How To Write A Best-Selling Young Adult Novel

If you follow my 10 steps, you will easily be able to write a young-adult novel catered to meet the requirements of readers in the 21st century:

1) Create an uninteresting, meek female protagonist who's very insecure about themselves and co-dependent, not to mention complete helpless damsels-in-distress 24/7. 

NOTE: exceptions CAN be made but nobody gives a damn because three-dimensional characters are alien to this genre! 


2) Create a male protagonist who seems to spend all his time at the gym because he's built. He will fall in love with the female protagonist because that's what is expected of the genre and because he's clearly got no one better to fall in love with. In this genre, insecure boring females are the Queens!

3) Male protagonist should be perfect and flawless with- this is VERY IMPORTANT!- an endless amount of patience to have nothing better than to listen to the female protagonist whine constantly. Why is this important? Because that's what your targeted demography (i.e. 13-50 year old women) wants. They are not there to read about a flawed male protagonist- that's what boyfriends and husbands are for!

4) Make your male protagonist a supernatural being. Like a vampire. Or an angel. Or a werewolf. Bitches love supernatural beings. Even if said being is a 110 years old trapped in a teenager's body. It is not considered as pedophilia.

5) Create ANOTHER male protagonist! This guy will most likely have been a friend of the female protagonist since the beginning of time and is usually (gasp!) secretly in love with her. He's got to be a nice guy and a perfectly legitimate choice for a girl to fall in love with; yet in the end, he will get kicked in the nuts because he's not bad-ass like the main male protagonist.

6) Now create a love triangle between the female protagonist and the two male protagonists- even though the reader ALREADY knows that the girl is going to choose the supernatural bad-ass perfectly muscular male protagonist. Because pointless love triangles with predictable outcomes are a MUST and completely unclichéd, trust me! No requirements necessary to make it interesting.

7) Spend the next 500 odd pages describing how perfect the male protagonist is. If you're a little more creative, you can add in a little plot to make it seem "exciting". NOT a must!

NOTE: keep a thesaurus with you at all times when writing scenes involving the male protagonist so that you never run out of adjectives to describe how perfect he is. 

8) Don't stop at one book. Create a trilogy. Better than a trilogy, make it a quadrilogy (that's four in a series). And your fourth book should be very big- because in case the books are adapted into films, the final book can be split into two films even though it's highly unnecessary but will be done in "the name of the fans who are clamouring for more". 

9) Give your books mysterious and obscure titles, preferably after times of the day, like 'Morning', 'Afternoon', 'Evening' and 'Night'. The titles don't have to make sense. 

10) Watch as the books become best-sellers and tarnish the good of literature as we know it, while the film adaptations win all the MTV Movie Awards each year. 

NOTE: if you can- by some miracle!- make your books appear to be "metaphors" for abstinence, then you'll seem a little more credible as an author to the oblivious fans. The intelligent ones will see through the facade immediately, however.

'Skyfall' Review

Directed by: SAM MENDES

Produced by: MICHAEL G. WILSON, BARBARA BROCCOLI

Screenplay by: NEAL PURVIS, ROBERT WADE, JOHN LOGAN

Based on: "James Bond" by IAN FLEMING 

                    

Starring: DANIEL CRAIG, JUDI DENCH, JAVIER BARDEM, RALPH FIENNES, NAOMIE HARRIS, ALBERT FINNEY, BERENICE LIM MARLOHE, BEN WHISHAW

Rating: 4/4

Big action set-pieces? Check.

Exotic locations? Check.

Beautiful women? Check.

Mesmerising villain? Double-check.

Skyfall contains all the ingredients expected from a Bond film. Except it ends up being a cut above the rest, proving that if done rightly James Bond can still surprise and entertain, even fifty years, six actors and twenty-two films later in a franchise that has not been without its lesser moments. 

In Daniel Craig’s third outing as Agent 007, Bond is chasing an assassin carrying the hard drive containing the identities of agents undercover in terrorist organisations through Istanbul. It is a deadly serious situation in this pre-title sequence that culminates in Agent Eve (Naomie Harris) accidentally shooting Bond fighting atop a moving train. In a rare moment, Bond fails in his mission and is presumed dead. But everyone knows you can’t kill off the main character barely ten minutes into the film and thus, Bond eventually resurfaces to the land of the living following a deadly attack on MI6 headquarters. It is the archetypal hero returning to save the day.

Except James Bond is not the agent he once was. No longer younger or fitter, it is a knowing reference to both the character's and Craig's age in this franchise. Although he is deemed 'unfit', sends Bond is sent back into the field in pursuit of the attacker by M (Judi Dench). 

This time around, however, M isn't relegated to merely her office space giving orders. She is pushed front and centre alongside Craig as the film allows her to show off an emotional and complex side unheard of before as Skyfall is much about her as it is about Bond. 

Likewise, as he did in the excellent Casino Royale (and even in the dismal Quantum of Solace, to the best of the film's limits), Craig brings something to the table that his predecessors (yes, even Sean Connery) didn’t: a humanity to the otherwise cold and brilliant agent. Daniel Craig's Bond is no longer superficial but instead relevant, as he combats threats that are rooted in reality rather than outlandish.

And thus, Bond finds himself up against Javier Bardem’s blond-haired Raoul Silva. Equal parts charming, equal parts sinister, Bardem steals the show, exuding an electrifying presence that conjures eerie reminders of the Joker in The Dark Knight. No doubt Raoul Silva will go down as one of 007’s more terrifying and memorable villains in Bond history, and deservingly so.

In addition, Skyfall comprises of possibly one of the finest gathering of actors and actresses in the same film, many whom will stay on for the future of the franchise. Notable mentions are Ralph Fiennes as an unusually wry government public servant, Gareth Mallory; Naomie Harris as field agent Eve who is assigned with Bond and (in this writer's opinion, at least) an enjoyable incarnation of a young Q (Ben Whishaw). 

The introduction of new faces to this franchise is a nod to a central theme running in Skyfall: old versus new. They are passing memorable roles into the hands of a new generation to come- a transitional phase, even. Bond's and Q's interactions offer a humourous clash to this perspective and is never more emphasised upon than in a public inquiry with M where she insists upon utilising the traditional methods of spies and espionage in fighting the evil of the present.

As Naomie Harris rightly puts it: “The old ways are sometimes the best”.

And on that note, Skyfall- being the film to grace 007's fiftieth anniversary- has occasional throwbacks and nods to its history. The scenes in Macau, for example, have a stylisation reminiscent of the Roger Moore era, complete with a humourous fight scene. Even the original Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger makes an appearance- complete with the passenger ejector seat (which unfortunately, is not deployed this time)! Writing team Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and John Logan deftly handle the touches with care without allowing it to weigh down on the storyline, preventing it from becoming a too meta-referenced film and instead, a loving tribute to the saga of James Bond.

Skyfall's brilliance- while being a collaborative effort, no doubt- ultimately comes down to the director. Sam Mendes handles the poignancy and complexities of the story and characters against the large-scaled action sequences with equal precision and dexterity. Aided by Director of Photography, Roger Deakins, the duo  

create some of the most beautifully rendered visual shots for a Bond movie. The high point of this is undoubtedly Bond’s fist fight with a French assassin at the top of a building surrounded by glowing and dazzling neon-lit skyscrapers in Shanghai. 

Skyfall is a breath-taking espionage action film that takes Bond back to his roots whilst injecting it with energy and vitality, a standing testament that 007 is not ready to quit. Far from it. James Bond is back and he’s better than ever. 

The Hunger Games review

Directed by: GARY ROSS

Produced by: NINA JACOBSON, JON KILIK

Screenplay by: GARY ROSS, SUZANNE COLLINS, BILLY RAY

Based on: "The Hunger Games" by SUZANNE COLLINS 

                    

Starring: JENNIFER LAWRENCE, JOSH HUTCHERSON, LIAM HEMSWORTH, WOODY HARRELSON, ELIZABETH BANKS, LENNY KRAVITZ, STANLEY TUCCI, DONALD SUTHERLAND

Rating: 3/4

Panem is a post-apocalyptic totalitarian and dystopian country that may have once been North America but is now divided into twelve districts. Long ago, a rebellion attempted to topple the government but it didn't work out. As punishment, each district is forced to send in two tributes annually, one male and one female, to participate in a televised no-holds-barred event in which the contestants must fight to the death until only one remains the winner. They call it 'The Hunger Games'.

With inspirations from Greek mythology- namely, the legend of Theseus- and reality television shows, the premise for The Hunger Games- based on the novel by Suzanne Collins- at first comes off as completely ridiculous. Seriously, killing off people in such a gladiatorial publicised manner from each district until only one emerges the victor- that's supposed to keep the people living in fear? Clearly, as is standard with most films and stories set in the future, common sense seems to have been completely thrown out the window. But naturally,  it requires an amount of suspension of disbelief to pull off this story.

So the question remains: is The Hunger Games able to pull it off?

Against all the odds: yes, it does. Anchored by a stellar performance from Jennifer Lawrence and under the keen eye and guidance of director Gary Ross, The Hunger Games ends up  being a bold, exciting and visceral film.

Academy-Award nominated actress Jennifer Lawrence (Winter's Bone, X-Men: First Class) is Katniss Everdeen, who volunteers to take part in The Hunger Games in her younger sister's place. Unlike many female protagonists in young adult novels of late, Katniss does not spend her entire time thinking about her handsomely chiselled boyfriend or crush (who might in most cases, have supernatural abilities or connections) and being a considerable whining moping mess of a character. No, Katniss is tough and determined, possessing an uncanny skill with a bow- sort of like a female Legolas. Instead of being an incompetent damsel-in-distress, she prefers to take care of herself. Katniss is a breath of fresh air into the genre, a character in the vein of female warriors such as Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Like them, she's also not necessarily out to please everyone she comes across.

Her supporters include Haymitch Abernathy (another hilarious turn by the ever-talented Woody Harrelson), a past Hunger Games victor and current drunk mentor; Cinna (a likable Lenny Kravitz) as  the District 12 stylist; and, to a more-or-less extent, Effie Trinket (a rather wasted role for Elizabeth Banks). On the side of the government is the dictatorial President Snow (a brief yet intimidating turn by Donald Sutherland), TV personality Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) and the game-maker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley).

In keeping with the futuristic tone, the technology present is state-of-the-art. It's got touch screens, holograms and the works, none better shown than in the game control room that evokes the design of the Bridge in Star Trek. Also, fashion seems to be another forgotten thing in the future- here in The Hunger Games, the wealthy and powerful citizens living in the Capitol wear vivid coloured clothes and sport odd tinted hair-styles which is, frankly speaking, just plain nauseating to look at. And that's exactly what the filmmakers set out to accomplish! Such a world could have played out disastrously if done wrong. But Gary Ross and his team pull it off with a conviction that borders on uncomfortable. The life of the poverty-stricken District 12 evokes images of war-torn countries. When they show the life at the other end of the spectrum at the Capitol- which you may have already guessed, is the capital of Panem- it is painful to look at their presentation which is tinged with a hint of satire and caricature.  

Another point which The Hunger Games should be commended for is its endeavor to tackle heavy themes and messages on topics such as politics, self-sacrifice and feminism, as if to appear as a social commentary film. Unfortunately, the attempt does fall short and underwhelms as the events of the film- namely, the romantic sub-plot between Katniss and her fellow District 12 tribute- tend to take up most of the time. However, the film should be commended for its efforts, as such provoking themes are usually absent in most young adult stories in favour of teenage angst, unrequited love which has- let's be honest- been done so many times it's become a cliché in all young adult stories, not forgetting the perfect and almost flawless boyfriend (*cough* Twilight *cough*). 

Conversely, if Jennifer Lawrence is the film's highlight, her male co-stars are the opposite. Granted, Josh Hutcherson (The Kids Are Alright) as male tribute Peeta Mellark makes for a more compelling lead as he gets more on-screen time than Liam Hemsworth  (The Last Song) does as Katniss' childhood friend, Gale Hawthorne. They simply serve to exist to fulfill the romantic aspect of The Hunger Games (spoiler alert: the sequels will focus on the clichéd love-triangle between the three that simply must be present in a young adult story). Let's hope that either: a) the actors are given something more interesting to work with- they are actually commendable performers- or b) the love-triangle remains more of a sub-plot than the main angle in the sequel. Also, for a film with a violent and bloody premise, The Hunger Games is a relatively bloodless movie, something that could be definitely improved on. 

While it may not appeal to the taste of everyone, there is no doubt that The Hunger Games is one of the better films of 2012 and is worth checking out.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Review

Directed by: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
Produced by: EMMA THOMAS, CHARLES ROVEN, CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
Screenplay by: JONATHAN NOLAN & CHRISTOPHER NOLAN
Story by: CHRISTOPHER NOLAN & DAVID S. GOYER
Based on: Characters appearing in comic books published by DC COMICS
                     "Batman" created by BOB KANE
Starring: CHRISTIAN BALE, MICHAEL CAINE, GARY OLDMAN, ANNE HATHAWAY, TOM HARDY, MARION COTILLARD, JOSEPH GORDON-LEVITT, MORGAN FREEMAN

Box office: $1, 012, 264, 293 (and counting)

Critical reception: ROTTEN TOMATOES - 87/100
                                  IMDB - 8.9/10
                                  METACRITIC - 78/100

Synopsis: It has been eight years since Batman vanished into the night, turning, in that instant, from hero to fugitive. Assuming the blame for the death of D.A. Harvey Dent, the Dark Knight sacrificed everything for what he and Commissioner Gordon both hoped was the greater good. But everything will change with the arrival of a cunning cat burglar with a mysterious agenda and the emergence of Bane, a masked and dangerous terrorist whose ruthless plans for Gotham drive Bruce out of his self-imposed exile to don the cape and cowl once again.

(WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!)

Four years back (in the real world), we last saw our favourite Caped Crusader riding off into the shadows at the end of The Dark Knight, having just taken the blame for the crimes of Harvey Dent to prevent the Joker from winning "the war for Gotham's soul". Anticipation for a third installment was at an all-time high ever since it was announced to be in development. 

In line with his previous films, The Dark Knight Rises is filled with an all-star cast, led by Christian Bale as a now-reclusive and disillusioned Bruce Wayne, having retired his alter-ego the Batman eight years ago when Harvey Dent fell and broke his neck. Out of the three films, this is the one in which Bale truly shows-off his acting chops, in favour of his somewhat bland performances in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight; that being said, Bale still hasn't improved his gravelly 'Batman-voice'. Likewise, Joseph Gordon-Levitt delivers a stolid performance as rookie detective John Blake who forms a bond with Wayne. Blake is one of the few citizens who still believe in Batman and is responsible for convincing him that Gotham City needs the Dark Knight to return. 

The real stand-out in this film, though, is Anne Hathaway. Her sultry and coy performance as the morally ambiguous Selina Kyle, professionally known as 'the Cat burglar', is a scene-stealer- not to mention having some much needed chemistry with Bruce Wayne and Batman; a flaw that most Christopher Nolan's films share is a lack in charismatic females that  are only present to function as a device to move the plot forward (notable examples include Rachel Dawes (the first two Batman films), Mal Cobb and Ariadne (Inception) and Olivia Wenscombe (The Prestige)- I'm betting you don't even remember the last name, do you?).

With consideration to the film's villain, this time around Tom Hardy steps up to the plate as the masked terrorist, Bane. While he is no Joker (the hauntingly and award-winning final performance by the late Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight) and may not be quite as compelling, Tom Hardy more than makes up for it by being not only an intelligent but  a brutish and physical threat to Batman, something sorely lacking in the previous films. He makes the character his own, though by the end feels a little wasted as a villain. As Bane, he oozes with charisma and menace as he delivers his lines while his mouth is covered by a mask, sometimes making what he says a little difficult to understand. It's a very small slight in a commendable performance that required three-quarters of Tom Hardy's face to be obscured throughout the entirety of the movie, leaving him to commute his emotions with only his eyes. Should you find this hard to believe, take just one shot of Bane in the movie and you will realise that this single frame contains more facial expressions than Kirsten Stewart's entire career. 

If there is any fault with the casting, it would be that Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Marion Cotillard are under-utilised in their roles. Granted, a whopping amount was required to be crammed into this movie to wrap up everything; nonetheless, it's disappointing to see such fine actors of their calibre and standard (one's an Oscar nominee and the other two are Oscar winners) not given much more to work with. Similarly, Michael Caine's Alfred was given an abrupt send-off following an emotional speech that felt somewhat out of character  in line with the butler that we've come to know, reappearing once more only during the last five minutes of the movie.

Audiences have grown to expect one thing with any film by Christopher Nolan: one that is not merely a piece of escapist entertainment but also thematically-filled and thought-provoking. The Dark Knight Rises is no exception. This time, the story draws strong parallels to Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. Mix in a few political allusions of the world's current situation and the result is a largely grounded action-oriented  film with a comic-book tone that is not only entertaining but makes the threat in the movie feel all the more possible. The idea of a city and its powerful and wealthy people being overthrown by the ordinary citizens has happened before  (hint: it's called The French Revolution).

Unfortunately, compared with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, this story suffered from a number of small plot holes that sometimes distracted the viewer and required a strong suspension of belief: why would Commissioner Gordon carry a speech with him revealing the truth about Harvey Dent without destroying it immediately that would thus have prevented Bane from releasing the inmates of Blackgate Prison? Why would Gordon (again- guilty on two counts!) send the entire police force underground without just sending a small group? It goes against his character to be that foolish. How did Bane know to build his underground base beneath Applied Sciences housing Batman's arsenal when Lucius Fox was the only person aware of its existence (outside Batman) and said that the division was off the books? How did Bruce Wayne recover from a broken back by merely standing for some time (that is just not medically possible) and how did he return to Gotham without any money, without his false identities and the help of his trusty butler? However, while these may prove  to be perplexing, they're not too large a problem to distract from the overall film. The pacing of the film also tended to drag- especially during the first hour or so- as it attempted to set-up the various story-threads for the film to navigate, resulting in a somewhat vague plot that nonetheless works its way up through with some truly sensational set pieces and pulsing action sequences that are far superior (though not entirely as ingenious) to the ones in its predecessors that come together in a spectacular and emotional climax, a fitting and honourable conclusion to not only this film but to the the Dark Knight trilogy as a whole. 


What's next:

As of this moment, nobody knows. The only rumours that have emerged so far are that the Batman films will be rebooted either through a new franchise or a possible Justice League movie. Irrespective, both will most probably stay away from the Chris Nolan universe. 


Writer's rating: 4/5

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN Review

Directed by: MARC WEBB
Produced by: AVI ARAD, LAURA ZISKIN, MATT TOLMACH
Screenplay by: JAMES VANDERBILT, ALVIN SARGENT, STEVE KLOVES
Story by: JAMES VANDERBILT
Based on: "The Amazing Spider-Man" by STAN LEE & STEVE DITKO
Starring: ANDREW GARFIELD, EMMA STONE, RHYS IFANS, DENIS LEARY, CAMPBELL SCOTT, IRRFAN KHAN, MARTIN SHEEN, SALLY FIELD

Box office: $735,111,206  (and counting)

Critical reception: ROTTEN TOMATOES -  73%

                                       IMDB - 7.6/10

                                       METACRITIC: 66/100

Synopsis: Peter Parker finds a clue that might help him understand why his parents disappeared when he was young. His path puts him on a collision course with Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner.

Foreword: how The Amazing Spider-Man came to be...

Sam Raimi and Co. were contracted to make Spider-Man 4 for release in 2011, following the commercial success of Spider-Man 3. However, with the pressure to meet the deadline and being dissatisfied with every script that he came across, director Sam Raimi eventually decided it was time to call it quits with Spider-Man and departed the franchise. Stars Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst followed suit. Columbia Pictures was now left without a director and its two main stars.

So- deciding it was time to re-haul the franchise- Columbia Pictures announced in January 2010 that the Spider-Man film franchise would be rebooted with a new director and new cast. 

The reaction: extremely negative. The Raimi-helmed movies were vastly popular and well-liked (excluding the mess that was Spider-Man 3, of course)- thus, the fans felt that a reboot was unnecessary and a rather thinly-disguised attempt to make more money while scaling down on the expenses- Raimi, Maguire and Dunst were demanding much larger salaries for a fourth installment. Soon after this piece of news, a new director was chosen: Marc Webb (how ironic), whose previous credits included having directed several music videos and only one film, the critically-acclaimed romantic drama (500) Days of Summer. The choice was certainly odd and unexpected. Then again, Sam Raimi was another odd choice when he was first hired. Reaction was still largely unchanged.

Then- Andrew Garfield was cast as the new Spider-Man and Emma Stone was cast as Gwen Stacy. Mary Jane Watson would not appear in this film.

Now, little by little, the negativity started to dissipate and gave way to curiosity- many were interested to see what these two rising stars would bring to the table. Andrew Garfield was fresh off the success from his supporting role in the critically acclaimed The Social Network and Emma Stone was riding a wave of popularity after her performances in Zombieland and Easy A.

On July 3rd 2012, The Amazing Spider-Man was released...

The strength of this reboot relies on its lead stars, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. They shine in their roles, bringing a crackling quirky charm to their chemistry (coincidentally, they are an off-screen couple, too) that was absent in the previous films and instead substituted with sappy soap-opera moments between Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. This has lead several people to label it as a 'rom-com Spidey' as opposed to an 'action-oriented Spidey'. The interactions between the cast was similarly peppered with humourous moments rather than relying on slapstick moments that were famous in the Raimi trilogy.

When it comes to suiting up as Spider-Man, Andrew Garfield scores points as being truer to the comics, never short of the wisecracks that made the character popular when first published. The memorable scene in which Spider-Man confronts the car-thief had me and several audience members howling with laughter. That being said, however, when it comes to the action sequences, the fighting prowess and intensity were greater in the Raimi trilogy (the train fight in Spider-Man 2 still holds up as the best set piece in all the Spidey films to date)- the ones in the reboot simply felt a little lackluster. 

However, the biggest cardinal sin which The Amazing Spider-Man commits is the promise of "The Untold Story" of Peter Parker's past, something the marketing campaigns kept harping on. The opening scenes stuck to this notion and a few scenes later alluded to it, too... then the rest of the film dropped it without any explanation, only to be brought up again in the mid-credits scene in a mysterious and obscure line by an equally mysterious and obscure person. Likewise, the stories of Peter's vengeful hunt for Uncle Ben's killer is left hanging without any closure- and what ever happened to Dr Ratha after the bridge incident? The whole film suffers from a lack of a cohesive narrative, with such story threads left dangling no doubt saved for the sequels; in fact, the second half of the film dropped everything for a big fight sequence that included a borderline ridiculous and eyebrow-raising plot where the villain decides to turn the New York citizens and police into mutant lizards. For a "gritty, realistic reboot", that part of the story certainly feels out of place.

And speaking of the film's villain- this was probably the weakest one in all four Spider-Man films after Sandman and Venom from Spider-Man 3. The Lizard, a great nemesis in Spider-Man lore, was sadly squandered in The Amazing Spider-Man. Rhys Ifans clearly did the best he could but thanks to the incoherent script, it was rather futile attempt. Similarly, the rest of the cast- while delivering admirably with what was given to them, notably Denis Leary's impressive performance as grizzled NYPD Captain George Stacy- were wasted, specially brilliant actors like Martin Sheen and Sally Field. 

What happens next: 

At least two more sequels, thanks to the financial success of the movie. The first sequel is slated for a May 2nd, 2014 release, tentatively titled "The Amazing Spider-Man 2". Writers Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci (Fringe, Star Trek) have been hired to re-write a script by James Vanderbilt. It is still unknown whether Marc Webb will return to direct the second installment. However, the most exciting piece of news is that if Walt Disney (who now own Marvel) and Sony can work out some form of agreement, Spider-Man could make an appearance in The Avengers sequel. 


Personal opinion:

My first proper introduction to the web-slinger was the Sam Raimi movies. For me, that was the definitive version of the hero (I was a kid when I watched them). But about half-a-year back, I got into the Spider-Man comic-books and I soon came to realise that the Sam Raimi trilogy, though great, was not entirely faithful to the material upon which it was based. In the comics, Spider-Man's web-shooters were artificially made and never organic (the latter concept was taken from a spec script written by James Cameron who was at one point ready to direct a Spider-Man movie back in the 90s before legal issues intervened); Peter Parker's first true love was Gwen Stacy (the new film is following this route)- Mary Jane Watson (who would go on to be Peter Parker's future love interest and later one-time wife) and Peter Parker would only happen after the Green Goblin pushed Gwen Stacy to her death off the George Washington Bridge in the tragic and acclaimed "The Night Gwen Stacy Died" story arc, Stacy's death being the catalyst that brought Peter and MJ together. 

Acquainted with this knowledge, it is now understandable why a reboot was creatively necessary: the Raimi films had nowhere else left to go- and Sam Raimi appeared to be aware of this, too. Having eschewed the Gwen Stacy stories in favour of the MJ ones and killing off Spider-Man's primary arch-nemeses (Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus and Venom), anything that came after would be mediocre at best. The reboot, on the other hand, has set itself up for many stories to come by taking the road of the comics, by introducing Gwen Stacy first and saving characters such as Mary Jane and Harry Osborn for future films (though Norman Osborn was hinted at in the film).

All in all, though it was not a ground-breaking film with nothing truly new brought to this reboot and even sharing several plot similarities with 2002's Spider-Man, nevertheless- The Amazing Spider-Man is entertaining and enjoyable.

Writer's rating: 3.5/5

Holmes' Favourite Top 10 Sequels

I will probably get a lot of heat for this list but each person is entitled to his/her opinion. I compiled this list based on two factors: what constitutes as a good sequel and personal favourite sequels.

What constitutes as a good sequel? Basically, it should not repeat the premise of the first film or retread any familiar ground. And it should be more exciting and new.

So without further ado, let's start the countdown.



Honourable Mentions: 

Spider-Man 2, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Bourne Supremacy, Evil Dead 2, Toy Story 3


10) X2: X-Men United (2003)

While the first film spent most of its time establishing the core team and themes of prejudice against the mutants, X2 was allowed to flesh out the story, while creating bigger and better action sequences and allowing new characters to be introduced (hello, Nightcrawler and Stryker), taking the X-Men franchise to new soaring heights. Further light was shed onto Wolverine's mysterious past and indeed, even by the end of the movie, it was still shrouded in obscurity (which made Hugh Jackman's Wolverine all the more kick-ass). And of course, it seemed poised to begin the Phoenix Saga that was tragically squandered with the lackluster sequel X-Men: The Last Stand when director Bryan Singer left to direct the equally dull Superman Returns (thankfully, he returned to help shape X-Men: First Class and its sequel currently in production, X-Men: Days of Future Past). 

09) The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I can already hear the howling protests that this film deserves a higher position on this list. But while it certainly had the best action sequences and set pieces of the Nolan series, it wasn't quite as revolutionary and ground-breaking as its predecessor, not to mention several logistical problems with the script. Nevertheless, the parallelism to A Tale of Two Cities and the French Revolution itself are unmissable and all in all, was a fresh third installment to the Dark Knight trilogy.

08) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

The first two Harry Potter movies introduced audiences to the brighter side of the wizarding world. But it was the third installment that took the film franchise in a completely opposite direction as director Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Y Tu Mamá También) brought out the darkness in the Harry Potter universe, setting the tone for all the films that followed. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban also introduced Sirius Black- godfather to the Boy Who Lived- to the franchise, played hauntingly by the brilliant Gary Oldman who shares some beautiful and poignant scenes with Daniel Radcliffe. There's a reason many consider this to be the best film in the series.

07) Before Sunset (2004)

This is the only romantic drama and small-budgeted film on this list. There is a reason. This is a movie with a more-or-less similar premise- except the themes are completely different. In Before Sunset, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) meet for the first time after nine years (coincidentally, the film was made nine years after Before Sunrise) and spend an afternoon together. It's a beautiful, simple and touching movie with some thoughtful themes. If Before Sunrise was about young love and optimism, the sequel is about love nearly a decade later, when you're older, wiser and even cynical. Also, the open ending is one of the best conclusions of most movies.

06) Toy Story 2 (1999)

This was Pixar's most rushed production to date and it nearly turned into a nightmare. Originally envisioned as a direct-to-video sequel, the film was soon upgraded for a theatrical release- except the Pixar team was dissatisfied with the story and rewrote the entire script within a week. Added to their problems, they were unable to shift the release date, so John Lasseter and his team worked flat-out to complete Toy Story 2 within nine months. All of this had to be done, mind, completely by computer with the technology that existed around 1998/1999. The stress and hard work paid off in the end, though: the film was a commercial and critical success- and as far as sequels go, it's constantly up there with The Godfather Part 2. Beautifully written and animated, with a fresh story and new characters, Toy Story 2 is about as good as sequels get.

05)  Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991)

The Terminator was a classic and cult hit, paving the way for director James Cameron's future. While the first film a more low-budgeted affair and along the lines of a horror flick, the sequel decided to take the route of a big-budgeted action-packed adventure. It was also radical change in the premise- this time around, Arnold Schwarzenegger was the good guy, the killer terminator was a dangerous shape-shifting cyborg, Sarah Connor is a hardened soldier and we are also introduced to the future saviour, John Connor, who was only alluded to in The Terminator. But it isn't the outstanding visual effects (that still stand to this day) that won the hearts of the audience- it was the story between the boy and the machine. And that was what made Terminator 2: Judgement Day an extraordinary success.  

04) The Godfather: Part 2 (1974)

Cue the shocked reactions of fans adamant that this movie deserves to be at the top of the list. Here's my defense: while I love The Godfather Part 2 and think it to be brilliant, I don't think it's the best sequel of all time- primarily, due to the rather overlong and sometimes-disjointed narrative that feels inferior when compared to the first film. It jumps different timelines between the stories of Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) as he sinks into a blood-bathed dark pit of hell and a young Vito Corleone (Robert De Niro) ascending to power. Just when you get accustomed to one story, it shifts track and switches to the other. They were both interesting tales-only, not as good as The Godfather. Apart from that, the performances in this picture are top-notch (this is the movie for which Al Pacino should have won) and the themes are equally grand, equivalent to a Shakespearean tragedy.

03) Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Though it opened to mixed reviews when first released, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back went on to become the most critically acclaimed and beloved installment in the Star Wars franchise over the years. It was one of the first blockbusters to completely shift the formula that worked so well in A New Hope- the big battle was over in the first one hour, the main characters were separated from one another and this time around, the bad guys won (the title says it all, doesn't it?). It also introduced new favourite, Master Yoda, as Luke's trainer- the furry green fellow has become one of the most quoted characters when considering anything to do with Star Wars. By the end of the film, the Rebel Alliance are left drifting in space without a base, minus one favourite smuggler, Han Solo (Harrison Ford), the sole Jedi member Luke Skywalker without an arm and to top it all off, one of the most shocker moments that would go down in history: "No, I am your father." (I get goosebumps every time James Earl Jones speaks those lines). 

02) Aliens (1986)

And James Cameron scores another hit on this list! Fresh off the success of The Terminator, Cameron sought to continue the adventure of sole survivor, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), following the terrible aftermath that befell the crew of the Nostromos in Ridley Scott's Alien. However, as he would demonstrate four years later with T2, Cameron has a penchant for changing the formula of a sequel and this was his first attempt- not forgetting with a film that wasn't written or directed by him. If Alien was a 'horror-in-space' thriller, Aliens was an all-out balls-to-the-wall action flick. And it worked brilliantly! Some even consider the sequel to be superior to Scott's film but that's all a matter of opinion. However, James Cameron's film is a taut adventure film, going on to score seven nominations at the Academy Awards that year, including one for Sigourney Weaver's second tour de force, eventually winning two for Sound Effects Editing and Visual Effects.  

... and my favourite sequel of all-time is: drum-roll, please... 


01) The Dark Knight

Why? Many reasons. The themes of escalation, being forced to make tough ethical decisions in tough times, the triumph of evil over good and the necessary measures that must be taken to prevent evil from winning. The pacing and structure of the story that brings such complex story threads all together by the time the credits roll. The ingenious action sequences such as the bank heist and the tunnel chase. Even the visual tones and style were different, ditching the brownish hues of Batman Begins for a clearer bluish hue- the result was The Dark Knight felt more like a crime film than a comic-book adaptation (Christopher Nolan mentioned that the movie Heat was an influence, so that would explain it). And, of course, the late Heath Ledger's Academy Award-winning performance as the Joker. The Dark Knight goes beyond the ordinary conventions of a comic-book film, becoming something else entirely with a story on level with a Shakespearean tragedy. The best way to sum up the story of this movie is in the words of Harvey Dent: "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." And it certainly lives up to that statement.

There you have it, my favourite sequels of all time. Feel free to post your comments and thoughts below.

THE AVENGERS Review

Directed by: JOSS WHEDON

Produced by: KEVIN FEIGE

Screenplay by: JOSS WHEDON

Story by: ZAK PENN & JOSS WHEDON

Based on: "The Avengers" by STAN LEE & JACK KIRBY

Starring: ROBERT DOWNEY, JR., CHRIS EVANS, MARK RUFFALO, CHRIS HEMSWORTH, SCARLETT JOHANSSON, JEREMY RENNER, TOM HIDDLESTON, CLARK GREGG, COBIE SMULDERS, STELLAN SKARSGÅRD, SAMUEL L. JACKSON

Critical reception: ROTTEN TOMATOES -  92%

                                       IMDB - 8.5/10

                                       METACRITIC: 69/100

Synopsis: Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. brings together a team of super humans to form The Avengers to help save the Earth from Loki and his army. 

The strength of The Avengers was not in the story but in its casting. The actors and actresses  cast were impeccable, fitting into their roles beautifully (with a few minor exceptions here and there). Robert Downey, Jr. delivered yet another brilliant turn as the "genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist" Iron Man. Chris Evans did a stolid job as the 'fish-out-of-water' Captain America while Chris Hemsworth continues to have a godly presence in his scenes. Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow character and back-story were fleshed out in more detail this time than in Iron Man 2 while unfortunately, Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye was reduced to a more-or-less bit player. Representing the shadowy intelligence organisation S.H.I.E.L.D, Samuel L. Jackson continues in playing another no-nonsense character- this time as Nick Fury, war veteran and Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. Once again, Clark Gregg is spot-on as the impassive yet funny Agent Coulson whereas Cobie Smulders' Maria Hill was rather wooden and stilted. 

The two real stand-outs, however, were Tom Hiddleston and Mark Ruffalo as Loki and Bruce Banner respectively- at least in this writer's opinion. Tom Hiddleston brought a certain gravitas to his role that turned Loki into an emotionally-damaged and complex character as opposed to a mere two-dimensional villain. Mark Ruffalo, taking over from Eric Bana and Edward Norton, brought a certain geekish, shyer and even boyish charm to the conflicted character of Bruce Banner. He was also the first actor to actually play the Hulk using the same motion-capture technology that allowed Andy Serkis to play Gollum in The Lord of the Rings trilogy and you can see the Ruffalo features in the Hulk as he tears up buildings and villains, ending up as one of the more memorable characters.

In terms of action and special-effects, the $220 million budget was certainly well-spent- the Helicarrier, battles between the members of the Avengers and the final showdown in New York were beautifully rendered and on a grand-scale. These scenes and more were truly adrenaline-pumping and breath-taking, executed brilliantly. 

However, the movie is not without its weaknesses. The director, Joss Whedon is a household name for his television series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the short-lived Firefly. He  also wrote for several comic-books, his most notable work the Astonishing X-Men series. His film credits include contributions to the screenplays of Toy Story, Speed and Alien Resurrection. Joss Whedon was therefore more of a writing-man than a director and even then for television than films. The lack of experience in the latter could be felt on occasions as the film suffered at times from a more television style, something on which even Marvel executives agreed on.

Furthermore, the story came dangerously close to becoming more of a comedy than a serious superhero movie. While the numerous one-liners and one or more pop culture references were a welcome breath of fresh air, it veered dangerously close to becoming campy- and one look at the disastrous Batman & Robin shows how toxic that can be. Similarly, if one were to ask what they remembered most about The Avengers after watching it for the first-time, many people would say that it was the jokes more than the action sequences. That can be interpreted as both positive and negative, though it did not make the film any less entertaining. 

With regards to the story, it was rather formulaic and overly familiar (alien invasion movies have been done just one too many times) and indeed, the third act was more or less a rip-off of Transformers: Dark of the Moon (albeit far more enjoyable). This isn't necessarily the fault of Joss Whedon- the alien invasion appears to have been a stipulation of the producers and studio heads. Likewise, the themes and issues weren't entirely thought-provoking or ground-breaking as the film tended to centre more around the characters- which was why they were the highlight and support of the film. In a given choice of a better story or better characters, the latter is always more preferable. However, when considering that the real duty of The Avengers seems to have been to deliver a humourous, exhilarating and action-oriented popcorn affair- in that aspect, it performs beautifully.  

What happens next:

'Phase 2'. That's how Marvel Studios' president and the man responsible for shepherding the films, Kevin Feige, is describing it. 'Phase 2' will consist of  Iron Man 3 (2013), the third installment in the Iron Man franchise, followed by the sequels to Thor and Captain America, respectively titled Thor: The Dark World (2013) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014). The new entries will include Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) and Ant-Man (TBA). Also, a S.H.I.E.L.D TV series is announced to be in the works under the guidance of Joss Whedon, who has been contracted to help guide all these movies and TV show to culminate in the yet-to-be-titled sequel, The Avengers 2 (2015). 

Personal opinion:

The Avengers was not merely a movie- it was a cinematic event and milestone, the pay-off of nearly a decade's worth of creative risks, almost a billion dollars in expenses and trust in both the people developing the films, the cast and most importantly, the audience. What began as a teasing post-credits scene in 2008's Iron Man culminated in the spawning of the individual solo outings of Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Incredible Hulk (though Edward Norton was eventually replaced) and the sequel Iron Man 2 before leading up to The Avengers. It was a daring move, connecting all these films into a shared universe, a move never attempted before. Now, Marvel Studios can breathe a sigh of relief: upon its release, The Avengers broke multiple box-office records and has attained the position of being the third-highest grossing film of all-time, with over a billion dollars in the bank. 

Not only that- it would also change the face of the superhero movie genre with regard to hero team-ups, something that DC Comics is now attempting to emulate with a possible Justice League movie. In addition, it was a breath of fresh air in the movie adaptations of comic-books. Ever since Christopher Nolan made Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, nearly every superhero movie that follows is trying to make it 'gritty and realistic'. Not all movies are suited for such an approach and certainly not The Avengers. There needs to be variation or the superhero movie market is going to become very saturated.   

Writer's rating: 4/5