over the top, it’s barely halfway up.

But these feel like niggles, because on the whole The Dark Knight Returns, Part II delivers exactly what you want from an action-packed Batman animated movie. The Dark Knight rises!There were many sceptics when DC first announced they were going to tackle such a sacred Bat-story, and not all were convinced by Part I. I don’t imagine Part II will change their minds, but for those of us who did enjoy the first animated interpretation of Miller’s seminal tale, this is even better. In fact, even without its first half, I’d say it joins the ranks of my very favourite Bat-films.

5 out of 5

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part II is out on DVD and Blu-ray in the US from Tuesday 29th January 2013. No UK release date has been announced.

It placed 9th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Special (2006)

2012 #40
Hal Haberman & Jeremy Passmore | 78 mins | DVD | 1.85:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

SpecialA lot of praise was slung Kick-Ass’ way for being the first superhero movie genuinely set in the real world, showing the actual problems someone might face if they tried to fight crime behind a mask and a cape. But it wasn’t the first film to hit such a vein, just the most high profile.

One of the forerunners was this, in which a bored man signs on to a drug trial that, it turns out, gives him special powers — levitation, running through walls, etc. Or does it?

If you’re looking for comparisons, Special is more in line with Super than Kick-Ass. It doesn’t quite have James Gunn’s crazy surreal touch, but it shares the low-budget realist aesthetic and a surprisingly recognisable cast (albeit with smaller, TV-er faces here).

One might also argue it’s not strictly a superhero movie per se, more a comedy-drama about a man with mental health problems… though it’s less bleak or inappropriate than that might sound. That doesn’t mean it’s devoid of action or special effects, but they emerge largely in the third act and mostly serve a different purpose to the norm. Or, to put it another way, this isn’t as much of a sci-fi/fantasy film as you might expect.

That IS specialThose after a more genre-aware “real world superhero” movie would do better to stick with Kick-Ass or Super, but those who might embrace something a little different — especially something with an indie sensibility — would do well to take a look. Indeed, being a comic fan is certainly not a prerequisite for enjoyment here.

4 out of 5

Dirty Laundry (2012)

aka The Punisher: Dirty Laundry

2012 #62a
Phil Joanou | 10 mins | streaming | 3:1 | USA / English

New Punisher logoUnveiled at San Diego ComicCon and then released on YouTube in July 2012, Dirty Laundry is an unofficial short film starring Marvel character the Punisher. It’s a fan film, really, but the twist is it’s made by the production company of Thomas Jane, star of the 2004 film version of The Punisher, who reprises the role too.

A short tale clearly inspired by so many Westerns (Frank Castle, the Punisher, sees bad stuff going down, doesn’t want to get involved, but then realises he Has To), it’s designed as a tribute to the character, who’s arguably been ill-served by the three big screen versions to date. I presume it’s also meant to act as some kind of proof-of-concept pitch, though I’ve not specifically seen anyone involved in its production say that. The subtext, however, is that this is how the makers believe a Punisher movie should be done.

For that reason you’d assume the director was some young up-and-comer, eager to prove what he can do. In fact, Joanou is 50, directed U2’s Rattle and Hum documentary in the ’80s, helmed some films no one’s heard of and a couple of episodes of TV shows no one’s heard of, and his last work was The Rock crime/sport drama Gridiron Gang in 2006. Which just goes to show you shouldn’t assume things.

He will punish his laundryThe one glaring flaw (unless you hate realistic CGI-aided bloody violence, in which case there’s that too) is its use of music from Hans Zimmer’s Dark Knight score. It kind of works, but it’s such an iconic and unique score that it’s instantly recognisable, which is distracting. If they can produce a professionally-shot 10-minute film with professional actors, why couldn’t they get someone to do some music? Or at least use unfamiliar library tracks?

Considering it breaks both Marvel/Disney’s character copyright and WB’s music copyright, and thanks to starring Proper Actors & That it’s been relatively high-profile, it’s a miracle it’s still on YouTube after all this time. It’s a fairly effective depiction of a fan-favourite character, though, so long may it remain.

4 out of 5

Fantastic Four (2005)

2012 #77
Tim Story | 106 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | Germany & USA / English | PG / PG-13

Fantastic FourIn the wake of highly successful franchise launches for X-Men and Spider-Man, the next Marvel superheroes to be afforded the big-screen treatment were the Fantastic Four, a kind of family imbued with superpowers after a space accident. “Kind of family” translated to “family movie” for Fox executives, and they produced this dross.

“Family movie” does not automatically equal bad superhero film. Indeed, The Incredibles is one of the sub-genre’s best offerings. I don’t know much about the Fantastic Four comics, but it strikes me that Pixar more successfully hit the tone and style that the makers of this film were aiming for.

The problem I felt is that this incarnation of the FF doesn’t really have a story. They kind of meander through a few things that Happen, then a villain finally emerges and they defeat him. It leaves the film bereft of narrative drive; a series of scenes strung together without a common goal. When those scenes are populated with middling acting, unengaging characters, lacklustre humour, stalled drama, and both practical and computer-generated special effects that look about twice as old as the film is, then the experience you’re left with isn’t entertaining on almost any level.

An interesting footnote about this film is the list of weird, minor regional differences, which don’t bear repeating but are at that link if you’re interested. It also received a surely-unasked-for extended cut on DVD in the US, Fantastic spatswhich included completely different (longer) opening credits; both promenade & planetarium scenes from the regional variations; and mostly new character scenes, as if the film didn’t have enough of those already, or plot extensions that help make more sense of stuff that, actually, more-or-less scanned OK anyway. I can’t imagine anyone wanting an even longer version of this, but it takes all sorts, eh.

They’re re-booting Fantastic Four soon (an unusual summer-season-dodging Spring 2015 release date was recently announced) and I wish them well — the characters have run in comics for over 50 years; there must be something to them. Hopefully those in charge can learn from this film’s mistakes, and the successes of family-friendly efforts like The Incredibles, and give us something so good we can forget this ’00s incarnation ever happened.

2 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part I (2012)

2012 #90
Jay Oliva | 76 mins | Blu-ray | 1.78:1 | USA / English | 15 / PG-13

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part IMainstream US superhero comics underwent something of a revolution — or an evolution, if you prefer — in the ’80s, moving from simplistic good vs evil tales-of-the-week to deeper, thematic- and character-driven stories that in some cases took months or even years to relate in full. It’s a change that’s still felt today (some would contend that they’ve been stuck for decades in a rut these developments ultimately led to). It’s generally considered that there were three works at the forefront of this wave of more adult-orientated comics, all of which still rotationally top Best Graphic Novel Ever polls today: Alan Moore and Dave Gibson’s Watchmen (filmed in 2009 by Zack Snyder); Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli’s Batman: Year One (a significant contributor to Chris Nolan’s Batman Begins in 2005, and animated in its own right last year); and Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns — a definite influence on Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises, and currently in the middle of being adapted as a two-part animation. This is, obviously, the first half; the second is out in the US at the end of January 2013.

Set in a near-future Gotham City, Batman has been retired for ten years and the crime levels in the city have risen. Bruce Wayne seeks thrills — and possibly death — while an aged Alfred does his best to rein him in. As Commissioner Gordon nears retirement, a new threat on the city rises, inspiring Bruce to don the cowl once again…

Batman returnsLike Year One before it, the team behind these direct-to-DVD DC animated movies have taken a reverent route to bringing DKR to the screen. It’s in two parts because the original story is too long to faithfully adapt in their limited-length movies (it’ll work out at about two-and-a-half hours all told, which isn’t commercially viable for a direct-to-disc animation), but that also works out OK from a storytelling point of view: this first half ends with a major threat wrapped up and a great cliffhanger to kick off the second half. Those with less appreciation for the economics of film production have slated DC/Warner for splitting the film in two like this, but in some ways it works to its benefit artistically as well as commercially.

Others question the need for adapting it at all, if they’re just going to plonk what we’ve read on the page directly onto the screen. They do have something of a point, and it’s hard to argue DKR is any better off for having been animated. The obsession with faithfulness is borderline problematic at points, in fact: despite near-future tropes like gigantic tanks and mutant gangs, this is clearly a vision of the ’80s, with fashions, comic books glimpsed on shelves and references to Pearl Harbor that lock it fairly firmly some 25 years before now, never mind the future. At another point, a reveal at the climax of Two-Face’s part in the story, which works marvellously on the page, is a dud on screen when copied so precisely. It needs a little re-imagining to make it properly filmic.

Gang-mutie styleStylistically, the film retains Miller’s designs, albeit a bit smartened up to work consistently as animation. Some will bemoan that homogenising but others may delight in it — Miller’s art is generally a bit on the scruffy side, I think. Is it an appropriate mark of respect that they’ve translated it so literally from page to screen, or would it have been more interesting for the filmmakers to have taken Miller’s plot and situated it in a world drawn from their own designs? I’m not going to argue that they could have improved on Miller’s work, but it might have been interesting to see the story given a spin in a different artistic style.

A benefit of being animated (well, arguably) is that action sequences get fleshed out. With a verve typical of these DC original movies, these sequences benefit from a fluidity and real punch imbued by animators who clearly relish this opportunity. There’s variety too, from an opening car chase, to shadowy stalking around a building site, to a silhouette-ish smoke-covered takedown of a gang of henchmen, to a mud-drenched single-take (ish) final smack-down. These sequences aren’t overplayed, but pack the necessary weight to back themselves up. They’re ably supported by Christopher Drake’s score, which betrays the influence of Hans Zimmer’s work on Nolan’s films but is too good to just be a straight-up copy.

Rockin RobinVoice work — the other major addition of an animated re-telling, of course — ranges from solid to very good. I wasn’t convinced by the casting of former RoboCop Peter Weller as Bruce Wayne/Batman, but he’s pretty darn good, carrying exactly the right kind of aged gruffness. It’s unique, I think, to see an active Batman this old on screen — sure, Nolan forwarded things eight years for Rises, but he’s still played by a relatively young and fit Christian Bale, whereas this Batman is grey, in his mid 50s and looking even older. I don’t recall a significant weak link in the rest of the cast, with Modern Family’s Ariel Winter’s performance as the new teenaged Robin perhaps being the most memorable of the supporting roles.

Reviews and commentary on the ‘net seem to swing between finding this a pointless, Saturday-morning-ised version of Miller’s seminal work, and an engrossing and exciting adaptation of it. I side more with the latter. It was never going to replace the original, and in surer hands — ones more prepared to change stuff, essentially — there’s an even better film lurking within (and it isn’t Nolan’s Rises, which only takes elements to construct its own new narrative). But on its own merits, I think this is a solidly entertaining Batman film. And I can’t wait for Part Two, which is surely a recommendation in itself.

4 out of 5

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part I is released on Blu-ray and HMV-exclusive DVD today in the UK. The second part is available in the US on DVD and Blu-ray from 29th January 2013.

Supervillain Showdown!

Despicable MeMegamind

vs.

2010 saw the release of two apparently-similar animated films, both dealing with the superhero genre from the perspective of the supervillain. As it turns out only one really does that (Despicable Me features a supervillain, but not in a world of superheroes), but still, it seems a reasonable point of comparison.

I watched them back-to-back back in March, which wasn’t necessarily a revealing exercise but certainly made for a direct comparison. I’ve made some points about that within the reviews themselves, so I shan’t say more here. As ever, click through to read my thoughts:


After that, it should be pretty clear who I think the winner is.

Despicable Me (2010)

2012 #34
Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud | 91 mins | TV | 1.85:1 | USA / English | U / PG

Despicable MeA venture into the increasingly-popular CG family film market from Universal, Despicable Me is about a supervillain who comes to question his evil ways. It was released the same year as the similarly-themed Megamind from Dreamworks. It cost nearly half as much ($69m vs $130m) but made nearly $100m more worldwide. It’s getting a sequel; Megamind isn’t. All of which is a shame, because I really don’t think it’s as good.

The thing is, Megamind embraces its genre: it’s a superhero movie, playing on familiar tropes and stories from that incredibly popular genre. Despicable Me is an animated comedy about family and responsibility and that kind of thing, which happens to feature a supervillain as its hero. It’s very cartoony, it’s kind of silly; that can work, and some of it does here, but it doesn’t pay off the concept in the way Megamind does, for me. It has good bits, rather than being a good whole.

And there are plenty of bits that flat-out don’t work. There are three little girls, all of them stereotypes, but the “cute littlest one” feels like a direct rip from Monsters, Inc.; there are scenes during the end credits which are blatant 3D exploitation, which makes them a tad irritating in 2D; the action-sequence climax somehow doesn’t feel earned, unlike it does in other comedies like Hot Fuzz, Super, or even Megamind.

Despicable dadThe film’s country is officially listed as USA because it’s made with American money, but it feels more like a French production (albeit dubbed with US voices). Look at those directors’ names (though only Coffin is French — Renaud is actually American); it was made entirely in a French studio (Mac Guff in Paris); and it has a kind of feel that doesn’t seem like it came from a US studio. So while technically, yes, it’s American, I don’t think the French side should be wholly ignored. I’m not saying it makes it bad, but perhaps it lessens the apparent superhero feel — that’s a very American genre, after all.

Despicable Me seems to have come out as a surprise hit. I imagine no one saw it coming because it wasn’t from Pixar or Dreamworks, and perhaps that sort of inverse-hype led to good word of mouth that led to good box office. Personally, I didn’t care for it.

3 out of 5

Megamind (2010)

2012 #33
Tom McGrath | 92 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | PG / PG

MegamindFrom the co-director of Madagascar, Madagascar 2 and Madagascar 3 comes this superhero spoof that had the misfortune of arriving in cinemas two months after the broadly-similarly-themed and well-received Despicable Me, and suffered because of it: while Universal’s CG ‘toon foray earnt over $250m on a budget under $70m, Dreamworks’ Megamind could only rake in $164m, a smidgen (in movie terms) over its $130m cost. Which is a shame, because I found it to be the more entertaining film.

I’ve detailed my dis-love for Despicable Me separately so don’t want to get too far drawn into that again, but it’s a superhero movie in very broad terms only. Which is fine as it goes, but fails to deliver on what I felt was a selling point. Maybe that’s why a general audience bought it more. Megamind, conversely, is absolutely steeped in its genre. It is, essentially, Superman if Superman lost. I wouldn’t say an understanding of the Superman mythology is essential to getting Megamind (and even if it is, having seen one of the film or TV incarnations will have you covered), but it adds something.

Another inevitable point of comparison is Pixar’s The Incredibles, one of their best films, and it’s fair to say Dreamworks’ answer isn’t that good. On the bright side it does offer something different, riffing on a different area of the superhero universe (the sole protector rather than the team) and taking the villain’s side. It arguably plays as a companion piece rather than a rival.

MegacoolThere’s a starry voice cast behind the characters, and fortunately they never overwhelm their roles. Which is good, because I’m not really a fan of Will Ferrell and he’s the lead. There’s also the likes of Brad Pitt, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill and Ben Stiller rounding out proceedings — not that it matters because, as I say, the voices fit their roles seamlessly.

Megamind seems to have gotten lost in the never-ending roll of CG cartoons that fill multiplexes now, buried beneath the success of Megamind and Dreamworks’ own extra-sized franchises (they’re aiming for “at least” three How To Train Your Dragons, four Madagascars, and six Kung Fu Pandas, for crying out loud). While I wouldn’t argue it’s a classic, and perhaps it’s as well suited to superhero fans as it is to the ostensible kiddy audience (not that it’s not right for them too), it merits more attention than it got.

4 out of 5