Some movie genres have been around for so long that they inevitably become stale and repetitive. The same type and style of movie, offering the same sort of story and action. This can be said for everything from romantic comedy to period drama but no more so than horror.

In fact, you can tell its affected horror more than most because this genre goes through a reinvention more than any other. Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity gave us the Found Footage genre, Scream shone a light on the “rules of slasher movies” and Saw gave us the unfortunate “Torture-Porn” genre that has seemingly died away as well. Add to that the resurgence of ghost stories and possession and you have a genre that gives as many fresh, innovative ideas as it does regurgitated, repetitive ones.

Chernobyl is a great location for a horror movie.

It’s a shame that Chernobyl Diaries doesn’t quite know what it wants to do. Its got fantastic potential and some great ideas but they are all hampered by the same faults that most horror movies inadvertently suffer from. The positives hit you immediately, Chernobyl is a great location for a horror movie, its creepy, isolated and so much of its unknown but steeped in grim fact.

The style of the movie is good too. It isn’t quite found footage but had a much more gritty, hand-held quality. This meant you felt very close and claustrophobic, as if you were an extra character, but without having to restrict yourself with the rules that found footage movies abide by.

The characters are standard but the actors do a decent job.

Even the actors are decent enough. There isn’t much for them to do but they have enough about them to hold the story together and act in a creepy and helpless way. The story itself may not be the most original but it holds together well and there are enough surprises throughout to add the customary jumps and screams.

It’s just a shame that there is little else on offer. A great location, decent direction and workable actors offers up little more than a standard horror movie. There is the usual peril and sense of danger throughout the film but this is nothing new. Characters are picked off, one-by-one, in a slightly random manner, much like any other horror film would do. It even wastes the setting, moving quite quickly past the Chernobyl setting and into the usual, dark, jumpy location we have seen many times before.

It’s not long before it begins to fall into the usual horror movie traps though.

This is the biggest fault of Chernobyl Diaries; there is potential for a great story and believable threat. They are in a town which was deserted quickly and with little warning. Whatever is chasing and hunting them could be steeped in legend and back story. There is a great scene where three characters are cornered by a “monster” in a building. You never quite see it but the sounds and actions make it creepy and interesting. You want to see it and you want to be terrified by whatever it eventually is.

You never really see it though. You never get the proper payoff. There is a predictable end to the movie and a feeble twist to the whole affair but it lacks the big, horror battle finale that the film builds too. Its far too dark and too shaky when it comes to the moments when the most clarity is needed, the moments when we get to see whats been hunting our characters.

Overall, Chernobyl Diaries has a whole heap of potential but never takes the innovative, final killer step. Its got a great location, decent characters and is shot effectively but eventually becomes the same style of horror movie that we have seen countless times before. Its scary in places but when we never really get to see what is doing the scaring, you do begin to feel cheated and frustrated.

Rating 6.6

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

I’m sure there are monsters in it, but I never got to see them.

3 of the Best vs 3 of the Worst is exactly what it sounds like – 3 of the best examples of either an actor, film series, genre, etc. versus 3 of the worst. It’s also an opportunity for you to have your say on my choices and whether you would have placed something ahead of my best or my worst. This week…. Film Years of  the 80s.

I couldn’t think of a good way of describing this list. I’m looking at the the most notable movies of the 80s and choosing the three best years and three worst years for movies. I’m looking at cult, childhood favourite, classics and personal favourites. It was a difficult list and every year has at least one amazing movie so I’m sure there will be some disagreement so without further ado…

3 of the Best

3 – 1988

This one just about snuck in to the top 3, a position that was up for hot contention. It was the year that saw the release of the greatest action film ever (Die Hard), a Tom Hanks classic (Big) and Dustin Hoffman’s best ever performance (Rain Man). There are some notable faults, Moonwalker and Last Temptation of Christ to mention two, but this year also gave us Who Framed Roger Rabbit?. I’m not going to argue with that.

2 – 1984

This made the list because the best movies of this year are all childhood classics or stand-out, legendary movies. Ghostbusters and Gremlins, Beverley Hills Cop and Terminator, Karate Kid and This is Spinal Tap. It’s a movie year that is constantly played out on a Sunday afternoon or at half 11 on a Saturday night. It also gave us Police Academy but no year is without faults.

1 – 1989

Batman, Field of Dreams, Ghostbusters 2, Bill and Ted, Dead Poets Society, Look Who’s Talking, My Left Foot, When Harry Met Sally and Lethal Weapon 2. A film for everyone and in some cases people’s favourite films. Each of those have made lasting impact in some way (even if it’s just giving the world Keenu Reeves) and if you add The Little Mermaid and Back to the Future 2, I think my number one choice speaks for itself.

3 of the Worst

3 – 1980

There are some great things to like about 1980, Superman 2 and The Shining for example, but there is very little else it offers. It gave us Raging Bull, which I think is overrated, and one of the greatest science-fiction movies ever in Empire Strikes Back but when Friday the 13th is one of the most notable movies of the year, it hardly screams quality.

2 – 1981

The most notable movies of this year were just kind of… dull. They may be great movies but they hardly match up to Ghostbusters or Back to the Future. On Golden Pond was a slow, nostalgia trip, Chariots of Fire was about running and for a long time and For Your Eyes Only was another poor Roger Moore Bond movie. It did give us Raider of the Lost Ark though so it has something going for it.

1 – 1983

King of Comedy, Octopussy, Never Say Never Again, Meaning of Life, Superman 3: 1983 is a year of poor imitations. King of Comedy is a weak Scorsese and De Niro collaboration, Never say Never and Octopussy are weak Bonds and Superman 3 is a very poor superhero movie. It was the year to give us Scarface but also Return of the Jedi, another poor imitation of what had gone before.

Overall, I’m not sure if my age makes me biased towards the later years, which may account for both 1989 and 1988 but I’m a sucker for a cult or iconic, classic movie. It was difficult and also a great decade for movies, with Back to the Future, Beverley Hills Cop, Robocop, Rocky, Blade Runner and Predator. I’ll attempt the 90s soon and as always, feel free to agree or disagree at your leisure.

You can’t argue with the decade that gave us Axel Foley.

Any show which lasts for a decent number of seasons should begin to change and become a different series to what it was when it first began. The characters should naturally develop and grow, the situation the show is centered in and resolves around should also change and the series will eventually begin to look and feel quite different to what it was when it first began.

If you are lucky, the show develops in a natural, understandable and suitable direction that the fans go with and maybe even attracts new viewers. If you are unfortunate, the show will begin to suffer because of the new change and hemorrhage fans, viewers and eventually get cancelled. Either way, this change and development shouldn’t be a shock, it shouldn’t happen without any reason and should be organic, without notice unless someone watches the first season after having just watched the fifth.

Tim Roth’s Cal Lightman seems to have a personality change.

Unfortunately for Lie to Me, the series seemed to change quite rapidly between season 2 and 3 without any real cause, reason or explanation. Characters act in ways that seem uncharacteristic, the shows central theme becomes secondary and worse of all, it seemed to lose its edge, appeal and unique attraction.

The person who changed the most was Tim Roth’s Cal Lightman. In previous seasons he has been sharp, quick-witted, often mean but with a heart. This season he seems to be snappy, harsh and cold for no reason. He has lost the calmer, softer side to his character that made him appealing. He jumps straight to hard-edged and nasty, when it at least took the person to lie first before he did it.

Not enough is done with the previously great chemistry between Lightman and Foster.

His colleagues seem to put up with this much more and don’t play off his character as well as they used to either. His lighter-edge was always represented by Gillian Foster played by Kelli Williams. This season, they seem to dislike each other, losing some of the winning, “will they-won’t they” chemistry that was a positive in the two earlier seasons. It feels like we missed a storyline where they fell out in a huge way.

The storylines are actually one of the more positive aspects of the show. The situations the team find themselves in are very good, making use of the unique “human lie detector” edge the show has. Everything from a manipulative cult leader to a woman with Alzheimers, Cal and his team have some very interesting cases to deal with. It’s just a shame that they seem to overlook the “lie detector” aspect of the show. Some of the most interesting and engaging parts of the previous season was when the facial expressions and subconscious indicators were explained and realised. It was beginning to fall away last season and in the third season, has pretty much disappeared.

The show has lost some of the unique edge which made the first season so entertaining.

It becomes quite obvious, quite quickly, that the show was running on empty in some areas and hadn’t developed key stories quick enough. There is a throw-away line about Cal loving Foster in the final scene of the final episode that feels ripe for development but came too late. As is the story involving the disgruntled and under-appreciated Eli Loker and his attempts at recognition and acceptance. The stories are good but at the expense of the characters we have followed for three seasons.

Overall, Lie to Me lost its very unique way in season 3. It felt dramatically different to what had gone before, with some huge changes in character’s personalities, without explanation and a complete disregard for the mechanics of its central premise. The stories are good and the cases are interesting but it lacks any character development and sets up interesting paths for each of them which are never realised. Maybe it ran its course or was going for a different direction, but Lie to Me could have used at least another season to do it.

Best Episode – Funhouse: One of the only episodes that delves into the characters slightly more.

Best performance - Brendan Hines as Eli Loker

Should there have been another season? - No, I think time had been called on Lie to Me. It was a different show which had lost its appealing edge.

Season Rating – 5.8

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

Lie to Me had reached its natural and rightful end.

Over 60% of people in the western world have some sort of Arachnophobia. This can be from just lifting their feet as a spider crosses the carpet to running screaming from the house when Spiderman is on telly. It’s not difficult to see why; they are some of the creepiest of crawlies and very common, in the scary venomous kind to the harmless, wispy, house-spider kind.

They have a ridiculous amount of legs, a crazy amount of eyes and spin their victims into a cocoon, having caught them in a web, before chowing down. There are species that “fish,” others that create trapdoors and some that have a poisonous sting. They are the badass of the “bug” world and really under-used in cinema.

The spiders in Harry Potter was one of the scariest, but coolest, parts of the franchise.

Some of the coolest moments in movies have been spider related. One of my favourite parts of Harry Potter is in the Chamber of Secrets when he has to go see the spiders. When they attack him and Ron in the car, its scary and thrilling. The way they jump, crawl and get all over everything. The fact they are the size they are is enough to make your skin crawl.

The same can be said for both Lord of the Rings and the brief spider appearance in the Hobbit. The whole sequence involving Shelob in The Two Towers is some of the best parts of that movie. She is huge, relentless and very scary looking. You want to embody evil, a spider beats a giant flaming eye everytime and I’m looking forward to seeing the giant spider sequence realised in the Hobbit movies.

Shelob in Lord of the Rings is my favourite villain and one of my favourite parts of the film.

They are mainly bit part players though. Only a couple of films have really done spiders true justice. Eight Legged Freaks gave it a good attempt and was a very entertaining film. It had enough variation with the spiders and they were scary enough and silly enough to keep me engaged. It was never truly scary or skin crawling like the best ever spider movie is though.

Arachnophobia, the movie starring Jeff Daniels and John Goodman, is one of my favourite “horror movies.” It markets itself as more of a dark comedy but there are plenty of genuinely freaky and scary moments that had me jumping and trembling much more than any straight horror movie has. The moment when the spider emerges from the popcorn eating couples nose, the dangling from the lampshade or hiding in the slipper and the attack on the house at the end of the movie, are all moments that have always stuck with me. Moments that still make me itch and react to the slightest tingle, while I’m watching the movie, even now.

Some parts of Arachnophobia can’t help but stay with you.

The funny thing is, I’m not even scared of spiders but they are such a great, menacing creature that they could be utilised in a very scary movie if used properly. Since Arachnophobia, the best we get is b-movie, straight-to-tv, cheap special effects and poor attempts at bringing spiders to the big screen properly. They are a creature people are genuinely afraid of and come in contact with almost every day, or a least on a weekly basis, and made to be terrifying, could very well make for a proper scary movie.

It doesn’t even have to be huge, giant spiders, terrorising Earth. Arachnophobia is good because the spiders are “normal” sized. You could make it a “under-siege” movie, trapping a group of people in a house, laboratory, boat or even a plane, with a host of different spiders, each attacking with their own unique angle. This could be the film that Samuel L. Jackson should have made. Denzel Washington in Spiders on a Plane!

A spider film done properly, with a budget and decent effects, could be genuinely scary.

Even if they did do the “huge spiders” movie, they don’t have to be skyscraper sized creatures that turn the film into a silly b-movie. Something human sized, terrorising people in a small town, using their different species and different “hunting” techniques, could very well be as scary as the Alien stalking around a spaceship or the masked killer hunting kids through a shack next to a swamp. Done properly, spiders could be used to terrify.

Overall, I think there is a proper market for scary spiders in mainstream movies. Not just b-movie, super spiders or a menacing creature for central characters to come across during their “main adventure” but a proper villain/monster in a true horror film. Either something resembling Arachnophobia but taking itself more seriously or even the huge spiders terrorising a small town; give it a proper budget, a proper script and a proper chance and it could be one of the scariest movies yet.

Lets move away from silly b-movie towards something genuinely scary.

A movie can offer nothing new, or really original, but just be a very good example of how to do that kind of film. Drive offers nothing particularly original. We have all seen revenge movies before or a movie about a “one-man crusade.” Drive is a movie about a man pushed too far, desperate, trying to make things right and keep people he cares about safe. From Payback to Taken, this isn’t anything fresh or original.

The performances or the style the story is presented in can offer the fresh or original take on a familiar story though and luckily for Drive, the cast is fantastic. Ryan Gosling is the perfect choice for the no-name hero of the story. A modern-day Clint Eastwood; mysterious, quiet, unassuming but confident and steady enough that you know he is someone not to mess with. He says very little but manages to sell his character with actions alone. Its the way he reacts to those around him, from the gangsters he gets inadvertently involved with to the small boy who takes a part in his life and drives the actions of the film.

Gosling is fantastic as the “man-with-no-name.”

It’s not just Gosling’s performance though. The hero needs enemies and allies. His reason for revenge is in the form of the constantly reliable Carey Mulligan.  She manages to play the vulnerable but appealing neighbour that Gosling wants to fight for and defend. It’s just a shame that beyond damsel in distress, there is really very little for the great actress to do.

It doesn’t just stop with Mulligan though. Bryan Cranston drags Gosling into more than his fair share of issues. Everytime I see him in another movie, far detached from Malcolm’s Dad, it shocks me and reminds me how good an actor he really is. Add Ron Perlman and you have a great supporting cast. Its just a shame that there is very little for them all to do.

The great cast could have more to do.

It’s not that the story is lacking. The tale is a good one, if not a little familiar and unoriginal. It has pace and interesting, intense and gory scenes that demonstrate Gosling’s ability to be a hero. It’s also pretty obvious and predictable, even when it tries to throw some surprises into the mix. At a run time of only 100 minutes, I wondered why they didn’t take advantage of the great assets the movie has.

It could have been more than a straight-forward revenge movie. Perlman’s gangster could have been utilised much more, amping-up his notoriety or exactly how nasty he could be. The relationship between Gosling, Mulligan and her son could have been explored further, maybe adding more tension when Mulligan’s husband returns from prison. The movie feels like it’s over before it really begins and even though its very good at what it does, I just wonder if it could have been so much better.

More could have been done with the great cast and great supporting characters.

If it hadn’t starred Gosling, Mulligan, Perlman and Cranston, I probably wouldn’t mind the short run time, the lack of anything but a generic story and the pretty straight-forward revenge plot. Although without the great cast, it probably wouldn’t be a film worth seeing or paying attention to.

Overall, Drive is a very good example of how to do a revenge movie. Gosling plays the “man-with-no-name” brilliantly and the fantastic cast offer a great support and structure to the story. Its also put together very well, with pace and action that keeps it interesting. Its nothing special though and without the great cast, wouldn’t really offer anything new or worthwhile to a genre already made-up of fantastic movies.

Rating 7.7

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

Without this cast, would this film be anything special?

Superhero films aren’t even superhero films anymore. Superhero films used to be straight-forward, with ninety-percent of the movie starring the man in the tights. It was definitely much more about the heroes rise, the man in the mask rather than the man behind the mask. Even the most recent superhero films, as recent as Raimi’s Spiderman, was much more about the superhero than the alter-ego.

Marvel and Nolan changed thing. Batman Begins is the story of Bruce Wayne and the transformation into Batman becomes secondary and really just the final part of the film. The same can be said for the first Iron Man, which is a success because its much more about Tony Stark than the suit.

The film is much more about Stark than the suit.

Robert Downey Jr transformed that character and made him the likable, clever, fast-talking and cocky billionaire that also wears a supersuit. If Iron Man was actually about the superhero wearing the suit and we had a film where we watched a robot beat up bigger robots, then it wouldn’t have been nearly as successful or as entertaining to watch. It would have been Transformers!

Iron Man 3 takes this idea a step further. Its much more about Tony Stark the character than Iron Man the superhero. It actually feels like he is in the suit for less than thirty minutes of the movie and its a better, much more original superhero film because of it.

In fact, it plays much more like a thriller. It’s about a man alone, stripped down to the bare elements, rediscovering who he is and what made him heroic and brave in the first place. It’s Tony Stark at his most raw, since the cave anyway, and Downey Jr plays it fantastically.

The film reminds you that Stark is the genius behind the suit and built these incredible things himself!

It’s also a stark (mind the pun) reminder of exactly how “super” Tony Stark actually is. It’s not just a billionaire that happens to have the money to build a supersuit. He’s a genius who can create things beyond people’s wildest dreams. He made that suit alone in a cave and Iron Man 3 brings that back home and puts Stark in that similar situation and it gives the movie a very fresh, down-to-earth feel.

It’s that down-to-earth feel that also makes it feel closer to the comics than ever before. The Avengers was huge, with wormholes, the Hulk and an alien invasion. It couldn’t be topped with one heroes story so just like the comics, after a huge crossover event, you start again, small and building from the ground-up. Iron Man 3 makes it a character movie again and its a very clever move.

That doesn’t mean it lacks the action and huge set-pieces. The destruction of Stark’s house is a great action sequence; brilliantly staged and put together, as is the final battle (which was surprisingly ruined by the trailer). It has blistering action and plenty of suit action, as well as much more Stark out of the suit, fending for himself and showing that he can be a hero without his gadgets and protection.

Don Cheadle gets his chance to shine as an action star too.

The final act of the film also demonstrates a surprising action hero in Don Cheadle. He had enough to do in the suit in Iron Man 2 but as Rhodey in Iron Man 3, he actually gets to demonstrate his military training and adept skills as a soldier. He more than matches Downey Jr in the hero stakes and also has fantastic, buddy banter which lightens the film brilliantly.

The humour is still there throughout. Tony Stark is still as real and biting as ever, with a quick one-liner and clever quip when the time calls for it. He gets great scenes, not just with Rhodey but also Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, a small boy who Tony needs part way through the film and also the villains that he has to face.

The villains are the master stroke of the movie. Iron Man has always lacked that threatening villain, always relying on the idea of a “another Iron Man” rather than something much more original. Ben Kingsley plays a very edgy, dark terrorist in the Mandarin and the support he has, powered by Extremis, that gives Stark something different to battle. It also has some great twists and amazing moments that nobody will see coming.

Kingsley as Mandarin is a villain, casting coup.

The more I write about it, the more I change my mind about the rating. I love Iron Man 1 and walked out of the cinema thinking that this was close but not quite as good as the original. The more I reflect on it, the more I think that this may just match the original, by taking what that movie does fantastically and building on it. Add to that the fact that it came after the biggest superhero event ever, and Iron Man 3 is actually quite an achievement as a third installment and a continuation of the biggest superhero franchise (and movie universe) ever.

Overall, Iron Man 3 is a triumph for Marvel who shows that you can follow the Avengers without topping the action and the spectacle. By making it a character driven piece, it is much closer to the comic book version of Tony Stark and his supersuit. It does give fantastic action, huge set-pieces and able support from Cheadle and an unbelievable performance from Kingsley. Not sure it quite matches the first movie, but for what it achieves as part of the Marvel Universe franchise, it is a real success for the comic book titans.

Rating 9.0

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

Iron Man 3 is another example of how good Marvel’s movie plan really is.

3 of the Best vs 3 of the Worst is exactly what it sounds like – 3 of the best examples of either an actor, film series, genre, etc. versus 3 of the worst. It’s also an opportunity for you to have your say on my choices and whether you would have placed something ahead of my best or my worst. This week…. Superhero Sequels!

I do try to think of 3 of the Best and 3 of the Worst that aren’t superhero related but I just know these film so much better. Add to that the fact that this week saw the beginning of Marvel’s Phase 2 with their superhero sequel Iron Man 3. Inspired by this very good superhero sequel (review tomorrow), here is my list of other superhero sequels. So without further ado…

3 of the Best

3 – X-Men: First Class

I’m not going to get into a discussion about sequel or prequel or anything like that. This is a film that is set in the same “universe” as the original X-Men movies (the link that the new movie is going to make cements that fact) and it is the best X-Men movie yet. All the characters are accurate representations of their comic book counterpart, it isn’t silly or too “comic-book” and best of all, it’s very cool. Fassbender is a bad guy you can root for and actually makes you feel sympathetic for Magneto.

2 – Spiderman 2

Only a few movies are so good that I don’t want them to end. The movie taking the number one spot in this list is one of them, as is its predecessor, but Spiderman 2 was one of the first to make me feel excited and sad that it had all ended. The movie is brilliantly paced, has a perfectly pitched story and action set-pieces that still hold up well today. It’s not quite the Spiderman from the comics but it’s still a fantastic superhero sequel.

1 – The Dark Knight

This movie doesn’t even feel like a sequel. It’s such a step-up from its predecessor that its worthy of being its own movie, tied down and linked with no other. Bale is Batman and Ledger redefines the Joker. The story is fantastic, the action is mind-blowing and for a movie that is two and a half hours long, I still didn’t want it to end. Not just my favourite superhero sequel, or superhero movie; its my favourite film of all time.

3 of the Worst

3 – Superman Returns

I’m not sure how you mess this movie up. A Superman film made in the time of believable CGI. A twenty-first century Superman. What we get is a movie that tries too hard to link to whats gone before, introduces ridiculous plot points, like a superbaby, and doesn’t do justice to the most famous of all the superheroes. The trailers for Man of Steel are better than this whole movie.

2 – Batman and Robin

This franchise was already on a slippery slope. Batman Forever was a mediocre Batman movie, with Jim Carrey doing a Jack Nicholson impression and Tommy Lee Jones trying out-Carrey, Carrey. You could already see the beginning of the camp, Adam West throwback that Batman and Robin becomes. Clooney is awful, Schwarzenegger isn’t Mr Freeze and Bane isn’t anything close to Bane. An insult to the comic book character and the movies that had gone before it.

1 – Spiderman 3

This beats Batman and Robin because of how disappointed I was. I think as a film-fan, this is the most dejected and disappointed I have ever been about a movie. The campaign was fantastic, the villains were cinematic and very cool and the two films before it were worthy of a triumphant, amazing superhero trilogy. There is so much wrong with this movie it angers me, from emo-Parker, under-used Venom and a rejection of the perfect origin story that makes Spiderman one of the most distinctive and relatable superheroes. I’m glad Webb rebooted the series, I just hope he does a Spiderman 2 and not a Spiderman 3!

Overall, superhero films at their best will always outdo superhero movies at their worst. When I looked down the list of films, helping myself make a decision, I realised that above everything else, there are a lot of mediocre superhero films. Not bad or good, just “meh.” So there are honourable mentions for the missed opportunities, like Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer or any of the X-Men sequels, particularly X-Men Origin’s Wolverine!

Not an awful movie but definitely a missed opportunity!

Its incredible how a season can contain both the worst episode and the best episode so far. This whole season falls into some of the worst X-Files traps and mistakes but when it gets something right, shows how fantastic X-Files can actually be.

It doesn’t help that the last season ended with one of the worst cliffhangers we have had so far. The resolution to that cliffhanger opened a “conspiracy” episode that was a very poor and uninteresting beginning to the season. It’s a shame because the rest of the conspiracy episodes this season were very good. We are finally introduced to the “Black Oil” in a double-header that is terrifying, shocking and has some great, fast paced action. The second big conspiracy episodes sees the reintroduction of conspiracy theorist Max in another pair of episodes that are interesting, thrilling and have some great action.

The issue the conspiracy episodes has is that they are introducing a lot more than they are revealing. Each new layer introduced just begins to confuse the wider conspiracy and at times you can feel “lost.” It’s a dangerous path to tread because the conspiracy is still the best aspect of the show.

The conspiracy episodes are some of the best so far but are also becoming too confusing and complicated.

Even when it looks like we are finally getting some answers, in quite a decent season finale, Gethsemane, you aren’t sure if it’s just another red herring and yet another loose thread that leads nowhere. It does shift the focus of the season quite rapidly though and forcing Mulder to question his belief and begin to make him much more skeptical is a very clever trick to pull on our central character and the invested audience.

The conspiracy episodes are only part of the X-Files story though. After four years, we have seen all manner of “monster” episodes and different styles of telling those stories. There are some golden episodes here too, whether by coincidence or design, they are the most “normal” of the monster episodes, dealing with serial killers rather than ghosts or ghouls.

Unruhe and Paper Hearts are more to do with the victims attempts to save themselves rather than a serial killer with any supernatural powers and they are two of the best episodes of the season. When Mulder and Scully are using good old fashion detective skills, their chemistry and the show itself, shines. The best episode so far has to be the very tongue-in-cheek, silly but hilarious Small Potatoes. It has a great monster, some fantastic scenes and a third act that X-Files can only get away with once or twice in its whole run.

There are too many “average” monster episodes that make the season feel lazy.

It’s just a shame that the rest of the “monster” episodes are distinctively average. None are awful, just not very clever, original or exciting. They feel like “X-Files by numbers” and could fit in any season, at any time. The problem is, there is far too many of these kinds of episodes and far too few of the incredible, clever and original ones.

It’s not that there aren’t great ideas, just that they are executed poorly. The worst offender, and winner of worst X-Files episodes ever, is The Field Where I Died. It opens with the dullest, most baffling of generic Mulder monologues ever. I hate the Mulder and Scully monologues anyway. They aren’t clever or interesting and feel pointless. This specific monologue opens the dullest episodes and the one that has a huge missed opportunity. An episode about past lives, reincarnation and multiple personalities ends up being slow, interview and dialogue heavy and ultimately pointless. It had so many good ingredients but is a perfect example of how to create an awful episode of the X-Files.

Overall, there is a lot to like about season 4 but it is also the first season that felt far too long. Too many episodes were padding and the best episodes came few and far between. The conspiracy needs to move forward much more rapidly and needs to be much clearer if it stands a chance of remaining interesting. There is still plenty to like about the X-Files but it can’t begin to get lazy.

Best Episode – Small Potatoes; Funny, clever and with a great “monster.” It’s also Mulder and Scully at their best.

Best performance - David Duchovny as Mulder.

Should there have been another season? - Yes, but it will need to get much better if it is going to avoid becoming stale and repetitive.

Season Rating – 6.0

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

There is still a lot to love about the show but the quality has definitely fallen.

I‘ve now offered DC two solid pieces of advice for launching their Justice League movie but I don’t think they’ve even read them! (Incidentally, you can read my previous advice here and here). Now Marvel have launched “Phase 2″ with Iron Man 3 and if what I’ve read so far is to be believed (I’m seeing it tomorrow), it’s another successful installment in their superhero franchise.

In comparison, DC don’t even seem to have an idea, let alone a script, cast, director or plan for their Justice League movie. I think they should give up on competing with Avengers at all but failing that, maybe they should take their fight to a different arena entirely.

With the success of the Avengers came the news that Marvel were launching a new TV show called SHIELD. It would follow the Agents of SHIELD as they battled new superpowered people/creatures in the wake of the events of the Avengers movie(s). This seems like a great idea and very good way of keeping interest in the series alive when the superhero movies take their inevitable “winter break.” It’s also the area that DC could monopolise and shine themselves.

Cavill’s Superman could then lead to three separate tv shows.

They could take two different approaches to launching a successful TV series or range of shows. We can assume that Cavill’s Superman is tied-in to any Justice League movie and the film will give him the scale, scope and suitable introduction/reboot. Assuming again, that Man of Steel is a success, DC could then begin to introduce the rest of the Justice League with their own tv shows.

Lets simplify things by calling the Justice League line-up, Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash and, inevitably, Batman. Each of these characters, aside from Superman and Batman, could have their own, 13 episode tv series.

Wonder Woman’s could be set primarily on Paradise Island.

Wonder Woman’s show could be set on Paradise Island, where her origin lies, and would primarily take place here. She would fight the greek gods that are tied with her origin, as well as the competition for her title as Queen of the Amazon, and only come to Earth towards the end of her first season.

Green Lantern would be a complete reboot of the character, no Ryan Reynolds, no ties to the previous film. It would follow Hal Jordan as he is called up to join the Green Lantern Corps and train to become an intergalactic police officer. It wouldn’t be set on Earth but instead on other planets, with Jordan learning how to control the ring and his new powers. It would be a lot more science fiction than its two sister-shows.

The Flash would be set on Earth and would follow the adventures of Barry Allen as he comes to grips with his super-speed ability. He’d a police officer by day and superhero by night, taking inspiration from the newly discovered Superman. His show would be closer to those of Smallville or Arrow.

Barry Allen’s Flash would be the most “realistic” superhero show.

All three shows would run either at the same time or one after another. The idea would be that they would all end with the same villain emerging (Darkseid maybe) and then have to come together to form the Justice League. This would then open the way for a rival movie, which would have actually had much more ground-work and character development than The Avengers film ever did.

Add to this the fact that Henry Cavill’s Superman could cameo at least once in each series, bringing in viewers and interest, and you could have a very realistic way of bringing the Justice League together without actually having to take Marvel on head-to-head; a battle I think DC would definitely lose.

All the shows could ultimately lead to the big screen, Justice League adventure!

If three separate shows seems too many, one tv show, very much like the series Heroes, could encompass all three characters stories. Rather than three separate shows, you could very easily create DC Universe the series, a show that follows the three superheroes up to the Justice League film at the end of season 1.

The only issue with this is Batman. If it was me, I wouldn’t include the character at all. I don’t think he fits with these other characters anyway and it is far too close to the fantastic job Nolan did, to actually make a success of the iconic character. That won’t happen though, so I’d suggest a new film, a complete reboot of Batman, and the lead-in film for Justice League.

If I was in charge of DC, I would begin my “phase 1″ with Man of Steel, three separate tv shows (Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Flash), a new Batman movie and then the Justice League. Its different enough to Marvel and would mean that we could get all three of the newest characters introduced within one year, bringing the Justice League movie even closer.

Overall, taking on Marvel head-to-head with competing films will never work. Marvel have this far too well-planned and anything similar will look like a desperate attempt to copy. Launch the Justice League with three tv shows, each unique in style and setting, and then bring the different heroes together in their own team-up movie, and you have an approach that is unique and accessible. Use Superman and Batman films to guide the audience towards the Justice League movie and DC may even stand a chance of taking on the Marvel movie giant. Now where is that number for DC?

This could actually mean DC have a chance of competing against Marvel.

There is a strange idea with superhero sequels that bigger and better translates to more villains. Now you’ve used half of the first film to complete the origin of your superhero, you must now give him multiple villains to fight to prove his worth. Two of the best superhero sequels decided to go against this trend and were much better for it – Spiderman 2 and The Dark Knight.

Spiderman 2 only had Doctor Octopus in the second and used any “spare” time to flesh out Peter Parker struggling to be Spiderman and adapting to his new life as a superhero. There was no issue with raising the stakes because Doctor Octopus was a much better villain with much better weapons and you never felt like the film lacked depth or development.

Dark Knight technically has two villains but he is never fighting or facing them at the same time. Joker doesn’t need to be properly established, his origin is a mystery, and Two-Face gets all the development and a straight-forward story and then climax. It’s not about throwing as many villains at Batman as possible, just about telling the story that makes the most sense.

Iron Man 1 and 2 aren’t that different.

Unfortunately, Iron Man doesn’t go the same way as Spiderman 2 and Dark Knight. Instead we get the same, tired old device, more enemies means more peril. Instead of increasing the tension and problems that Tony Stark has to face, it instead leads to a movie that actually treads very similar footsteps to the first.

At the heart of the movie is a journey of discovery of Tony Stark. It’s a different journey of discovery, this time being about accepting help from others and reflecting on his past, rather than a look at his attitude to the wider world, but it’s still a personal journey. It means we get the rise, fall and rise again of Tony Stark, very much like the first movie.

As cool as he is, Whiplash isn’t that different to the villain in the first movie.

This would be fine if we had different types of villains for the superhero to face but even these are very similar. Take away the idea that Mickey Rourke’s Whiplash is using huge whips, he is still an Iron Man powered foe, one that becomes even more so in the final part of the film. As for the secondary villain, rather than having one huge Iron Man to face, like the original, instead we get lots of Iron Men to face off against. It’s just not different enough and isn’t offering anything new.

Something that hasn’t changed, but this time for the positive, is the excellent casting. Robert Downey Jr is still great as Tony Stark and the more he plays the character, the more natural and obvious his part becomes. This time he has a rival for the best billionaire though as Sam Rockwell does a fantastic job of out-sleazing Downey Jr’s Tony Stark, as Justin Hammer. It’s not just the comic book villain confidence, Rockwell manages to demonstrate the worst part of Tony Stark’s personality but amplified by ten. He is what Stark could have become had he not found that cave.

Some of the cooler character and story elements just need more time to develop.

Mickey Rourke just about manages to steal the villain thunder but only as a tangible, physical threat. He is the perfect example of a villain that, given more screen-time and opportunity to develop, could very easily have been a decent, sole threat for Tony Stark. The film tries too hard to put so much more in, that elements that are interesting and fantastic, like Rourke’s Whiplash and the idea of Stark’s suit killing him, are given less development than they deserve.

There is a lot to like about Iron Man 2 and you can see its ambitions. Don Cheadle does a great job of stepping into Terrence Howard’s shoes and seems to play the character of Rhodey better than the man who established it. The action is fantastic and the setting-up of The Avengers, by introducing key characters like Nick Fury and Black Widow, is done well enough to keep interest and excitement high. I just feel like it’s trying to do too much for a sequel, particularly when it has so many raw ingredients that would have created a fantastic film if they’d just had more time.

Overall, Iron Man 2 falls into the same old superhero sequel traps; too many villains, too many stories and not enough time to develop them all. One villain, one struggle for Tony Stark with a sprinkle of The Avengers and we may have had a film that could have equalled the fantastic first movie. Instead we get great characters, casted brilliantly, who never feel like they have enough time to shine. I just hope Shane Black learns enough from this movie, and The Avengers film itself, to give us a third movie worthy of the Iron Man name.

Rating 8.5

(1-3 – awful/avoid. 4-6 – average. 7-8 – good. 9-10 – fantastic.)

This movie still leaves me with high hopes for Iron Man 3