By now, you might have read the story we posted earlier, reporting that George Lucas has finally addressed the issue of who was supposed to shoot first in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. The area of contention, as many of you are oh-so-familiar with, is whether Han Solo shot first, or Greedo.

In a new interview at The Hollywood Reporter, George Lucas suggests that the original plan was for Greedo to shoot first all along, saying that “It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.”

However, Star Wars fans have not been convinced by his words (whether they're bothered if Greedo shot first or not). And, it seems, Mr Lucas might just be rewriting history a little.

With thanks to Den Of Geek reader Chris Lunt, who you can find on Twitter here, we have the text of George Lucas’ 1976 book (published in 1978 in the version we have here), Star Wars: From The Adventures Of Luke Skywalker.

It says it's written by a Mr George Lucas, although it was, in his defence, revealed to have been ghost-written by Alan Dean Foster, presumably under Lucas' supervision, though. As you'll see from the text we're about to show you, it leaves no ambiguity.

You can see the cover up there, and here’s the copyright page so you can verify the dates.

So then: here’s the crucial passage.



May we draw your attention particularly to:

“Light and noise filled the little corner of the cantina, and when it had faded, all that remained of the unctuous alien was a smoking, slimy spot on the stone floor.

Solo brought his hand and the smoking weapon it held out from beneath the table, drawing bemused stares from several of the cantina’s patrons and chuckling sounds from its more knowledgeable ones. They had known the creature had committed its fatal mistake in allowing Solo the chance to get his hands under cover”.

Note that it does not read:

"Greedo suddenly fired a shot, and in a move of pure self defence, the heroic Solo, as a last resort given that peace negotiations had failed, reluctanlty fired back, quietly sobbing as he did so. Why had it come to this? Why? Why?".

Hmmm. No matter what angle we read that from, it looks to us that only one person fired first. Shoot first, Greedo did not.

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

It is quite clear that mainstream cinema no longer applies just to Hollywood blockbusters, or the odd British comedy. With the advent of mass home cinema in the last decade, and the increasing availability of pretty much anything and everything on DVD, Blu-ray, or streaming services like Netflix, world cinema has finally crossed the divide of being the preserve of the connoisseur, or the type of thing you’d stumble on late at night on TV.

In the last ten years, world cinema has made a massive impact on film-of-the-year lists, and many people’s personal favourites. Starting from 2002 and ending here in 2012, it’s safe to say that you’ll have seen many of the films below, and enjoyed them simply as great pieces of filmmaking, regardless of where they came from.

If, however, you are in any doubt of the utter brilliance of world cinema, then take your time to read the list below, and pick a few to watch that interest you. I guarantee you won’t be disappointed.

50. TrollHunter
(Norway, 2010)

The anti-Hollywood blockbuster. One of the latest and, for my money, superior entries in the found footage genre, TrollHunter manages to be exciting, fantastical, dramatic and humorous all at the same time. Weirdly grounded in a tight version of reality, the film whisks you along an incredible journey, taking in some of the best parts of Scandinavian myth and legend while updating it for the 21st century. It’s one of the most enjoyable films I think you could have the pleasure of watching, so catch it now before the inevitable Hollywood remake due in the next few years…

49. Kung Fu Hustle
(China, 2004)

A riotous homage to the classic Hong Kong action cinema of the 1970s, and the biggest ever earner in Hong Kong until a few months ago, Kung Fu Hustle is without a doubt one of the funniest, most entertaining, and energetic movies of recent years. Writer, director, producer and lead actor Stephen Chow proved he was worthy of the praise bestowed upon Shaolin Soccer with this follow-up, a 1940s set tale of a young man desperate to join the infamous Axe gang of Shanghai and accidentally setting up a war between them and the retired kung fu masters of Pig Sty Alley.

Referencing numerous kung fun take, books and films, this live-action cartoon is an absolute blast from start to finish and so in love with its subject matter you can’t help but be charmed. And then kung fu someone in the head.

48. Lilya 4 Ever
(Sweden, 2002)

Lukas Moodysson’s earlier film Show Me Love was one of the most uplifting and heart-warming stories I’ve ever seen, which just made this sucker-punch of a movie even more devastating. Lilya is a teenage girl in the former Soviet Union who is abandoned by her mother and forced into prostitution, eventually ending up in Sweden.

Exploring themes which Stieg Larsson would also draw attention to in his Millennium trilogy, the processes of human trafficking and sex slavery are shown in brutal detail. It’s a bleak film, and necessarily so – cinema cannot always be sweetness and light, and important issues need to be shown and drawn attention to, especially in such a well made way as this.

47. Casshern
(Japan, 2004)

Ignore the plot of this Japanese film, because it’s not going to make much sense – a bio-engineered legendary hero returns to fight the robots of a totalitarian government – and concentrate instead on its visuals. This is as close as you’ll come to seeing a live-action manga, and it is glorious.

One of the very first films shot entirely on a digital back-lot (along with Sin City and Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow) it’s easily the best-looking and most arresting of the three, with its neo-fascist baddies and dystopian sci-fi landscape constantly engaging the eye. It apparently takes influences from Hamlet and Russian avant-garde cinema, which helps explain why it’s so utterly bonkers.

46. Innocence
(France, 2004)

Lucile Hadzihalilovic may live in the professional shadow of husband Gaspar Noé (Irreversible) but she certainly deserves recognition for this brave directing debut. Innocence follows the lives of the girls who attend an isolated boarding school deep in a dense forest, with seemingly no way in or out. This enchanting, menacing setting is littered with nods to fairytales (lantern-lit paths, red hoods, underground tunnels) as the girls negotiate their eerie, prison-like world.

Innocence tackles the delicate subject of puberty and sexual awareness. The title says it all however; as just how innocent this film is lies in the perception of the viewer. The most controversial scene of naked girls in a lake is actually completely non-sexual – it’s the viewers own discomfort that adds a sinister overtone. Innocence is a feast for the eyes with its utterly captivating cinematography and unique use of colour as a narrative tool which it needs given the lack of actual plot or dialogue.

45. The Edukators
(Germany/Austria, 2004)

Peter, his girlfriend Jule and best friend Jan are young Berlin anti-capitalists who start a campaign to “educate” the upper-class. They do this by breaking into their houses, creating sculptures with their belongings, and leaving notes that read "die fetten Jahre sind vorbei" (the days of plenty are over) or "Sie haben zu viel Geld" (you have too much money). After breaking into the property of a wealthy business man who then returns and discovers the group, they find themselves with an accidental hostage out in the Alps.

This claustrophobic, high-tension setting is where the film develops a tender slant, as a blossoming romance between Jule and Jan threatens the dynamic of the trio. This film isn’t to be mistaken for anti-capitalist propaganda – the political persuasion of the protagonists is purely a narrative tool to allow a sincere depiction of the idealism of youth and the thoughtful exploration of love and friendship; and the delicate nature of both.

44. The Dreamers
(France/Italy/UK, 2003)

Has a film ever been so aptly named? It describes not only the main trio of the film, two siblings and their American friend, but also the audience’s state of mind after spending time immersed in the film. Featuring a break-out turn from Eva Green, and a role for Michael Pitt as the young man who becomes hopelessly involved in the lives of a brother and sister.

Pitt’s turn proved that he was far more than ‘that guy from Dawson’s Creek’, and The Dreamers is a highly sexualised love-letter to filmmaking (particularly New Wave cinema), friendship, and the loss of innocence. It’s a film which you’ll find yourself thinking about again and again, and become hopelessly enchanted by.

43. Russian Ark
(Russia, 2002)

Hmm, so a two-hour film which trails around various rooms in a museum wouldn’t, at first glance, belong on everyone’s must watch list, but like a lot of world cinema, there’s so much more than meets the eye to Russian Ark. In fact, Russian Ark is one of, if not the most innovative film on this list. The reason for this is its groundbreaking use of digital camerawork – the entire film is one long unbroken tracking shot that floats though not only the museum itself, but through the different periods of Russian history it houses or has played a part in.

Learning has never been as absorbing or as good looking, and the actual, involving a nobleman searching for answers, is truly engaging, and means Russian Ark is never just a technical curio.

42. Maria Full Of Grace
(Colombia, 2004)

The tagline reads ‘Based on a 1000 true stories’, and sadly, I believe it. Made for less money than a packet of biscuits, and from the incredibly talented writer/director/everything else Joshua Marston, this is the story of a pregnant Colombian girl who becomes a drug mule in order to raise money for her impoverished family. Tracing her journey from Bogota to New York, the emphasis is always, wisely, on the characters, and what each decision really means.

Nothing is glamourised in what I can only imagine is a painfully real depiction of life in Colombia, yet neither does it revel in the misery and seediness of the situation. It’s a compelling story honestly told, and incredibly moving. It’s exactly what great cinema should always be, and why Maria Full Of Grace sits on this list.

41. Lust/Caution
(Taiwan, 2007)

How do you follow up a critically acclaimed and groundbreaking Hollywood drama? Well, if you’re Ang Lee and just made Brokeback Mountain, you turn away from the mainstream and make a Taiwanese film about the Japanese occupation of China during World War II. A sexual thriller about espionage, collaborators and the nature of love and obsession, Lust/Caution is incredibly gripping, stylish, and moving.

Watching it made my chest feel uncomfortably tight at times, and in Tony Leung’s masterful performance as Mr Yee, a high-ranking collaborator, you have what may be one of the most complex and nuanced villains in cinema history. Lust/Caution is an exquisite treat that rewards the senses.

40. Dogtooth
(Greece, 2009)

Perhaps one of the most surreal and shocking films of recent years, Dogtooth is nothing short of cinematic brilliance. Telling the weird and terrifying story of three children kept away from the world by their parents, and forced into various acts of submission, it is not for the faint of heart, but is incredibly rewarding if you take the plunge. Each bizarre and unique situation that unfolds (including hammer attacks, cat mutilation and sexual blackmail) only serves to drag the viewer further into its crazy world.

You won’t be able to take your eyes off it, and it helps that Dogtooth is pretty great to look at, too, with a mass of elegant compositions and downright odd framings all jumbled together. It is not for nothing that director Yorogos Lanthimos has been compared to Lars von Trier, and this film hailed by the Greek government as a success for the country.

39. Chico & Rita
(Spain, 2010)

A true delight this one – an animated film set in 40s and 50s Havana, it is ostensibly a love story between the title’s protagonists. Chico is a talented jazz pianist, while Rita is a beautiful singer. The stylish animation, charm of the main story and jazz-infused Havana atmosphere would be enough on its own, but the film also throws in an intriguing and well told look at the era’s pre- and post-Cuban revolution. It’s an utter joy from start to finish, a riotous blast of music, colour and passion.

38. 4 Months, 3 Weeks And 2 Days
(Romania, 2007)

Set in the final years of Communist Romania, this is a gripping and compelling tale about two friends arranging an illegal abortion, and the consequences that lead from this choice. As well as an examination of repression in society, it is also a truly moving film about friendship, and a confident high point for a new national cinema.

The film establishes its serious tone with a restrained, naturalistic aesthetic, and immediately forces the viewer to pay attention. The extremes the two women must undergo for what is considered a human right in Western democracies really does make us reflect on how fortunate we are over here.

37. Switchblade Romance/High Tension
(France, 2003)

One of the most controversial and extreme films in this top 50, Switchblade Romance (or High Tension to our US readers) is a gory horror involving a couple and family’s attempt to survive a brutal onslaught from a serial killer. As its American title suggests, the film is a master class in ramping up tension, leaving the viewer with heart palpitations, chewed nails and an overwhelming desire to check behind every door.

It’s surely one of the most terrifying films you can watch on a dark and lonely night, probably after midnight… It’s also garnered more than its fair share of criticism for its gratuitous violence and depictions of same sex relationships, so watch it and see where you stand in the debate.

36. The Holy Girl
(Argentina, 2004)

This is one of those films you might watch without expecting too much, but then find yourself thinking about it more and more in the days that follow. Almost a re-telling of Nabokov’s Lolita, it concerns a cat and mouse game between Argentinean small-town girl Helena, and her mission to ‘save’ the married Dr Jano, who seemingly can’t help himself around her. Produced by the titan of world cinema that is Pedro Almodovar, this is exquisitely shot, directed and acted, with the entire film packing a subtle punch which proves the old adage that less is more 

35. Tell No One
(France, 2006)

Based on the acclaimed Harlan Coben novel, the first intriguing thing is that this is a French adaptation of that book, rather than a Hollywood one, which considering the material, the latter would seem like a more obvious choice. Watching the film, however, you quickly become glad the US studios left it well alone, as Tell No One is a superb mystery thriller, and a perfect adaptation.

Years after a paediatrician’s wife is murdered, he receives an email from her, kick-starting an unstoppable chain of events that will leave the viewer bewildered and breathless. Multi-faceted and totally and utterly compelling, this is one of the finest thrillers made in the last ten years, and teaches the rest of the world how the genre should really be approached.

34. [REC]
(Spain, 2007)

Forget the rubbish Quarantine US remake, this is the original and best. My favourite found-footage film of them all, it is a balls-to-the-wall terrifying zombie action horror film, with so many great scares in it that it genuinely had my friend trying to climb out of the window to escape it. From the initial, almost dull set-up of a TV crew filming a fireman, to the mounting sense of dread at the fate of a Barcelona building’s occupants, and then to the frights and weirdness of the rest of the film, [REC] is an utter scream – both literally and figuratively.

33. The Consequences Of Love
(Italy, 2004)

From the second The Consequences Of Love opens, with its critically acclaimed sequence of a bright white hotel corridor, the film establishes itself as one of the most stylish examples of cinematography in the noughties. Titta Di Girolamo is a middle-aged loner who has spent eight years living in a chic Swiss hotel. The audience is quickly made familiar with his monotonous daily routine of sitting alone and silent at the hotel bar, solving puzzles in the newspaper.

As he begins to fall for Sofia, a beautiful and much younger hotel barmaid, the reasons for his isolated existence are slowly revealed. The Consequences Of Love keeps you straining in your seat and holding your breath until the ending, which all I can say involves wet concrete and will leave you in a cold sweat for hours after.

32. Etre Et Avoir
(France, 2002)

Telling the story of a year in the life of a small rural village school, Etre Et Avoir documents the trials and tribulations of its teacher Georges Lopez, as he teaches an entire school of mixed age pupils. Both heart-warming and (pardon the pun) educational, the film demonstrates the power that teaching, and the right teacher, can have on young minds, and how inspirational it can be.

However, the film itself is not without controversy, as Lopez unsuccessfully tried to sue the filmmakers, claiming that they had exploited both him and the children without his permission, once again opening up the debate between the reality and artifice of documentary making.

31. Night Watch
(Russia, 2004)

Foreign language cinema doesn’t always have to involve small-scale personal drama. In fact, it doesn’t get more epic than this bona-fide apocalyptic Russian blockbuster, which pitches the forces of good and evil against each other in an eternal battle. The concept is excellent, with pretty much every supernatural creature on one side or the other; the action spectacular, and in Konstantin Khabenskiy’s weary hero Anton, the characters iconic.

Wanted director Timur Bekmambetov’s direction verges on the outrageous at times – particularly in a scene that tracks the descent of a screw from a plane at several thousand feet all the way down to a cup of coffee. Always entertaining, Night Watch took on Hollywood at its own game and easily matched it.

30. Irreversible
(France, 2002)

If there’s one thing that foreign language films have always been good for in the English speaking press, it’s whipping up controversy. And Irreversible might just be the most controversial film of them all. Told in a reverse non-linear narrative, Gaspar Noé’s film deals with an attempted revenge attack following a brutal rape.

Famous (or infamous) for its very long, on-screen assault, as suffered by Monica Bellucci’s character, it is actually a very clever film that deals with the consequences of violence, and what drives people to commit senseless acts. And weirdly, due to its non-linear narrative, it has kind of a happy ending…

29. Howl’s Moving Castle
(Japan, 2004)

It would take something pretty special to get the legendary Japanese animator and head of Studio Ghibli Hayao Miyazaki to come out of retirement, especially after the global success of his masterpiece Spirited Away. That something special was Howl’s Moving Castle, an adaptation of Dianne Wynne Jones’ fantasy novel. Taking the basic plot of the book, in which a young girl is transformed into an old woman by a witch and forced to work for the terrible wizard Howl, it adds many Miyazaki twists including flying battleships, a steam-punk design ethic, and the pacifist leanings of most Ghibli films.

While some may argue that it fails to live up to the majestic Spirited Away, I would disagree, and get them to watch the moment where Howl first takes flight again; truly hairs on the back of your neck stuff. Add to this the most gorgeous animation of possibly any film ever made, and you have another Ghibli classic.

28. The Orphanage
(Spain, 2007)

Creepy kids in masks, spooky old buildings, ghostly goings on, and some truly brilliant scares, both physically and psychologically. In my opinion The Orphanage is one of the best horror films of the last decade, with the film staying with you long after you’ve turned it off. Taking what could have been a clichéd and cheesy concept and making it work perfectly, the real horror isn’t in the jumps, nor in the iconic sack mask, but in the sadness of what really happened after a child disappears. It makes my spine tingle just thinking about it. Beautifully shot and directed, The Orphanage is a real modern classic.

27. The Beat That My Heart Skipped
(France, 2005)

A rare case of a foreign language remake of an English language film, The Beat That My Heart Skipped is a truly remarkable piece of filmmaking that stays with you long after, and genuinely leaves an impression. Thomas is torn between two worlds, following in his father’s footsteps as an enforcer for criminals, or his mother’s as a concert pianist. Thomas’s desire to follow his dreams leads to an explosive encounter between the two, in which Thomas must decide his true nature. It’s an intriguing thriller, marked out by some virtuoso performances and a real energy, which makes you question some of your own life decisions. Not that I’m either a criminal or pianist, mind…

26. TimeCrimes
(Spain, 2007)

I bloody love this film, Den of Geek loves this film, and you should love this film. It is not only one of the finest world cinema films of the last ten years, but also one of the finest genre films ever. A man sees something in binoculars, man investigates, man falls into time machine, and man tries to fix mess he makes with ever-worsening ramifications.

Taking a well-worked time travel concept and coming incredibly close to making it actually make sense, TimeCrimes also has the decency to throw in some damn good scares in there too, as well as making one hell of an iconic villain. Or is that hero? But then he went back and did that thing, which led to that other thing, but didn’t he need to do that first… My head hurts.

25. Devdas
(India, 2002)

One of the strengths of Bollywood and the Indian film industry in general is the sheer number of films it produces, making it the largest film industry in the world. However, it is this volume that also hinders it, meaning that a film has to be something pretty special in order to stand out. Luckily, Devdas is more than a bit special. The most expensive Indian film ever made at the time, it is based on the famous 1917 novel of the same name, and involves lost love, betrayal, addiction and family politics, as well as a good deal of heartache.

What really sets it apart, though, is the sheer quality of its production, from the set design to the songs and choreography to the performances. If you thought Bollywood was silly and cheesy, then think again; this is a movie which could teach any other film industry a thing or two. If you’ve never had the pleasure of seeing any Bollywood films, then I highly recommend you start here.

24. At Five In The Afternoon
(Iran, 2003)

Iranian cinema has been one of the most ambitious and interesting cinemas of recent times. With a repressive government and international sanctions to struggle against, the filmmaking talent has consistently outdone itself time and time again, and none more so than the Makhmalbaf family. This effort by daughter Samira was the first film shot in Afghanistan after the NATO invasion, and tells the tale of a young woman trying to gain an education in a post-Taliban world.

Inspirational, funny and poetic, the DVD also comes complete with a making-of which is as enthralling as the main picture. Made by younger sibling Hana, The Joy Of Madness details the struggles of persuading a suspicious local people to help make the film.

23. The Host
(South Korea, 2006)

Following on from the J-Horror of the late 90s, South Korean cinema has really taken up the baton in showcasing terror, horror, and in this particular case, monsters. After a chemical dumping goes wrong, a disease-ridden beast terrorises South Korea. Not afraid of hiding the big reveal, The Host lets you see its creature early on in a quite brilliant river attack, and with good reason – the mutant amphibian design is one of recent cinema’s finest and more believable, and knowing what our protagonists are up against lends a lot more tension to proceedings.

However, a good horror film is not just about the scares, but the characters, and with the makeshift family of The Host, there is just as much terror and grief internally. Loopy and demented in every way, its slight anti-US bias also gave it the official seal of approval from North Korea!

22. Belleville Rendezvous/The Triplets Of Belleville
(France, 2003)

This is a film for those who might usually turn their nose up at watching animation, as five minutes in you’ll have completely forgotten you’re watching a ‘cartoon’; its unique style creates characters with incredible depth that provide captivating performances. In an industry where the animation genre in most people’s mind simply means a Disney, Pixar or DreamWorks production, this film defines why there is still room, and a requirement, for so much more.

When Madame Souza’s cyclist son is kidnapped during the Tour-de-France, she sets out to rescue him. She picks up help along the way, including singing jazz trio The Triplets of Belleville and dog Bruno. You can feel the love poured into every frame of this dazzling film. A friend summed up Belleville Rendezvous to me as “Impossible to describe, impossible to forget,” and if that doesn’t whet your appetite I don’t know what else will...

21. Lebanon
(Israel, 2009)

A contender for many people’s film of the year, Lebanon is based in part on director Samuel Maoz’s experiences fighting in the 1983 Lebanese war. Set entirely within a tank, the action details an Israeli army unit clearing a town of civilians, with potentially illegal use of weapons.

In such an enclosed environment, the tension is heightened to frightening extremes, with every small disagreement in an already pressurised situation elevated tenfold. Each character is well drawn, and you really begin to feel that you are in the tank with them, making this an intense and claustrophobic experience not just for the cast, but for the audience as well. Controversial, dramatic and deeply impressive, this is one war film which puts you right in the action.

20. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
(Sweden, 2009)

The first adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s mega-selling novel, this truly threw down the gauntlet to Hollywood and announced to the English speaking audience that foreign language cinema could more than compete with the big boys. Its success around the world proved that the right material, filmed well and marketed sensibly, could easily cross cultural barriers to a mainstream previously thought unbreakable.

Audiences responded incredibly well to it, and the film itself is so good that the vaunted David Fincher himself has struggled to match it. While making what may be a better adaptation, the so-so box office of the Hollywood version shows that people were pretty happy with this one, and probably didn’t need another…

19. Tsotsi
(South Africa, 2005)

An Oscar winning effort by Gavin Hood, Tsotsi is a film which fully deserves its acclaimed status. Set in the slums of Johannesburg, which isn’t exactly the nicest place to visit, Tsotsi is a young street thug who gets more than he bargains for when he steals a car: a baby in the back, to be precise. Telling his story over several days, the film gives us an insight into the lives of the slum-dwellers, as well as taking the audience on a gripping tale of violence and crime.

Added to this is an awesome soundtrack from South African artists, as well imposingly edited and shot visuals, and Tsotsi is a densely layered treat proving that Gavin Hood is a lot better than his subsequent Wolverine would have you believe.

18. Gomorrah
(Italy, 2008)

Gomorrah opens with a stylised scene of gangsters being executed while at a tanning salon. It proves to be the very last conventional movie portrayal of organised crime in the film. Based on the book of the same name, Gomorrah examines the corrosive effect the Comorra crime family has on the lives of Italians through five interweaving stories.

Always brutally realistic, it pokes fun at the Hollywood glamourisation of gangsters, implying that this is as just as much to blame for driving youngsters to crime as the social inequality of Italy. It also serves as a warning to anyone thinking that they are separated from this world – it has tentacles everywhere, and at some point you will have come into contact with the Comorra.

17. Persepolis
(France, 2007)

Based on Marjane Sartrapi’s autobiographical graphic novel, who co-directed, Persepolis charts the story of a young girl growing up in Iran, and living through the Iranian Revolution. While in many, many other hands that would be the basis of a harrowing and serious earnest tale about loss and repression, in Sartrapi’s hands the main thing which strikes you about the novel and film is how funny and engaging it is.

At points harrowing and serious, it is all so accessible and enthralling that you can’t quite believe what you’re seeing is real, but sadly it is. It’s a gift to make this sort of history come truly alive, and make an audience with no reference point feel engaged and emotionally involved, but Persepolis makes it look easy, and remains the defining film on the Iranian Revolution.

16. Goodbye Lenin!
(Germany, 2003)

A simple yet effective premise lies at the heart of this incredibly warm tale about family, ideology, and coming together – an East German woman sees her son being arrested on the eve of the Berlin Wall collapse, and has a heart attack which leads to a coma. Months later she comes round, and her son decides to pretend that the communist world she loved still exists in order to avoid a second fatal heart attack.

Easily manoeuvring past the one-trick pony this film could have been, it lampoons communism, commercialism, and the idiocy of the Cold War, while also showcasing the importance of family and belonging. It also helps that’s its damn funny film with some great performances. Goodbye Lenin was easily the most effective film about the former German Democratic Republic – until a certain other movie came along…

15. The Motorcycle Diaries
(Argentina, 2004)

This might as well be the official tourism film of South America. Gorgeously shot, it is impossible to watch the story of a young Che Guevara travelling the continent by motorbike without immediately wanting to set off there yourself. Cleverly avoiding the politics of its main character, The Motorcycle Diaries instead acts as a coming of age drama about finding who you are and where you fit into the world.

The movie thrives on the performances of Gael Garcia Bernal as Che, and Rodrigo De la Serna as Alberto Granado, and how they make the very real friendship really believable. It’s the type of film you can show people who would normally be put off subtitles, and one of my favourites in the whole list.

14. Downfall
(Germany, 2004)

Perhaps more famous now for its Internet Hitler meme than the film itself, Downfall is a perfect example of how world cinema has truly entered the popular consciousness. However, strip away the comedy YouTube clips, and you have what is a truly incredible and riveting portrayal of the Third Reich’s final days, and the madness of a dictator faced with absolute ruin.

Bruno Ganz rightly won plaudits for his eminently human take on the 20th Century’s greatest monster, but it is the strength and depth of all the performances that gives Downfall its power. If you ever wanted to know what it would feel like to be on the losing side of a war, with your enemies closing in, then this is about as close as you can get. The history books can tell you, but they can’t show you, and Downfall does just that.

13. Volver
(Spain, 2006)

Almost a one man film industry in himself, Pedro Almodovar has helped the agenda for world cinema since the 80s, and with recent fare such as The Skin I Live In, he shows no sign of slowing down or becoming any less relevant. His 2006 effort Volver is a perfect example of this, allying his always heightened melodramatic style of storytelling with gorgeous visuals and captivating performances, in this case from Penelope Cruz, in what is possibly a career best.

Returning to her family home after her parents’ death, Raimunda’s (Cruz) attempts to connect with her daughter are complicated by the ghost of her mother returning to tidy up unfinished business. Part auto-biographical, part reflection on his previous films, Volver is everything you could hope from one of the most consistently inventive and beguiling directors working today.

12. Hero
(China, 2002)

Redefining many people’s concepts of what makes an epic, Hero was the film that delivered on a mainstream audience’s raised hopes and increasing familiarity with foreign-language action cinema – due in no small part to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon a few years earlier.

Endorsed wholeheartedly by the Chinese government, Hero is far more than a political message movie. Cleverly interweaving the tale of how Jet Li’s Nameless defeated three would-be assassins of the king of Qin with what turns out to be the truth, it showcases breathtaking action, dazzling direction, and yes, a hero you can believe in.

11. Waltz With Bashir
(Israel, 2008)

When one of the most hard-hitting, powerful and awarded films in any language of the last decade is an animated film, you know you have something truly special on your hands. And so it is with Waltz With Bashir. Based on the life of writer/director Ari Folman, it traces the experiences of an older Folman as he struggles to recall his memories of the 1982 Lebanon War, in which he was a 19-year-old soldier. As he faces up to the reality of the atrocities committed there, he struggles to deal with the complicity of his own actions.

Harrowing, beautiful and brave, this is not a film unafraid to deal with recent controversy – many of those who served and ordered the actions in the war are still around. For a country often questioned about its actions, it is refreshing to see a home-grown film challenging them.

10. The Secret In Their Eyes
(Argentina, 2009)

Taught, thrilling, compelling. This superb Argentinean film was one of the most deserved Oscar winners of recent years, and is a film that I have gone back to several times since my first watch, and always found something new to enjoy. Whether it is the main plot of an unsolved murder, the intricate period details, or the haunting romantic subplot, this is a heartbreaking work which rewards the viewer right up until the end. A breathtaking scene involving chasing a suspect around the confusion of a South-American football stadium during match-day probably should have a place of its own on this list.

9. Infernal Affairs
(Hong Kong, 2002)

A film that was so good it led to Scorsese finally getting an Oscar. I remember a friend breathlessly telling he had just seen something incredible, and hurriedly passed me his copy. Watching it that night, I understood his enthusiasm. Breathing new life into what had become a stale and listless crime genre, Infernal Affairs is a confident, stylish and laudable slice of filmmaking that showed that a simple (yet ingenious) idea could be executed almost flawlessly.

Telling the parallel stories of an undercover cop and a gangster mole, it is edge of seat stuff, with the threat of discovery for both characters still as tense as ever. And you know what, I think I prefer the ending of Infernal Affairs to The Departed’s version…

8. Let The Right One In
(Sweden, 2008)

Described as a romantic horror film, this is easily the best vampire movie of the last decade, and maybe one of the finest full stop. If you haven’t yet seen it just stop reading and go and watch it. If you already have, then you’ll understand the melancholic beauty of the movie. Oskar, a lonely, bullied Swedish boy, is offered the chance of true love when the vampire Eli moves next door.

Watching the relationship grow between the two is cinema at its finest, and the subplot of killings and Eli’s vampiric nature maintains the tension and horror superbly. The entire thing is also hauntingly shot, making the most of the wintry, desolate Swedish locations, and the swimming pool finale must surely be one of the greatest set-pieces in a horror film ever.

7. 2046
(Hong Kong, 2004)

Like Hollywood, world cinema has also thrown up its legendary directors. One of these is most certainly Hong Kong auteur Wong Kar Wai. Perhaps most famous for In The Mood For Love, it is actually his last film made in Hong Kong that is my favourite. A sequel of sorts to the aforementioned In The Mood, 2046 was five years in the making (leading to a joke that its title was its release date) and is an awesome summation of the director’s work.

A 1960s novelist tells the story of a futuristic city where you can forget painful memories while at the same time, he embarks on a series of love affairs at a hotel. It is the best looking film on this list, as well one of the most emotionally charged, probably leaving the viewer a bit reflective but definitely satisfied. It also features sexy androids.

6. A Prophet
(France, 2009)

My film of year upon its theatrical release, A Prophet still stands up as one of the finest works of cinema I’ve ever seen. Iconic, mystical and mysterious, I described it as “An important film, but one which I wasn’t sure the meaning of”. There’s a lot going on underneath the surface, but what a surface it is, as the film traces the rise of 19-year-old Malik, who enters prison alone and uneducated, but begins a rise to power which is compelling to witness.

Director Jacques Audiard aimed to give a cinematic voice to the Arabian people, neatly foreshadowing the gaining of their political voice last year, rendering A Prophet even more important than it first was.

5. Hidden/Cache
(Austria/France, 2005)

A disturbingly simple and chilling tale of how the act of being watched can destroy lives, Hidden is a modern day fable and a warning to those who’ve become complacent, and whose actions in their own comfortable lives have led to terrible consequences for others. On one level a taught psychological thriller about how people are never what they seem, it is also a cutting examination of the West’s treatment of the rest of the world, and how all of us are implicated.

Some filmmakers are just happy to tell stories; others such as Michael Haneke want to use film to dissect the world and the issues surrounding us. That he can do it in such a masterful and compelling fashion is almost unreal. The fact that he has made a film about watching seemingly event-free videos one of the most compelling of the new century is a minor miracle.

4. Pan’s Labyrinth
(Mexico, 2006)

Following Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone and Hellboy, people knew Mexican director Guillermo del Toro was a talent to watch. Then he made Pan’s Labyrinth, and people knew he was a genius. During the Spanish Civil War, a young girl named Ofelia finds escape from the brutal practices of her military stepfather by heading into a fairy tale labyrinth by a menacing and mysterious faun.

Part parable, part dark fantasy, part political war movie, Pan’s Labyrinth has an almost indescribable magical quality that appeals to everyone. Unexpectedly violent as well as undeniably bewitching, the film features a beautiful central performance from Ivana Baquero as Ofelia, as well as several iconic turns from Doug Jones as the faun and the pale man, one of cinema’s most terrifying creations.

It’s tricky to know whether to look away in horror or watch with fascination as he gives chase to Ofelia. Speaking to something deep within us all, perhaps with its quest narrative, or its escape from a terrible reality, Pan’s Labyrinth has only grown in stature in the years since release.

3. Oldboy
(South Korea, 2003)

The octopus eating. The tongue slicing. The show-stopping corridor fight. It’s hard to know where to begin when describing Oldboy – superlatives simply don’t do it justice. A film that strikes like a hammer blow to the head, the second part of Park Chan-wook’s vengeance trilogy is a masterpiece of action, thriller and psychological filmmaking.

Kidnapped without reason and then released 15 years later, Oh Dae-su’s quest to find out why, what and who should pay for it forms the basis of the plot, but with so much more thrown in there, too. The violent action is beautiful and balletic in places, but never without purpose, which only makes every blow land twice as hard. Mesmerising every time, Oldboy is utterly brilliant.

2. City Of God
(Brazil, 2002)

Still the most incendiary piece of filmmaking I have ever seen in a cinema, this was one of those films that was (and is) talked about by seemingly everyone. Telling the tale of gang warfare over decades in a notorious suburb of Rio, and in particular the different paths of two young boys growing up there, it is hard to know what to praise the most.

Is it the kinetic camera-work, the complex and inventive plot, or the performances of the mostly amateur cast? The thrill of the entire thing still leaves me a bit open-mouthed. It is also brutal and shocking in parts, as well as being funny and emotional. In short, this film has it all.

1. The Lives Of Others
(Germany, 2006)

A film would have to be something pretty damn special to top this list, and The Lives Of Others is most certainly that. Set in 1984 East Berlin, Gerd Wiesler is a member of the feared Stasi, who spends his days listening to suspected anti-regime activists. However, this insight into a world of free-thinking, free-speech, and freedom gradually begins to change the mind-set of this loyal agent of the state.

I cannot praise this film enough; it is an incredible look into the recent past of one of the most important first world democracies. The climate of fear is all pervading, and the sheer anachronistic nature of the German Democratic Republic is almost unbelievable, but sadly true. And capping all this tension, jeopardy and intrigue is a masterful performance by the late Ulrich Mühe, who as Wiesler, imbues the film with a believable heart, and the genuine possibility that positive change is always a possibility. The Lives Of Others is an absolute must-see.

Think we’ve got it spot on, or totally wrong? Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments.

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

You can find Nick on Twitter here.

As The Phantom Menace arrives on cinema screens around the world, with the added extra of 3D, George Lucas has given a new interview to The Hollywood Reporter, where he’s addressed an issue of much consternation for Star Wars fans.

You know which one it is, too. Back when Lucas put out the special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy, he re-edited the moment where Han Solo seemingly shot Greedo in A New Hope. It went from Han shooting first, to Greedo, and different Star Wars fans have different theories on just how much that affected the tone of the film.

Lucas, though, is adamant that it was right Greedo shot first. And that’s how it was always meant to be.

“The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV", he said, “what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t.”

He continued: “It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.”

It was all camera angles, then? Just seems a bit odd that he's never said that before.

Elsewhere in the interview, Lucas said of Indiana Jones 5, “I’m supposed to be working on it right now!”. Expect developments there in the months ahead, then.

And expect Greedo arguments to continue to rage...

The Hollywood Reporter

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

There have been mixed messages as far as a fifth Rambo movie has been concerned. At one point, Sylvester Stallone was plotting a Rambo 5 that involved its hero pitting his not inconsiderable firepower against aliens. That plan was rejected, but eventually, so it seemed was the idea of a further Rambo movie.

However, it appears that the project has signs of life to it, according to the Twitter page of Sean Hood. 

Hood has been attached as screenwriter of Rambo 5 for some time, and was reported to have completed a draft of the film. And when asked what the status of the project was, he answered that “Rambo 5 on hold as Sly finished Expendables 2. He hasn’t decided if R5 will be an "Unforgiven" or a "passing of the torch."”

That certainly tells a different story to earlier reports that Stallone had dropped Rambo altogether. Could there be yet one more hurrah for John Rambo on the big screen? We guess we’ll see once The Expendables 2 is finally done and dusted, PG-13 and all…

Twitter

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

The opportunity to speak to a director, a screenwriter and the author of the novel they’ve adapted is a rare treat, so we relished sitting down with novelist Susan Hill, screenwriter Jane Goldman (Kick Ass, X-Men: First Class) and director James Watkins (Eden Lake) to discuss The Woman In Black, putting Harry Potter in your film, how to unsettle an audience, and why really scary horror films are hard to find. Oh, and there just might be a teeny mention of Kick Ass 2, the X-Men: First Class sequel, and Doctor Who too…

Jane, what was your first introduction to The Woman In Black?

Jane Goldman: I first saw it on the stage when I was quite young, and then immediately afterwards was very keen to read the book and then had seen the stage play subsequently with my children.

As soon as Hammer approached me and offered the opportunity to adapt it I didn’t need more than a couple of seconds to think about it. What was exciting about it was staying true to the spirit of Susan’s book but telling the story with the language of cinema in the way that the theatre adaptation uses the stage to technical advantage.

Were you a Hammer fan growing up?

JG: Sure, I think it’s part of everybody’s childhood isn’t it? There are some wonderful Hammer movies and there are some dreadful ones…

James Watkins: We enjoy talking about the dreadful ones

JG: Weirdly, Dr Jekyll And Sister Hyde was on the Horror Channel last night. It’s an extraordinary piece of work (laughs).

What are the ingredients of a scare would you say? How do you craft one?

Susan Hill: I read a lot of ghost stories, because I was writing a ghost story. I didn’t think at all that I was writing a horror or a thriller or whatever, because the novel is about a ghost, whereas a horror book can be about aliens or things that rise out of the marsh and have no human shape.

It’s easy to write a short story and frighten people for five pages but to work at length, when you do it as in The Turn Of The Screw or A Christmas Carol it’s different, you have to build it and build it.

I think it’s two things: it’s building tension in the reader so they’re thinking ‘Hello, what was that?’, and then relaxing it as in The Turn Of The Screw, and then building it a little bit tighter. That’s probably true of all the medium but I was very conscious that to sustain the length you had to do that.

Certainly with a book, people are going to be able to read it and give themselves permission to have that delicious feeling of being terrified because they’re in a safe place while they’re reading. That’s what you can rely on as a writer, that people can let themselves be really frightened because they’re really all right. Being frightened when you’re not sure you’re all right is a big difference.

JG: I think the rhythm of film is slightly different but it’s exactly what Susan says, it’s about pacing and building intensity. In terms of when there were additional embellishments to be added I tried to draw on things that had genuinely scared me rather than being too technical about it.

I’m really quite hard to scare so it was about mining times when I have jumped, and what creeps me out. I collect Victorian automata and coming across them in the dark does give you a little shudder, so it was a case of finding those things that are a little unsettling from that period.

JW: To pick up on what Susan said in terms of it being a ghost story, I think that’s a very important thing. Rather than a horror film, a ghost story is different because a ghost is what you can’t quite see. If you go back to the literary source of this, the sense we try to achieve in the film is one that can play on people’s imagination, because that’s what books do brilliantly, and far better than films. What people can imagine is always going to be scarier than what you can film and what you can show, so through indirection, through staging, through all the grammar of film, if you can somehow achieve that then it can get under people’s skin.

With a lot of horror films now they are nasty and gory, and I’m not using those terms pejoratively at all but those things so not necessarily mean the same as scary and what we’ve tried to achieve is how we can make this film scary.

Even if you go back to cave men and history, ghosts are so hard-wired into our culture, it’s a real primal fear, like fear of water or fear of the dark, which is obviously a big factor in our film. We really worked very hard to tap into that in terms of the ghost, it’s just caught in the very corner of your eye, blinking on the edge of the frame, peering out of the black, and if you can really start to work that arena of dread then you’re approximating something that the great ghost stories do.

What about in terms of the audio on the film?

JW: We wanted to have a less-is-more aesthetic, you want to pull the audience in, you want to be there in the present moment with him [Arthur Kipps, Daniel Radcliffe's character] in the space, you want to hear his breathing, hear his footsteps and what we didn’t want to do was to go into the Hollywood-ised American way of drowning it in sound.

The film is very pared back in terms of its atmosphere so there’s an immediacy there. You want it to be like you’re leaning in and looking into the darkness and the sound design is only half heard so you’re going like that (leans forward) and like that (leans in further) and then occasionally (jumps backwards) like that. It’s analogous to what Susan was saying about building and building, then hitting, then letting it off, similar to comedy in a way, you build towards a joke and a pitch and you then come back, but the trajectory is always moving upwards.

When he brought The Awakening out, James Murphy suggested there was a kind of fatigue about splatter and gore horror amongst some audiences who were after something a bit more cerebral. What’s your take on that?

JG: I don’t have a fatigue for it, I love splatter gore horror!

JW: I think there’s a broad church and room for lots of different things. We’ve shown the film to teenagers and it’s very gratifying to be able to say, look there is no real violence or gore or anything like that but to see them…

JG: …an absolute wreck afterwards, it’s very gratifying.

JW: To have a more classical, elevated old-fashioned approach and for that to really work and scare people and get into their imaginations is great.

JG: I know what I miss as a cinemagoer is that balance of films that actually scare me, they’re so few and far between. I loved ghost stories, I love horror stories, I love all of that stuff, but I really yearn for something to actually frighten me. It’s more of a yearning for that than something that has to necessarily be cerebral or sophisticated. Good storytelling and something that actually frightens you.

What has frightened you in the past?

JG: Which films? They’re all quite random and few and far between. Jacob’s Ladder I thought was frightening, The Shining, The Vanishing, The Exorcist III oddly, there’s one very specific shot, the long shot down the corridor in the hospital is incredible. I’m quite fussy.

Talking about other films, Susan’s novel quotes Keats and Dickens and references other gothic literature, James, did you ever feel you were quoting from other films making The Woman In Black?

JW: It’s a funny one isn’t it, in that you are what you eat so it all goes in. Consciously I wasn’t quoting but I know there are areas where there are probably films referenced. There are notions. I know the genre very well and if I look back at films like The Innocents there are definitely techniques.

The techniques are different, though, because we’re in a much more modern idiom. You could not make a film quite at that pace now, it would bore people. Our film is made at a particular pace different to that most films are made at now, but not as slow as those made forty years ago. 

There are little things, if you look at the saturation of the colour we’ve got sort of bruised, dark colours, purples and blacks and deep crimsons, colours of decay and death in the production design, and I really wanted it to have a rich, saturated palette in the house. Often the default setting for some of these films is to go really monochromatic and bleach the colour out.

If you look for example at the recent BBC Great Expectations, they just sucked all the colour out and that’s not a particularly interesting choice for me. That is probably informed in some way by those early Terence Fisher, the rich, saturated technicolour there, but it could easily have been Dario Argento and those movies. It’s very hard to pinpoint exactly what your influences are.

Did you have any hesitation about working with Daniel Radcliffe seeing as everyone’s going to see this as his first post-Harry Potter movie? Did that put any pressure on things?

JW: It would be disingenuous to say you don’t consider those things. I mean, absolutely, you know that there’s this huge industry, 10 years of Dan and associations and issues that people have with him. Some are very good and people respond to Dan and they have views on Potter, whatever they are. But ultimately when you’re casting a part you’ve got to look at the part and the actor and you’ve got to see if there’s a good fit. And I met with Dan and I thought, put all that baggage aside for a second and I met with him and he’s a very, very bright guy, he’s a very, very committed actor, he’s very smart, he’s very focused and determined. If you look at the choices he’s making he wants to and he will have a long and varied career.

So, we talked about the part, we saw the part in the same way. He really understood this character, the grief, the weight of loss on his shoulders and we worked very hard to achieve that. One of the things that we worked hard at, and from the response that we’ve been getting is very reassuring is the sense that Dan looks different, he’s got a different air about him. I think he really carries the film. I think it’s a real proper grown-up performance. And we’re proud of what he’s done. So, the Potter thing is what it is and it’s always going to be there but if you start worrying about actors in terms of what they’ve done, the pool of talent you can cast just becomes negligible.

Jane, can you tell us what you have coming up next?

JG: I’m working on two different American studio projects now which haven’t been really officially announced yet, one of which has been sort of announced and the other hasn’t so unfortunately I haven’t really anything to…

Is that the Tim Burton one? (Miss Peregrine’s Home For Peculiar Children)

JG: That is one of them yes.

Are you going to be writing for Johnny Depp then?

JG: Actually I’m not sure, I don’t know if there’s an ideal role in there for him, surely there should be!

Are you working on any sequels by any chance?

I’ve spoken recently about Kick Ass 2 and all my quotes are online on that but with X-Men I probably can’t say anything about that either, but there will definitely be one.

That sounds like you’re involved…

JG: (laughs) No, I’m honestly not. Simon Kinberg’s writing a draft right now, so… 

Would you consider taking a cue from Neil Gaiman and guest writing an episode of Doctor Who?

JG: I would be terrified to do it because I’m such a huge fan. Neil Gaiman’s more confident than I am. When it’s something you really adore, I think you don’t want to be the one who accidentally writes a crap episode. 

Neil, quite rightly so, has great self-confidence but I’m one of those writers who’s plagued by self-doubt. I think when you really adore something and you’ve grown up with it you almost don’t want to be part of it. I want to enjoy it as a fan and don’t want to ruin the magic.

James Watkins, Jane Goldman, Susan Hill, thank you very much!

Read our interview with Daniel Radcliffe on The Woman In Black here.

Things are pressing ahead on Robert Rodriguez’s sequel to Machete, Machete Kills. With filming set to start in April, the movie is heading to the European Film Market at the Berlin Film Festival, for rights to the project to be sold. And in preparation for that, a special promo poster has been produced. 

Without further ado, then, here it is. And Danny Trejo looks mighty angry in it too.

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

Some statistics for you.

Last year, The Smurfs movie, a hybrid of live action and CG animation, overcame generally not overly kind reviews to grab over half a billion dollars at the worldwide box office. As did fully-CG fare such as Cars 2 and Puss In Boots, too. The Muppets, meanwhile, tucked up $87m in its US run. Not a bad sum at all, but some way off the levels of a DreamWorks animated movie.

I can’t be the first to wonder it, and it’s a horrifying thought, but had Disney opted to make The Muppets as a CG film, would it have made more hard cash at the end of it all?

Thankfully, Disney held its nerve, and chose not to. And for the second time in a year, very much to its credit, it launched what seems to have become a non-traditional family film into the market. After all, the current definition of a modern-day traditional family movie now appears to be a CG animated (in full or in part) romp, with star voiceovers, perhaps a bit of quirky breaking of the fourth wall, and heaving leaning on comedy. Fortunately, over the past year or two, there are signs that things are changing a little.

Disney’s attempt to do something a little different had actually come a bit of a cropper earlier in 2011, when the delightful hand-drawn Winnie The Pooh feature barely scraped together $33m worldwide (not helped by opening opposite Harry Potter, a film perhaps too dark for the full family, in the US).

With The Muppets? It again swam against the tide, funding a film that relied on traditional puppetry, along with musical numbers, a willingness to reference older material, and a desire to play to a full family audience.

This approach has not gone without reward. The critical reception to The Muppets was strong, and the film banked more than any other Muppet film in the US, with its worldwide roll-out in cinemas beginning around now. It’s fair to suggest that the DVD and Blu-ray release should do well, too.

What’s more, The Muppets, whose last cinematic outing was the borderline-tragic Muppets From Space, have been brought firmly back into the public consciousness (courtesy, it should be said, of a spectacular marketing campaign, that stretched right back here).

Now: it would be expected at this stage, I would imagine, for me to go on about what a sorry state family movies are in. But my thoughts are actually increasingly the opposite. What the success of The Muppets has proven is that there is room for real range in the family movie sector.

Sadly, more than most, it’s an area of the market that’s ripe for bandwagon hopping. Pixar hit big? Let’s go and make CG films! What’s this? A CG/live action hybrid works? Hollywood couldn’t commission them fast enough. Some of the products of the bandwagon following, to be fair, have been grand. Rango and Arthur Christmas last year, accepting the former was skewed towards an older audience, were both real treats, and The Adventures Of Tintin, too, offered a lot of fun. Even the less memorable CG movies, you can generally be pretty confident that they'll have some entertainment in them somewhere.

What I’d like, though, is for hand drawn animated films, and movies such as The Muppets, to be seen as less of a novelty. That Hollywood, and audiences too, lose the ties that seem to have developed towards CG, and show continued willing to adopt the appropriate format for the appropriate material. Time will tell, for instance, if the decision by Disney to pursue The Snow Queen in CG was brought about by it being best for the look of the film, or by market demands.

There a few films are coming out this year that offer particular hope, with stop motion movies particularly leading the change. ParaNorman, Frankenweenie (Disney again) and The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists! all look like they have a strong identity of their own. As such, they look infinitely more interesting than something like a third Madagascar movie, or a fourth Ice Age promise to be.

Perhaps the biggest casualty of the quantity and current surge of family movies, though, has been live action. Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is the current exception to the rule, but the bulk of family movies still involve animation somewhere along the line.

I sort-of made this point last year, when I questioned whether PG-13 and 12A had killed off good live action family movies, here. I’m not utterly sure they have, yet it strikes me that good live action family features are as much as a novelty as something hand drawn right now.

But still: as The Muppets explodes into UK cinemas, the choice for families this weekend is rich. Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a hoot, The Muppets is pretty unmissable, Big Miracle is something a bit different (even if it’s not much cop), and there’s Monster In Paris, and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace all inhabiting the multiplex (those pesky chipmunks are still around, too). That’s a range there, for different segments of the family audience, that means there should be something for most, and that has to be healthy.

It goes without saying which one I recommend, though...

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

So, almost 13 years since it last appeared in cinemas, the infamous Episode I is back. The all-time top grossing Star Wars film has been given a new lick of paint and a 3D makeover, but can it tempt a new generation of fans in?

I’m pretty sure most of you reading this will have seen The Phantom Menace, and most likely have your own opinions on the movie. Nothing I say will probably change it, but if you haven’t seen it in awhile, then checking it out at the pictures is not a bad idea. Star Wars is most definitely made for the big screen, and its appearances on TV can never quite do it justice.

I went into the screening ready to dismiss and be bored by the entire thing, cynical post-prequel ‘fan’ that I am, but as soon as the curtains on the cinema screen parted, the Fox fanfare started, and the iconic John Williams score kicked in, I couldn’t help myself. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up and I was a kid again. Damn you joyous childhood memories of watching Star Wars!

But how has The Phantom Menace fared since its initial release? Looking at it critically, and away from all the fan anger against Lucas? Well the same faults still remain with the film. It’s pretty boring, appears to have been shot with a first draft screenplay, and removes much of the physical effects that made the original trilogy so believable. There’s little to no weight to most of the cartoon-like effects now, and pretty lights do not make a film.

The only change for the better is that the weird stoned Yoda puppet has been changed to the CGI one of Episodes II and III (the same change as in the Blu-ray saga) but even that’s not as good as the original puppet from 30 years ago. McGregor still seems a bit off as Obi Wan, mainly due to the writing, one suspects, while Jar Jar is still at times offensively bad.

However, there is no denying that when Episode I gets it right, it gets it spectacularly right. For all my carping about the cartoon-like nature of it, for a film more than a decade old it looks bloody amazing. The 3D upgrading of it is quite brilliantly done, as you would expect, and only adds to the action. I’ve only seen it better rendered in Avatar. And its two set pieces are bang on the money. The pod race still ranks as something truly special, and the 3D brings it to life in an even more vivid way. The sound design from Ben Burtt is second to none, and is one of the finest technical achievements in recent cinema history – making the race essentially score free was probably Lucas’s best decision in the film.

Then again, the score is probably the best thing about the The Phantom Menace. Williams works his magic again, reworking his earlier legendary themes into new creations, and adding to the saga with Duel Of The Fates, a brilliant piece of work which soundtracks the final showdown between Qui Gon Jinn (the ever reliable Liam Neeson), Obi Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul. It’s epic, engrossing, and the best lightsabre battle in all six films. It’s just a pity you have sit through the mostly turgid stuff beforehand to get to it.

Oh well, the kids at the screening seemed to enjoy it, and laughed at Jar Jar (the bits with him in pain I was pleased to note, rather than him in general), and I guess that’s the audience rather than we jaded, angry adults.

I try to smirk at Star Wars, but I just can’t do it.

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

After a 3D spruce up, The Phantom Menace is back in cinemas this week for the first time in 13 years. Star Wars fans - who I count myself among, although they may not take me after this - hate the movie, as a rule. But here, I'll explain why Episode I and all its foibles converted me to Star Wars and why, if thinking about George Lucas makes you think violent thoughts, you may need to calm down and hug an ewok.

The Star Wars series is renowned for containing two of the best science fiction and adventure movies of all time in A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. Its other entries are looked on with various degrees of derision and mocking cries of "do not want". Be mindful, as we'll come later to Return Of The Jedi's muppetry foreshadowing the angry, hateful reception the prequel trilogy would suffer.

It's difficult to imagine Star Wars not being the - forgive the pun - force it is today. Shortly before the turn of the millennium though only Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi had been released and re-released. The series was largely out of the public consciousness except for remaining 'Han shot first' complaints.

If it hadn't been for The Phantom Menace kickstarting the Jedi-Sith conflict, we probably wouldn't have Lego Star Wars, the Clone Wars animated and CGI series, Knights Of The Old Republic or The Force Unleashed. We might even have missed out on more Battlestar Galactica, the JJ Abrams' Star Trek revamp or Mass Effect. Our last, best hope for space opera could have ended with Babylon 5. Can we finally look back at the prequel trilogy with nostalgia now?

Party Like It Is 1999, Tonight We Will

If you haven't seen The Phantom Menace prior to this week's re-release, then here's a plot summary. Turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic, and it's really not about tax at all. The peaceful, agricultural world of Naboo, home to humans and an aquatic race called the Gungans, is threatened by the malevolent interstellar conglomerate known as the Trade Federation and their huge force of military droids.

The wise, spiritual protectors who form the Jedi Council despatch the knight Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and his young apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) to investigate the Trade Federation's activities. The Jedi pair are quickly doublecrossed by the Trade Federation and sneak down to the surface of Naboo as the droid invasion fleet lands.

Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan run into an exiled Gungan, Jar Jar Binks (voiced by Ahmed Best), possibly the most reviled fictional character since Star Trek: The Next Generation's Wesley Crusher. Strangely, neither are as socially acceptable River Song of Doctor Who, who I personally find far more irritating, but we digress.

Binks capers like a fool but does his sci-fi duty and takes the Jedi to his Gungan leader under the waves, Boss Nass (voiced by Brian Blessed). Nass refuses to aid the human surface-dwellers of Naboo but gives a mixed blessing as he allows the trio a submarine to try to make it to the capital of Theed - by travelling straight through the dangerous oceanic planet core, where there's always a bigger fish.

The Jedi manage to get to Theed and rescue Princess Amidala (Natalie Portman) and her courtly entourage, now including Binks and a pre-fame Keira Knightley. Escaping offworld, the motley group are saved from being shot out of the sky by R2-D2, a familiar little white and blue astromech droid. With their ship damaged, Amidala and the Jedi set course for the desert world of Tatooine to desperately hunt for replacement parts. There, they meet a young slave boy with an odd talent for mechanics called Anakin (Jake Lloyd) and his droid C-3PO (Anthony Daniels), and discover the fast and furious sport of podracing.

Meanwhile, the evil and secretive Sith Master Darth Sidious (Ian McDiarmid) conspires with his deadly apprentice, Darth Maul (Ray Park), to use the Trade Federation as their tool. Maul races to Tatooine to confront their enemies, the Jedi. Will the malignance of the Trade Federation and the Sith triumph, or will the Naboo and Gungans put aside their differences to work with the Jedi? Perhaps there is another who will help good win out? Here's a hint: it's not Jar Jar.

Star Wars began in the mind of George Lucas, and the influences of classic pulp science fiction serials, way before what would eventually become known as A New Hope successfully ghettoised childhood in 1977. More movies beyond just two direct sequels were talked about as soon as the first proved a hit. The prequel trilogy objections of many vocal fans has never sat well with me, as a good few of these people haven't done anything to make Star Wars, but instead tried only to knock it down. Has Lucas really taken so much from them on a personal level?

In an interview with The New York Times last month about his career and the upcoming Red Tails, Lucas was asked whether he would make any more Star Wars movies. His response? "Why would I make any more... when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?"

All too easy. If only the Emperor had been so self-aware and quick to kowtow. If he wasn't so wealthy you could kind of feel sorry for the bloke.

The Phantom Menace Of The Phantom Menace

The best way to explain why Episode I isn't as awful as you've been told is by telling you what it means to me.

Aged 13, I saw the movie with friends when it was released in cinemas for the first time in 1999. Science-fiction has always appealed to me in every form but I was a massive Trekkie as a kid. Star Wars held a brief attraction to me thanks to the remastered versions a few years before the prequels began, but the 1970s tales of magic farmboys blowing up spaceships that weren't moons and defeating asthmatic black knights seemed a little too groovy. They were the dreaded f-word: fantasy. I owned the Technical Manual of the Enterprise-D. I wanted the future in my fiction, not unclear handwaving about galaxies far away, long ago that were somehow filled with humans.

Episode I gave me the missing piece to appreciate Star Wars – it made the series come alive again. It showed that the Empire and Rebellion hadn't always existed and there was much more to Star Wars. Through The Phantom Menace, I was introduced to the Star Wars Expanded Universe and found out about the Yuzhan Vong and the Old Republic. 

I'm eagerly awaiting issue #1 of Dark Horse Comics' Dawn Of The Jedi series on the 15th February, precisely because if a fictional universe as imaginative as Star Wars exists then I'm the sort of person who isn't satisfied with three brief, frozen snippets of that from 35 years ago.

Qui-Gon is my favourite Jedi because he was a proponent of the Living Force. The character gave context to the opposition between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader - he was a father to both of them, in a sense. I don't get precious about midi-chlorians either. They went some way toward rationalising the Force, a quasi-mystical aspect of the series that I'd always been annoyed by.

I guess whether that offends you is down to a preference for fantasy or science fiction, but I'll take even a weird explanation over not knowing at all, and watching old guys tell young boys "Oh wow, you're just naturally awesome because I say so. Let's hire a starship together and get to know each other."

Jake Lloyd made people care about Darth Vader. It's unfortunate that Hayden Christensen's petulant performance as Anakin didn't follow through in developing the character's motivation to change to the dark side. Anakin and his mother's slavery to Watto disturbed me deeply on watching The Phantom Menace. It gave the future Sith Lord a reason to resent the Republic and crave the power of the Force. His affection for Padme was innocent enough too, and his creation of Threepio gives a nice link to the original trilogy.

The planet-city of Coruscant and the planet of Naboo were amazingly disparate worlds to see in one movie, and a far cry from the Aliens-esque design of other sci-fi of my youth – Independence Day and Starship Troopers spring to mind. Of the cinematic science fiction of the 1990s, only Stargate's Abydos stands up to The Phantom Menace's imagination. Thanks to Episode I we also got to see the dusty planet of Tatooine again, and discover podracing.

Lastly, let's talk Jar Jar.

I know you hate him. Without Jar Jar as pathfinder and a trial-by-fire for digitally-created characters, it's possible that Gollum and Avatar could have never happened. Binks got the distaste for CG actors out of the world's system. Nothing could ever be as bad to most people as Jar Jar Binks - except maybe the ewoks, as fans have gone as far as re-editing Return Of The Jedi to remove the little fuzzballs. The potential of modern cinema is arguably richer thanks to Jar Jar. The Gungan is the Windows to the digital revolution's iOS - a necessary evil, perhaps?

Play us out, Keyboard Darth.

The Enduring Hope Of Star Wars

Debate rages about whether the Star Wars films are for children or not. They aren't - they're family movies. Admittedly, they're family movies with people shooting each other in cold blood and chopping off appendages, but most kids can cope with that with a more convincing sense of morality than adults can.

Each Star Wars is a tale of good versus evil – yes, even Episode I. A brilliant example is in the underrated Reign Of Fire, when Gerard Butler and Christian Bale re-enact the Cloud City revelation scene from The Empire Strikes Back to a bunch of entranced post-apocalyptic kids. Like him or not, George Lucas helped create this modern mythology.

The epic battle between good and evil in the Star Wars galaxy will continue, apparently in the form of Bioware's The Old Republic MMORPG and the Lucas-funded live-action TV show Star Wars: Underworld. Ignore Jedi teachings and senselessly hate the latter some people do, but find an audience because of the core behind it, it will.

To paraphrase Einstein: we don't know what the future holds for Episode I through III, but Episode IV will be told with sticks and stones. Now, in the infamous words of Lucille Bluth, go see a Star War.

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

Bad news, guys. In Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close, Tom Hanks meets his maker. Don't fret though - It's only a film, and the Hankster isn't really dead at the time of writing. He also doesn't have Forrest Gump's 'airbrush yourself into milestone moments of American history', skill, and so hasn't perished in a past disaster either.

However, none of this is of comfort to his screen son Oskar Schell (played by Thomas Horn) who is living in the movie and dealing with this massive loss. Over the course of two hours we'll share his - and New York City's - grief in the wake of a tremendous, tragic disaster.

How will this child cope now that his dad (Hanks) has departed and left him to be raised by Miss Congeniality? Without his father - who sounded reassuringly like Toy Story’s Woody - will this vulnerable youngster  be able to overcome his fear of the swingset, deal with his acute sensitivity to loud noises and grow to become a happy, stable young man in a shellshocked city?

Luckily enough, Hanks’ character Thomas Schell is acting from beyond the grave and spurring the kid on by engaging him in a scavenger hunt. Oskar has been left with a key and all keys must surely unlock something.

The child’s quest, then, is to cross New York City and search for the correct one of the Big Apple’s 162 million locks, meeting a whole array of people on the way (including Max von Sydow, John Goodman and the guy who invented the Source Code). Everyone will then come together and find a human connection amidst the ashes and aftermath of 9/11, undoubtedly creating an audience-pleasing tearjerker.

This is all very nice. Oskar needs companionship and a purpose to distract him from gloomy depression, and an incredibly challenging treasure hunt strikes me as a positive, practical response. On second thoughts, though, I begin to worry about the intrepid hero of Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close. If he had the ever-dependable Tom Hanks at his side I wouldn’t be concerned, but the Hankster's gone and now the vulnerable youngster is exploring Earth’s biggest city on his own.

I’ve never been to New York City, but I know it well, because I’ve watched a lot of films about it. There’s danger in them there mean streets, and I fear that even if he’s got Max von Sydow (atrained exorcist) as a travel companion, Oskar’s exposing himself to great peril.

Nevertheless, “you can’t be afraid” as Oskar himself spits out in the trailer. (I think he’s trying to impersonate Dug the golden retriever from Up - “My name is Dug! I have just met you and I love you! Squirrel!”) I don’t want to dissuade him from this Big Apple odyssey and prevent him from undertaking the nigh-impossible search for the mystery lock.

What I will do, though, is briefly skim over Manhattan movie history and outline some of the dangers he should be wary of. It’s a big city full of bad things, kiddo. Keep a tight hold of that key, keep on banging your comfort tambourine to ease your anxious mind and avoid the following fixtures that make NYC a scene of dramatic jeopardy...

Crime

According to some movies, The Big Apple is rotten to the core, and riddled criminals and illegal affairs. Even if you aren’t brushing past the Five Families or major mobsters on the mean streets (see Once Upon A Time In America, American Gangster, Carlito’s Way, A Bronx Tale, etc) you’re liable to encounter small-time hoods and nefarious nasties with no concern for morals or the law.

Gangs are everywhere in the movies, and I worry that Oskar is going to get bopped by the Baseball Furies from The Warriors or cut up by both the Sharks and the Jets of West Side Story. What’s more, he can’t rely on the police because - as proven by Serpico and Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant - they’re just as corrupt as the crimelords. Drugs, prostitution, racketeering, extortion and ultraviolence - this place is America’s prime wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Monsters

The USA’s top tourist destination, New York also attracts an inordinate number of beastly creatures and consequently, exists on perpetual terror alert. Simply by being in the metropolis you are risking your safety and placing yourself in the path of the full force of a potential monster invasion, whether it be in the form of aliens (Cloverfield, Men In Black), gargantuan lovestruck gorillas (King Kong) or revived dino-sized prehistoric reptiles (The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, Hollywood’s Godzilla remake).

The Spider-Man flicks also illustrate the point that New Yorkers are liable to turn themselves into abominations when things get boring. I’d urge Oskar to hide underground in the subway system, except the giant cockroaches from Mimic would probably get him. Be cautious and careful when you go to Gotham, kids - it’s the go-to hotspot for all grotesque monstrosities with a taste for trashing landmarks.

Sex

New York’s a city of romance, you reckon? Put aside all those syrupy delusions that The City That Never Sleeps™ is all about innocent love. Really, it’s one of the most depraved places on Earth and its streets are soaked in vice and stalked by sexual predators. Even if Woody Allen (“behind his black-rimmed glasses was the sexual prowess of a jungle cat”) has abandoned his hometown, it’s still true that Manhattan is an enclave of erotic extremity.

It’s not an ideal environment for children and I'm concerned that kids may encounter characters like Travis Bickle (screwy psychopath and porno theatre patron) or Brandon from Shame (obsessed sex addict). Consider Tom Cruise's misadventure into the shadowy high society masque orgy cult of Eyes Wide Shut or the whole premise of Sex And The City and feel the revulsion as you remember that they're in the same city as Oskar's treasure trail.

If Oskar can circumvent these hazards, chances are he’ll emerge from his urban scavenger hunt adventure intact and succeed in eventually finding the holy grail of locks. We’ll therefore have a happy ending which is the kind of promise that cinematic New York City specialises in. (Unless the key turns out to be a red herring life metaphor that the kid can't grasp. Tom Hanks, can you help him out?)

James’ previous column can be found here.

You can reach James on his Twitter feed here, see his film cartoons here and more sketches here.

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

There’s been no shortage of rumours circulating in the past few days with regards the planned new Blade Runner film, and as he does a bit of publicity for his upcoming Prometheus, director Ridley Scott has addressed them with Entertainment Weekly.

With regards revisiting Blade Runner, Scott admitted that “we’re still in discussions about whether it should be a prequel or sequel”, revealing that “I’m meeting with writers and I’ve also gone back to Hampton Fancher, and he still speaks the speak”. Fancher wrote the original draft of the first Blade Runner film, but as of yet, the new Blade Runner has no screenplay.

Addressing the online chatter that suggested Harrison Ford was in talks to appear in the new film, Scott suggested this wasn’t the case, but wouldn’t rule it out happening in the future. “I’m not sure that that’s going to be a story point, so I don’t know”, he added. “But if it were, nothing would please me more. Honestly.”

And he ended the interview on a simple, effective tease. He declared that he’d had a great time doing Prometheus, and that “I’m also thinking about what the hell I might do for a Prometheus 2.”

Prometheus arrives in June.

EW

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

There are still many months of physical production to go on Peter Jackson’s two films of The Hobbit and thus, that means there’s still time to add a name or two to the sizeable cast.

The latest addition? Billy Connolly, who is set to play Thorin’s cousin, Dain Ironfoot, in the movies. Described as “a great dwarf warrior”, Peter Jackson has said of Connolly’s casting that with it, “the cast of The Hobbit is now complete”. Best abandon our audition tape, then. Bah.

The first of The Hobbit movies, An Unexpected Journey, will be in cinemas from December 14th 2012.

I fully appreciate that it’s not an easy job to come up with a sellable title for a film. In an ideal world, it has to convey the subject of what the movie is about, and also be catchy enough, for good reasons, for us to remember.

However, I sat down to watch the new Denzel Washington/Ryan Reynolds flick Safe House last week, and it immediately became clear – and this is only telling you something that’s in the trailer – that the house in question didn’t appear to be very safe at all. Truthfully, it wouldn't be much of a movie if it was.

I then started considering some of the more recent Denzel Washington movies I’d seen of late, and, well, here’s my scientific research.

I should be up front and say that there are some (easily guessable) spoilers here, but nothing that I’d suggest would ruin any of the films. I’d include Virtuosity, by the way, but I’ve got absolutely no idea what it means.

SAFE HOUSE



We may as well start here. Notwithstanding the fact that it’s a rotten poster, here’s a film that’s clearly missing an ‘Un’ from the start of its title. In fact, it could borrow the ‘Un’ from our next example, and correct them both in one swoop...

UNSTOPPABLE



See? Appreciating Stoppable might give the game away a little, this is supposed to be a film about a runaway train. There’s no way on earth it can be stopped, you might think! But then the law of Denzel Movie Poster Lies kicks in.

It's this inaccurate, at least until Safe House nicks the ‘Un’ off the front of its name and gives us the real truth in the process.

MAN ON FIRE



You’re probably getting the hang of this by now. Man Not On Fire At All, more like. My definition of a man on fire is most closely matched by what Nicolas Cage is currently up to in the Ghost Rider movies. It does not involve a throwback to 80s action cinema, albeit a mighty entertaining one.

OUT OF TIME



More lies! Before I get pithy again, if you get a chance, check out Out Of Time director Carl Franklin’s One False Move. It’s comfortably one of my favourite thrillers of the 90s.

It’s better than Out Of Time, too, a movie about a man who, you might think, is, well, out of time to solve a crime, as if the Countdown clock is blithering away in the background.

Cutting It Fine might be a bit more honest…

DÉJÀ VU



He's just taking the piss now.

A title that’s seemingly been thought up just to give film critics an easy opening line to their reviews (see also: Jennifer Lopez in Enough), Déjà Vu suggests, according to the dictionary, “the experience of thinking that a new situation had occurred before”.

Déjà Vu, the movie, does not feature that. At all. Naughty, Denzel.

DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS



A fine thriller this, but I can confirm, having watched it twice, at no point does Satan pop up wearing a little blue number. Apologies for the spoiler, there.

THE HURRICANE



Those expecting a flying cow in this one? Prepare, once again, to be disappointed. Er, this list might be getting just a little tenuous about now.

FALLEN

Fallen? He’s standing for pretty much the entire bloody movie! Okay, I’ll stop. I’m just embarrassing myself now.

Safe House is in cinemas from 24th February. Our review is here.

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

It’s about an invasion from high-tech Nazis lurking on the dark side of the moon, and it’s got Udo Kier in it as a Moon Führer. That’s about all you need to know about director Timo Vuorensola’s low-budget yet extraordinarily ambitious mini blockbuster.

We placed Iron Sky high on our top-10 list of our most anticipated sci-fi movies of the year, and the new trailer and poster have done nothing to dampen our enthusiasm for this daft, maniacally imaginative film.

As you can see from the poster, Iron Sky’s release date’s set for the 4th April, and we hope its distributors get it into as many UK cinemas as possible. In the meantime, enjoy the fabulous new trailer…

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

As you’ve probably gathered, we’ve something of a soft spot for the films of Jason Statham, the man of action who’s keeping the flame of 80s-style macho moviemaking alive. And one forthcoming project may well be his best yet, given that it’ll be helmed by the great Brian De Palma.

It’s a remake of Heat – not the Michael Mann one, but the 1986 thriller starring Burt Reynolds. The writer of that film, Hollywood veteran William Goldman, will also provide the script for the Statham-starring version.

If you’ve not seen the original Heat, then it’s sufficient to say the plot’s tailor-made for Statham – its protagonist is a rock-hard bodyguard who’s hired to protect the seedy lynchpins of the gambling underworld using only his fist and assorted improvised weapons.

It’s been quite a while since De Palma’s had a box-office hit, and for us, he’s yet to make anything as good as his last truly decent film, Mission: Impossible movie released back in 1996. Hopefully, Heat will see the director back on top form.

The question is, will Statham be tempted to grow a luxuriant Reynolds moustache in homage to the original movie’s star? We sincerely hope so – and with shooting not set to commence until the end of the year at the earliest, there’s plenty of time for him to sprout one.

Hollywood Reporter

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

Followers of our Twitter feed, here, may recall a competition we ran last year, with the kind of prize you simply can't buy. The mission was this: write a funny joke. The prize: Fozzie Bear reads it out.

Who needs a luxury hotel, or a new car, or a huge cash reward, when you've got a prize like that?

Lots of you rose to the challenge (including Simon's son!), and all of the (clean) jokes were sent over to the great Fozzie Bear himself. And here are the ones that he chose. Wocka wocka wocka...

The Muppets finally arrives in UK cinemas on Friday 10th February.

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

You probably know the score by now. The new Bourne movie, The Bourne Legacy, has many returning faces, but one of them isn't Matt Damon's. There's no Jason Bourne at all, although he's namechecked in this trailer, as instead Jeremy Renner has stepped up to take over the franchise.

And now? You can get a first glimpse at how he's fared in the first trailer and poster for this summer's The Bourne Legacy. Business as usual, then?

The film hits UK cinemas on 15th August.

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

The new Amazing Spider-Man trailer, released today, has had a big effect on fans, blowing away the cobwebs (no pun intended) left by the first glimpses of the film and replacing caution with anticipation. But what does it actually tell us about the film? We wouldn’t be worthy of the Den of Geek name if we didn’t give it the full nitpicking treatment...

Not-so-secret identity

Various parts of this trailer suggest that Peter Parker will struggle to maintain his anonymity as Spider-Man. Indeed, it virtually opens with Peter dropping in – literally – on Gwen Stacy. It’s clear that the romance between the pair will be a major focus of the film, as he’s already willing to jeopardise his identity just to see her. Is she foolish enough to take Peter at face value? The original Gwen Stacy died without ever learning Peter was Spider-Man, but in this instance, he doesn’t seem to be hiding it very well. Especially since he later tells Gwen “I’ve got to stop him. I’ve created him” – presumably referring to the Lizard. Spilt the beans already?

It’s not just voluntary, either. Later on, we see a policeman pulling the mask right off Peter’s face, followed by an explosion of activity as the now-unmasked Parker fights to escape a large group of cops.

Web of genius

An early shot shows Peter experimenting with what appears to be a mechanical web-shooter. Now, there are some fans who will argue that the creation of web-shooters is an essential component in proving Peter Parker’s scientific prowess – but for me, organic web-shooters as used by Raimi’s film always made more sense, as it retains the everyman quality of Peter Parker. He’s supposed to be smart, but if he’s on the level of Tony Stark and Reed Richards, how can we ordinary mortals relate to him?

That said, it’s probable, given the film’s positioning of Peter’s father as a scientist, that the web-shooters and web-fluid are actually something to do with his father’s research, which we see returned to Peter later on in the trailer. Of course, there’s also a scene later on where Peter completes a mega-difficult equation on a blackboard, so it’s clear that they’re not shying away from the scientific genius aspect of the character at all.

Police story

At one point, Captain Stacy, Gwen’s police chief father, verbally spars with Peter over Spider-Man’s position in society. “This guy wears a mask, like an outlaw.” He says. Again, a world away from Raimi’s interpretation, where Spider-Man was quickly clasped to the bosom of New York and – despite Jameson’s protestations – won the heart of the police and public to an overwhelming extent, rarely having trouble with the authorities.

This spider-man, by comparison, is far from a widely-accepted hero, and the trailer closes with Captain Stacy issuing an arrest warrant for the “masked vigilante”, Spider-Man. Looks like Captain Stacy is going to fill the antagonist role normally reserved for JJJ, then?

Said the spider…

One of the few things Raimi’s Spider-Man got completely wrong was the escapist, wise-cracking element of the character. Spider-Man is a burden for Peter Parker, but it also allows him to push his boundaries. To give bullies and crooks a psychological thrashing as much as a physical one. Traditionally, the more dire the situation, the harder Spidey cracks wise about it. An altercation with a criminal (“If you’re gonna steal cars, don’t dress like a car thief!”) suggests that this is one aspect of the character that Marc Webb has definitely retained.

Meet the parents

A lot of the marketing for this film is using the phrase “The Untold Story” – referring to the matter of Peter’s parents and their “disappearance”. In the comics, they died in a plane crash. Because they were secret agents. I know, I know. Raimi, quite rightly, glossed over the fates of Richard and Mary, treating Aunt May and Uncle Ben wholly as Peter’s surrogate parents. Webb’s film, however, is throwing itself into the backstory. The previous trailer showed them leaving a young Peter with his Aunt and Uncle. This one shows him investigating his father’s past, and meeting his colleague: one Curtis Connors.

Reptilia

Connors’ transformation into the Lizard is clearly described by the trailer, which depicts the character as an almost Hulk-like figure, rather than the more man-sized lizard-in-a-lab-coat familiar to most. It makes a certain sense, and the effects certainly seem up to scratch – but that design is one of the few things about this trailer that gives us pause for concern. At least Batman fans know that Killer Croc could work. And hey, it’s not as if the Green Goblin design hurt the first Raimi film. Er, much…

Still, things are looking much stronger than before. Are there any more secrets coming? We can’t help turning to the fate of both Stacys in the comics and wondering how likely it is that Gwen and her Dad will make it out of this film alive. And indeed, one thing this film has barely shown a glimpse of is the fate of Uncle Ben. You can’t do Spider-Man’s origin without Uncle Ben dying… can you?

You can view the new Amazing Spider-Man trailer here, and read our thoughts on Monday night's preview footage here.

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

Two characters who don’t get along are forced into an uneasy alliance by a common enemy. It’s a familiar thriller plot, and in many ways, the star-laden Safe House is as generic a thriller as they come.

In this instance, it’s Ryan Reynolds’ low-ranking CIA operative and Denzel Washington’s rogue veteran agent who are thrown together after a violent shoot-out. Denzel plays Tobin Frost, whose theft of sensitive government data has made him the target of an army of anonymous, heavily-armed villains, and when Frost’s brief detention at a CIA safe house run by rookie agent Matt Weston (Reynolds) is gate crashed by the bad guys on his trail, the pair barely escape with their lives.

At first determined to return Frost to the CIA for interrogation, Weston gradually begins to wonder who the villains on his trail are working for, and whether his own bosses can really be trusted.

While it’s true that Safe House’s plot is formulaic, there are two things which make the movie worth a second look: first, the acting abilities of Washington and Reynolds, and second, Swedish filmmaker Daniel Espinosa’s eye-catching, exhilarating direction.

As is often the case in action thrillers, the race to keep the plot moving along means that Safe House’s characters are thinly drawn at best. Washington and Reynolds, are required, therefore, to bring all the depth to their roles they can, while at the same time trading punches, dodging bullets, and crashing cars. And as Training Day and American Gangster proved, Washington’s excellent at playing dark characters, even though his acting career is filled overwhelmingly with more wholesome, heroic protagonists.

Washington lends some much-needed dramatic heft to Tobin Frost, while Reynolds brings some of the vulnerability and charm he displayed in Buried to his initially wet-behind-the-ears agent (Buried was proof that nobody in Hollywood can play bruised and exhausted better than Reynolds).

The pair’s contribution to Safe House can’t be underestimated – without their charisma and chemistry, we’d probably be left with another low-energy thriller like the disappointing Man On A Ledge earlier this year.

It’s director Daniel Espinosa who’s the real revelation here, though. He brings real weight and friction to Safe House’s numerous car chases and fights, which are gritty and, on occasion, downright nasty. Sure, the wobbling cameras and urgent editing is from the post-Bourne school of filmmaking, but Espinosa has a way of framing his sequences and dragging his camera around that is uniquely his.

Unlike some action movies, it’s possible to tell who’s hitting or shooting who in these scenes, and as frantic as the action gets, it’s always clear where one character is in relation to another – an apparently simple talent that even Hollywood’s most well-paid directors sometimes appear to lack.

Ably supported by some excellent sound design and sterling work from cinematographer Oliver Wood, Espinosa brings real style and verve to Safe House’s moments of violence. One slow-motion crash through a window – something we’ve all seen more times than we’d care to count – is framed and presented in a manner that borders on the breath-taking.

Safe House’s South African locations also provide some memorable texture and colour, and it’s refreshing to see an action thriller that uses its setting as a natural backdrop rather than as an exotic cultural cliché. For an example of a movie that does the opposite, look again at Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, which felt the need to play communist marching music whenever the action cut to Russia, accordions when it cut to Paris, or bagpipes when it cut to Scotland. (I made the last two up, but I think you get the point I’m trying to make.)

Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard and Liam Cunningham are among a supporting cast of somewhat flimsy government agent archetypes, who you’ll recognise in an instant. There’s a furtive one who talks gruffly in the corner of crowded pubs, an older one who spends most of the film staring at graphics on a computer screen, and an even older one who threatens people from behind a mahogany desk while an American flag looms up in the background. Everyone owns an expensive mobile phone, and drives around in a jet-black four-wheel-drive Mercedes.

Ultimately, the familiarity of Safe House’s plot is what detains it from brilliance, or at least four-star very-goodness. Everyone, from the supporting players (including Robert Patrick, who’s barely recognisable from his T2 days, bless him) up to the simmering Denzel Washington himself, puts in lots of effort and some great work, and writer David Guggenheim pens one or two piquant lines of dialogue for them. But the lack of any genuine surprises, rug-pull moments or “Blimey, I didn’t see that one coming” turns of fortune ultimately hold Safe House back.

For director Daniel Espinosa, though, Safe House is a more than promising Hollywood debut. From the most familiar of cloth, he’s tailored a thriller that is far more stylish, good-looking and hard-hitting than it had any right to be, and on that basis alone, I’m anxious to see what he makes next.

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

The finest storytellers are confidence tricksters. It’s their ability to convince us that what they’re telling us is real that makes their tall tales so engrossing – they blur the lines between fiction and reality, to the point where are brains struggle to see the join between one and the other.

This is why so many novels and short stories were written in the first person, or incorporated real-world events: their writers wanted to convince their readers that what they were reading was fact, even as the stories span off into unreality. Robinson Crusoe was written by Daniel Defoe as a first-person account of a castaway. Jonathan Swift’s  Gulliver’s Travels was written in the style of a traveller’s work of non-fiction, and early editions even carried a portrait of its fictional author to heighten the illusion.

A century later, Edgar Allan Poe became infamous for his made up tales and hoaxes. One of his stories, which later became known as The Balloon-Hoax, was printed as fact by a New York newspaper in 1844. Many of Poe’s other stories were based on contemporary news stories – his detective tale The Mystery of Marie Rogêt was based on the real-life murder of tobacco shop clerk Mary Rogers in 1841. The fictionalised version of events in Poe’s story were so close to those of the real case that some have rather foolishly suggested that Poe must have somehow been involved in Rogers’ death.

Poe is an example of a writer who could expertly weave words and real events to create a believable story, and there’s a clear line, from Defoe via Poe to the storytellers of the present, who will use any technique they can to suspend the disbelief of their readers.

It’s a confidence trick that has spread far beyond novels and short stories, too – Orson Welles’ 1938 radio adaptation of The War Of The Worlds, perhaps the most famous radio broadcast ever, caused mass panic when listeners took its news bulletin format as fact.

On 31st October 1992, the BBC broadcast Ghostwatch, a fake documentary so controversial that it’s never been screened on UK television since. Presented as fact, the 90-minute broadcast took viewers on a ‘live’ investigation of a jaunted house in Greater London. Although the BBC added opening and closing credits to highlight the fact that Ghostwatch was a piece of fiction, the use of recognisable presenters – among them Michael Parkinson and Sarah Greene – led some viewers to believe that what they were watching was real.

Ghostwatch triggered a wave of complaints. An estimated 30,000 callers rang the BBC, disturbed at what they’d witnessed. Although the BBC insisted that it had taken steps to mark the show out as a hoax – even airing it during its 9 o’clock drama slot – the Broadcasting Standards Commission took a dim view of it. “The BBC had a duty to do more than simply hint at the deception it was practising on the audience,” the BSC ruled. “In Ghostwatch there was a deliberate attempt to cultivate a sense of menace.”

The ripples from Ghostwatch’s shockwave headed across the Atlantic, and it’s probable that it became the unwitting parent of new kind of modern filmmaking: the found footage movie. Did Ghostwatch inspire filmmakers Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez to head off into the woods to shoot The Blair Witch Project in 1999? It’s certainly possible, given that the pair have admitted to seeing Ghostwatch a few years before. The Blair Witch certainly has more in common with Ghostwatch than Cannibal Holocaust, Ruggero Deodato’s infamous 1980 horror that was also shot in the style of a documentary. Other pre-Blair documentary-style movies include Man Bites Dog (1992), Alien Abduction: Incident In Lake County (1998) and The Last Broadcast (also 1998).

At any rate, this tiny film, shot on handheld cameras for a few thousand dollars (estimates on its actual budget vary), became a phenomenon, grossing almost $250 million worldwide. Part of The Blair Witch’s success was due to clever marketing – it was among the first films to make genuinely clever use of the Internet, with its website full of police reports and snippets of footage – but also because of its thick veneer of realism.

Like the first-person horror of Poe or his similarly influential successor, HP Lovecraft, The Blair Witch’s subjective viewpoint and wobbly camerawork placed the viewer in the shoes of its terrified protagonists. Whether you were under the impression that The Blair Witch was a real documentary or not – by the time it came to the UK, the ruse had already been rumbled – for those 79 minutes while the lights were down, the film had you in its grip.

What’s surprising about The Blair Witch is that, although it was enormously lucrative, it wasn’t immediately followed by a legion imitators, as, say, Halloween was in 1978. Found footage movies undoubtedly emerged – among them The St Francisville Experiment (2000), The Last Horror Movie (2003) and September Tapes (2004) – but these appeared at a relatively slow rate of around two or three per year.

It was the arrival of Paranormal Activity in 2007 that appeared to open the floodgates. Another minimalist ghost story, this time set in a young couple’s California house, it generated almost as much cash as The Blair Witch Project. And with the 2008 financial crisis just around the corner, the time was right for an explosion of cheap-to-make found footage films.

In 2010, approximately 17 found footage movies were produced – among them the extremely effective The Last Exorcism, Paranormal Activity 2 and Troll Hunter. A similar number was released last year.

With so many filmmakers hopping on the found footage bandwagon, it’s inevitable that some are better than others. Films like Paranormal Entity and 8213: Gacy House were swiftly-produced knock-offs of Paranormal Activity, while 2008’s Monster was a cash-in on the big-budget Cloverfield, released the same year. The Devil Inside, released in January, appeared to be little more than an elaborate advertisement for a website, and reviewers (plus vocal cinemagoers) quickly rounded on it.

Critics of the found footage genre will often point to its limitations: why do their protagonists continue to film everything, even in the presence of certain death, as was the case in Cloverfield? It could also be argued that found footage movies struggle to find interesting new ways of ending. Virtually every single one concludes with the camera landing on the floor with a bang, followed by a brief flash of something horrible or supernatural, and then a rapid fade out.

It’s the same problem writers are faced with in first-person narratives. If your protagonist is also the writer, how do you kill them on the final page? Authors often get around this by ending a story with the hero’s writing being interrupted by an ominous, supernatural bang at the front door, or an epilogue written by somebody else.

While it’s true that the found footage genre forces filmmakers to work within certain confines, it’s notable just how diverse the genre is becoming. It’s gradually moving out of the realm of the supernatural, and into comedy drama (the forthcoming Project X) and comic book superhero movie (Chronicle).

Chronicle is particularly notable for its fast-and-loose approach to shooting a found footage film. Initially shot from the perspective of amateur filmmaker Andrew (Dane DeHaan), the film later cuts between his viewpoint and that of another filmmaker, Casey (Ashley Hinshaw). Later still, Chronicle’s director Josh Trank comes up with a brilliant conceit that fits perfectly with the movie’s telekinetic plot – Andrew and his friends can make the camera float with their minds, freeing the film from the fixed perspectives of most found-footage flicks, providing otherwise impossible shots that are dizzying and sometimes breathtaking.

Chronicle’s use of multiple perspectives and security camera footage suggests a move away from what has become a rigidly traditional use of the genre, where every cut has to be somehow explained within the narrative. It’s something that some have found refreshing and exciting, but provoked confusion among others – Guardian critic Ben Childs complained that “We end up thinking about the unfeasibility of the set-up more than the events taking place on screen”, for example.

It’s possible, though, that Chronicle is a comment on the YouTube generation’s habit of filming everything – go to a gig, and you’ll see a crowd filming the band and each other on their mobile phone. On the way home, the members of the crowd will probably be filmed on CCTV. Chronicle takes the aesthetic and immediacy of the found footage genre, but doesn’t feel the need to adhere to an arbitrary set of rules.

It could be argued, in fact, that Chronicle’s practice of switching between different viewpoints in a found footage movie is akin to the earliest uses of film cutting and multiple perspectives. Before 1903, it was uncommon for filmmakers to move the camera at all, and most early movies simply filmed a single event from one viewpoint. But gradually, assembling a story from multiple bits of film became accepted as a vital, readily understood element of filmmaking – a director could cut from an establishing shot that showed the outside of a house to the people inside it without fear of confusing the audience. Perhaps the found footage genre is heading the same way – its techniques are gradually becoming assimilated into the accepted language of filmmaking.

Although some have argued that the found footage genre is running out of ideas, or that it’s a trend that will pass in time, I suspect it’ll continue to endure for many years yet. They make sense from a financial perspective, since they’re cheap to make, and people will pay to see the better ones. They feed into our modern landscape of ubiquitous cameras and streaming video. But most importantly, they’re able to place the viewer into a situation – often terrifying ones, as in REC or Paranormal Activity – and for those few brief minutes while the cinema’s lights are down, make them feel as though they really are stuck in the filmmaker’s version of reality.

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

The Muppets, depending on where you live, are about to return or have returned to the big screen, with that wonderful new blockbuster paradigm of a movie that is both a reboot and sequel (or prequel) at the same time.

Simply titled The Muppets, the movie stars and is co-written by Judd Apatow regular, Jason Segel. The original songs are written by one half of Flight Of The Conchords, Brett McKenzie. The traditional Muppet movie roster of celebrity cameos includes the likes of Sarah Silverman, Zach Galifianakis and Neil Patrick Harris.

So: are the Muppets getting a little edgier this time around? If you look at the history of the Muppets, not really.

Right from the start, the Muppets (much like Bugs Bunny, Popeye and even Mickey Mouse) have been aiming their unique brand of one-liners and slapstick humour primarily at an adult audience.

The story of the Muppets is filled with many pushes and pulls between entertainment aimed at kids, adults, or both.

According to Brian Henson, the son of Muppet mastermind Jim Henson, "The years with the Muppets, it was really all targeted to adults. It was in a time when everything had to be safe for the whole family. But he was targeting adults."

Jim Henson first introduced the Muppets (albeit under a different name) in 1955. He created a puppet show called Sam And Friends that aired live, twice daily in five minute segments that ran only in the Washington DC area. The show featured an early progenitor of a puppet that later would become a Muppet known as Kermit The Frog. The early shows generally consisted of the Henson's puppets lip-syncing to popular hit songs of the day.

Some of the lip-syncing was to songs that included such decidedly adult fare as I've Got You Under My Skin and That Old Black Magic. The show also contained a regular running parody of the then-current news program The Huntley Brinkley Report and of the popular Western TV series Gunsmoke. Not exactly parody tailormade for six-year-olds.

Sam And Friends ran until 1961. Not long after, Henson and his new creation now known as The Muppets, moved on to an even bigger audience: The Ed Sullivan Show.

The Ed Sullivan Show was one of the highest-rated TV shows of its time. It was a classic early TV variety format. Hosted by Sullivan, a nationally renowned American newspaper entertainment columnist, it aired at a time when there were only something like four channels on TV (in most areas). Needless to say, there weren't a hundred different cable channels that each catered to a specific niche audience in those days. Instead, they had one show that featured something for everyone. A typical edition of the Ed Sullivan Show would feature jugglers, opera singers, numbers from current Broadway musicals, stand-up comedians, impersonators, Jazz trios, rock n' roll bands and, sometimes, The Muppets.

Jim Henson's Muppets (or "Jim Newsom's puppets" as Ed once introduced them) appeared on Sullivan's show 25 times between 1966 and 1971. While often categorized as a children's act on the show, many of the sketches involved various Muppets getting eaten by or eating other Muppets, cross-dressing, psychological torment and, in one of Henson's favorite comedic forms, lip-synching to popular songs (even one of The Beatles' more druggy tunes, Come Together).

During this time, Henson and his Muppets were also quite busy in the field of advertising and industrial films. One of his clients, interestingly, was IBM.

Circa 1967, The Muppets appeared in a number of different IBM training and sales films. IBM was launching the first electric typewriters, word processors and computers. These newfangled gadgets, in order to be sold properly, had to be explained to the general public and, perhaps more importantly, to IBM's own sales staff.

Some of the films featured The Muppets working as IBM sales reps. Was that supposed to appeal to kids? What kid in 1967 would have been on the IBM sales staff? I mean, today, sure, but never in '67.

In 1969, Henson and the Muppets got the break of their career when they landed a gig on the innovative children's educational TV series, Sesame Street. The show made the Muppets, especially Kermit the Frog, a household name.

For Henson, Sesame Street was both a blessing a curse. It brought fame to his creation but it also cemented an impression in the minds of the general public and TV executives that the Muppets were strictly children's entertainers.

Henson, eager to break the kids TV typecasting The Muppets had fallen into, made a deal with an all new and different non-prime time TV series that had just made its debut. The series was called Saturday Night Live.

It made sense. Saturday Night Live was, at the time, groundbreaking late night TV. It was one of the first shows do jokes about drugs, sexually liberated lifestyles, rock music and generally address a growing post-hippie youth subculture that had been largely ignored by mainstream TV.

The result was The Land of Gorch, a series of ‘adult’ Muppet sketches – pretty much the polar opposite of Sesame Street, in other words. The Gorch sketches followed the story of some rather nasty looking mythical creatures on a far away planet. The design of the SNL Muppets was more raw and intense than anything Henson had created up to that point. Typical sketches dealt with issues like alcoholism, sex, and death. All in all: a pretty big departure for the Muppets.

Unfortunately, The Land of Gorch sketches were something of a disaster. The sketches were written by SNL and not Muppet writers – Gorch was doled out as a punishment or as an initiation for new SNL scribes.

Audiences didn't really know what to make of the sketches either. Here are Muppets in a kind of childlike fantasy setting, they have the same voices as many of the Sesame Street Muppets, yet they're making the archetypal 70s SNL "I am so stoned" kinda jokes. They were too confused to laugh most of the time.

Henson himself probably put the experience into perspective best when he said years later:

"I saw what he (Lorne Michaels) was going for and I really liked it and wanted to be a part of it, but somehow what we were trying to do and what his writers could write for it never jelled. ... When they were writing for us, I had the feeling they were writing normal sitcom stuff, which is really boring and bland... Yeah, it just never jelled with the particular writers we were working with, but at no time did I ever lose my respect for the show. I always liked what they were doing."

Fortunately for Henson and the Muppets' career, it was around this time that Henson landed the deal for the now legendary Muppet Show. Still unable to convince any of the US networks that the Muppets were not just for kids, Henson finally sold the idea of a Muppets TV show to the British broadcaster, ITV. The shows would be produced in Great Britain and syndicated internationally.

The ensuing 1976-81 series was, of course, a massive hit. It firmly cemented the Muppets' fame outside of the Sesame Street realm. It also became a cherished childhood icon for an entire generation. The show featured guest stars like Elton John, Sylvester Stallone, Liza Minnelli and John Cleese, to name a very few. There were many clever and, for the Muppets at the time, risque lines. Yet there at the same time were talking animals and lots of physical comedy. So, essentially, The Muppet Show became the classic case of a crossover show attracting both young and old audiences alike.

Major hit motion pictures followed: The Muppet Movie (1979), The Great Muppet Caper (1981) and The Muppets Take Manhattan (1984). The pattern continued – they were movies with a major family friendly crossover appeal, featuring adult oriented celebrity cameos and the occasional line that could have you thinking, "Whoa! I can't believe the Muppets just said that!". Generally, though, the the Muppet films appealed more to younger rather than older audiences.

In 1982, Henson again attempted to break the mould with The Dark Crystal. The film was a serious, dark fantasy adventure film featuring new puppets and innovative creatures that were not unlike something that might have appeared in The Land of Gorch. The Dark Crystal met with mixed critical and financial success, but later would garner a cult following on home video.

In 1986, Henson made Labyrinth, a more family friendly fantasy musical adventure starring (in what was a major departure for him at the time) David Bowie. Like The Dark Crystal, the film met with mixed critical success but better box office success than The Dark Crystal. It too would achieve a cult following on home video in the years to come.

On TV, Henson attempted to continue the darker material with a series called The Storyteller. Later, in The Jim Henson Hour, he attempted to mix classic Muppet humour with more edgy material. The Jim Henson Hour only lasted 13 episodes. He fared much with shows like Muppet Babies and Fraggle Rock, which were aimed exclusively at children.

Sadly, Jim Henson died of pneumonia in the spring of 1990.

Henson's son Brian carried the Muppet torch after that. He produced a series that the senior Henson had been developing before his death, called Dinosaurs. The 1991-94 series featured live action anthropomorphic Dinosaurs (all creations of the relatively new Henson Creature Shop) in a sitcom setting. Dinosaurs owed a great deal to both The Flintstones and The Simpsons. Despite attempts to humorously deal with more serious issues like drug abuse, pre-marital sex and media censorship, Dinosaurs still tended to appeal to a younger audience.

Brian attempted to bring the franchise back to slightly more adult territory with Muppets Tonight. The show aired on the ABC network in the US during the 1995-96 season. Later, The Disney Channel picked up the series and ran nine more new episodes in the 1997-8 season. Similar to the original Muppet Show, Muppets Tonight featured the backstage antics of the Muppets attempting to produce a show. This time around it was a TV show as opposed to a live theatrical show, as was the case in the original Muppet Show.

Muppets Tonight was hosted by a new Muppet, Clifford, the "homey made of foamy". That by itself creates a pretty clear impression of where the younger Henson was trying to go with the show. The series featured guest stars like Prince (known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince at that time), Coolio, Jason Alexander and Cindy Crawford. Much of the humour attempted to attract older viewers, but sadly, the series only lasted 13 episodes on US network TV.

Muppet motion pictures also continued throughout the 90s with The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992), Muppet Treasure Island (1996) and what would be the last theatrical feature film for Henson's creations for 12 years to come, Muppets From Space (1999).

In 2004, the rights to the Muppets characters were sold to the Walt Disney Company. It was, in fact, the conclusion of a deal that Jim Henson himself had begun negotiating not long before his death. The Disney deal would certainly mean the end of any more adult or riskier material, right?

Um...maybe not.

In a surprisingly hip move, Disney did a deal with Jason Segel to star in and write The Muppets. They were reportedly swayed by his the puppet Dracula musical featured in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Bret Mackenzie was brought on board to write the original songs. James Bobin, who directed all 22 episodes of the Conchords series, was hired to direct. Presumably, all the interesting cameos fell into place after that.

So the question remains: is the new Muppets film merely kids stuff? Subversive adult humour? The answer, as ever, is definitely both.

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

If all had gone to plan, then chances are we would have been seeing The Wolverine in cinemas this summer, with Darren Aronofsky directing, and Hugh Jackman starring.

But all didn’t go to plan. Aronofsky quit the project, and then production was held up by the tragedy of last year’s Japanese earthquake. The Wolverine was to have been shot partly in Japan.

Since then, James Mangold (Knight And Day, Cop Land) has signed up to direct the film, whilst Hugh Jackman’s filming commitments to Les Miserables have added another delay.

But it seems, at last, that The Wolverine is ready to go. Fox has formally announced that the film has a release date, and you can expect to see it (and, more than likely, Jackman as Wolverine for the last time) on July 26th 2013.

More news on the film as we get it. Our guess is that X-Men: First Class’ sequel will then follow in the summer of 2014. The other active X-Men movie, Deadpool, remains in limbo a little.

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

Appreciating we might not be setting the bar very high here, goal one for the incoming Clash Of The Titans remake sequel, Wrath Of The Titans, is simply not to be rubbish. Goal two is to have 3D that doesn’t make the film worse. Beyond that? Well, it’d be really rather nice if the film was actually good, too.

We suspect it’s not just us whose memories of 2010’s Clash Of The Titans aren’t fond, though. We’ve got until March 30th to wait to see if the sequel is better, and Warner Bros has just released some new posters for it. That’s what you’ll see on this very page, and clicking on thumbnails, as always, is the way to make them bigger.

More on Wrath Of The Titans as we get it.

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

Appreciating it’s a film that not too many of us were interested in when it was announced, the remake of The Karate Kid, starring Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan, actually turned out really quite well (if long). It also made a lot of money, which makes the confirmation of a sequel to it no surprise at all.

Variety reports that Columbia Picture has hired Zak Penn (whose most recent work was the TV show, Alphas) to put together a screenplay for the movie, and the plan is for both Chan and Smith to return for the follow-up.

Director Harald Zwart is a fair bet to step back behind the camera, too, given that he expressed interest in the project back in 2010, just after the first film hit big.

Here’s the story at Variety.

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

You wait five years for a new Aardman Animation film, and then two of them come along at once.

Last November, we had the charming Arthur Christmas, a film that hit big in the UK, yet strangely underperformed in the US. That, perhaps, explains why the forgettable Puss In Boots got an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature, and the far superior Arthur Christmas didn’t.

Here’s hoping for better international fortunes, then, for the stop motion animated The Pirates!, which goes under a different title depending on where you live. In the UK, it’s The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists. In the US, which is where this new poster originates from, it’s The Pirates! Band Of Misfits.

It’s an odd decision to run with two different titles, although when we went to a footage preview before Christmas, Sony didn’t seem too concerned, arguing that most people will simply call the film The Pirates! Our thought? They can call it what they like as long as they go and watch it. New Aardman movies remain something to treasure.

Here’s that poster.

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

The first trailer we got for The Amazing Spider-Man last year was, in truth, a bit of a disappointment. It built up a tease to a reflected look at a character who we'd seen on the cinema screen only a few years before, and the reaction to it wasn't particularly great.

We expect the reaction this time around to be far more positive. For Sony has released a much better second trailer now for the film, and it's on far surer ground with it. Take a look and see what you think, and then check out our report (if you want to, of course) on the near ten-minutes of other footage from the film that we've seen.

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

It’s another five months until The Amazing Spider-Man hits cinemas worldwide, but last night, fans and critics alike were treated to a sneak peek of footage at a preview event which brought together the film’s stars, as well as audiences of Spider-philes from cities worldwide.

Initially introduced by Chris Hewitt, a live link-up connected the audience to similar events in Los Angeles, New York and Rio de Janeiro, with the film’s stars and creators in attendance – Director Mark Webb in LA, Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) and producers Avi Arad & Matt Tolmach in Rio, Rhys Ifans (The Lizard) in London and Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker) from – where else? - New York. Each was greeted with rapturous reactions, with Stone and Garfield particularly surprised at the strong receptions they got, just managing to mumble out some nervous thank-yous over the applause.

To begin with, Webb introduced a preview showing of the new trailer, in full, glorious, artistically redundant 3D. Available online soon (if not already!), the new trailer is everything the previous, somewhat lacklustre one wasn’t. The moodiness has vanished, replaced by comic book action, dizzying cityscapes and actors so beautiful that they’ll bring tears to your troll-like faces. And best of all, there wasn’t a first-person sequence in sight.

A brief Q&A followed, delivered from one city to the next via the satellite link-up. Webb was first to deliver his impression of the film, stating that this one focuses more on Peter’s relationship with his parents (er…) and the emotional effects of losing them at a young age. He also said he hoped to bring a more “naturalistic” treatment of the character to the screen.

Stone got an easy question – How is Gwen different from Mary-Jane? – drawing muted groans from the London crowd of Spider-aficionados, all of whom could answer it in ten different ways. A tentative Stone eventually concluded that Gwen is “the Yin to Mary-Jane’s Yang” by virtue of her good-girl persona and strong parental relationships, and stated that where MJ fell in love with Spider-Man, Gwen falls in love with Peter. Then she looked around hopefully for some confirmation that she had said the right thing. Ah well, close enough.

Asked what makes the Lizard different from other Spider-Man villains, Ifans explained that Spider-Man’s foes all tend to be quite human and flawed, mirroring Peter Parker, and that the Lizard specifically worked because of his connection to Peter’s father.

Finally, Garfield answered his question – why do you want to be Spider-Man? – with quick, Spidey-like wit: “Because I’m not an idiot!” Unlike Stone’s plainly memorised regurgitation of the character, and Ifans’ relative ignorance of the comic version, Garfield threw himself into explaining his excitement with enthusiasm and knowledge. “Everyone in the room wants to be Spider-Man” he said, “And it belongs to everyone. It could be anyone behind that mask, and right now it’s me, and before it was Tobey, and maybe next time it’ll be a half-Black, half-Latino actor. I hope so.”

Although the majority of people laughed, perhaps confused by the oblique reference to Miles Morales, the half-Black, half-Latino Ultimate Spider-Man who recently replaced Peter Parker – but I couldn’t help smiling. That, right there, is a fan. He didn’t need someone to coach that speech for him – he’s had it inside him his entire life. No matter how good or bad this film turns out to be, Andrew Garfield has won me over.

With the Q&A concluded, Webb introduced an 8-minute sizzle reel, shown in 2D due to unfinished effects, though he was keen to emphasise that the film was fully shot in 3D. The results could not have been more encouraging.

SPOILERS From here!

Highlights included clips of Peter’s high-school life before Spider-Man, where things start off quite close to the Raimi film – the young photographer and nerd getting into fights with Flash Thompson – though in this case, he’s protecting someone else, taking the punches as a result. Later, the (presumably powered-up) Peter lifts Flash up against a locker by his neck.

It soon veers into its own territory, showing Peter receiving a dressing-down from Uncle Ben follows, in which delivers the immortal lesson (without the immortal line…) as being Peter’s father’s creed. He then informs Peter that his actions mean he’s had to change shifts at work, so Peter will have to collect his Aunt. Looks like they’re doing away with the 'wrestler' portion of the origin story, then…

The scene with Ben segues into an awkward encounter between Gwen and Peter, where the two do nothing but mumble adorably at one another (Naturalistic Spider-Man indeed!) in a sequence we can only dub 500 Days of Spider-Man.

The romance between Gwen and Peter is clearly a big portion of the film, as a later scene shows Peter sitting in at dinner with the Stacys, defending Spider-Man against Captain Stacy. But that’s it for talking! The rest of the reel shows Peter and Connors in the moments before their transformations, then a comedic montage of Peter waking up with his powers (completely different to Raimi’s approach!).

We also see Peter looking through his father’s old effects, creating a costume by hand, and showing him tweaking something that looks very much like a web-shooter. We see Spider-Man chased by the police. Stalked by The Lizard. Web slinging, buildings toppling, and best of all – some actual jokes! Spider-Man wisecracks were the one thing about the character that Raimi failed to nail, so seeing Spider-Man mock a car thief for dressing like a car thief or mocking a crook who pulls a knife on him (“Knives! My one weakness! How did you know?”) makes it clear that those emo-Spider-Man trailers were, thankfully, a misfire.

SPOILERS END.

The reel ended, the stars bid farewell, with an excitable Garfield praising the crowd and telling audiences that the film was out “Later this year! I don’t know when!” before being reminded: July 3rd. It’s already in my calendar.

In London, we were then treated to a brief Q&A with Rhys Ifans, who was drew laughter from the crowd in typical Welsh form – self-deprecating and monosyllabic humour. After delivering a somewhat rambling response to the question about the origins of his Lizard (Ultimate or Silver Age comics? Eventual conclusion: both), one fan asked if the Lizard would grow a snout at any point during the film, since the character’s visual is considerably different from the comic version’s (the pictures of the action figure are out there, and reflect what we saw onscreen). Ifans’ response? “No, but he could smell you a mile off.” Er, right then.

Concluding with the distribution of a free t-shirt for every attendee  worldwide (a universal currency), the preview was undeniably a success, and has single-handedly turned my opinion of this film completely around after a succession of disappointing trailer and promo shots.

Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. But it looks very, very good. Better than Raimi’s origin? Time will tell – but if nothing else, it proves that the battle for best superhero film of the summer is far from a foregone conclusion.

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

The Woman In Black marks a few firsts. One, it’s the first foray into the gothic ghost story for the revived Hammer, a studio famous for its classic, gory interpretations of Dracula and Frankenstein. Two, it marks the cinema debut for Susan Hill’s 1983 novel of the same name, having already conquered the West End as the second longest-running stage play in its history.

Three, this is the first post-Potter outing for Daniel Radcliffe, who stars as Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer haunted by both the recent death of his wife and the terrifying ghost of the film’s title. Having already made a successful debut weekend at the US, The Woman In Black arrives in UK cinemas this Friday, and in the run-up, we spoke to Radcliffe about Hammer movies, the British film industry, and what it's like to move on from the Harry Potter franchise...

So, you read the script for The Woman In Black on the plane just after you’d finished Harry Potter, is that right?

That’s correct, we finished filming on the 29th of June and I read the script on the plane going to America that night four hours after we did the last shot, and it was amazing. I think one of the reasons I was so excited by the script was because I’d never imagined myself doing horror, it was never something that I gravitated towards myself particularly.

Also, Jane’s writing (Jane Goldman, screenwriter) is kind of amazing. It’s a testament to her writing that I read the script in an hour, it’s mainly stage directions and there’s not much dialogue, but it’s written so well and so compelling that I just raced through it.

Then I met the director, James (Watkins), and I immediately felt that we shared a vision for the film, that it was not just a horror film but something where the characters aren’t just an excuse to scare people but actually characters who have real relationships, and it’s got real heart as well. So it was a chance to do something different, great script, great part, great director, the holy trinity!

What intrigued you about the nature of your role in The Woman In Black? Did you see that as a way of making a statement about where you want to go next?

I was never under any illusions that this would be the one film that I would do and everyone would say “Oh, he’s no longer Harry Potter”. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but I think it will start that. I think I look very different in this film, I think it’s a very different type of performance that I give.

When you play Harry my own natural energy and attack is very useful because that’s kind of how Harry is as well, but, with a part like this it was all about trying to completely suppress and deaden my own natural energy and give the look of somebody who had had the vitality taken out of him by the circumstances of his life.

I think that even if people go with Harry Potter in mind, after the first ten minutes they’re just going to be involved in the story and not be thinking about other things, but, you know I could be wrong…

Did you ever see The Woman In Black stage play?

No, I never went on that school trip, everyone else I know has seen it on a school trip, and for reasons I need not go into I wasn’t at school very much. So I missed out on that one, and I never read the book at AS level either. My friends have either studied the book, or went to see the play at school but I never did either of those things.

I read the book, obviously, once I’d finished the script and knew I was meeting James. I still haven’t seen the play. I know will, but I couldn’t see it before for the same reason I didn’t watch the TV movie that was made, just because I copy, that’s what I do, that’s why I have to stay away from older interpretations of a part if I want to make it my own.

You’ve a link to the TV movie of The Woman In Black too haven’t you?

I know! Adrian Rawlins who played my dad in Potter played my part in the original The Woman In Black TV movie. I like the idea that the Potter family has the monopoly on this character.

How did you go about preparing for the role of Arthur Kipps in the film?

Thankfully I’ve never been bereaved. It’s something that you’re never going to fully be able to imagine yourself into that mind-set. So I spoke to a grief counsellor, and particularly I was interested in whether, if your wife dies during childbirth, what kind of relationship would that mean that you had with your son. Would there be resentment there? The answer I got was a definitive yes.

Then I read a couple of books, one called A Grief Observed by CS Lewis and there was another one called Get Over It, it was an amazing book about the grieving process.

What direction do you want to take next?

Next, I’ve got a movie in March which is about a 30 day shoot called Kill Your Darlings. It’s about a murder that’s the catalyst that forms the beat generation. I play a 19-year-old Allan Ginsberg with Dane DeHaan who plays Lucien Carr, my best friend at the time. Jack Huston is playing Jack Kerouac, and Elizabeth Olsen is playing Edie Parker. It’s very exciting, The Women In Black was James’ second film, and this is John Krokidas’ first feature.

Everyone wants to work with Scorsese and Spielberg, but I find the prospect equally exciting that I might be working with the next Scorsese. I think that’s very exciting, to be working with young hungry directors.

Did you have to audition for The Women In Black, or are you one of those actors who’d storm out in a sulk if you were asked to audition?

Oh no absolutely not. Actually, one of the things that I cannot fathom is young actors who will not audition and won’t read. I was talking to a director recently and one of the first things I say when I meet directors is if you want me to read for this I’m more than happy to, because they just don’t expect that because young actors just don’t.

I don’t think it’s the actors themselves – it seems like it’s their agents who don’t want them to be exposed, which I find very strange. But I know that people generally speaking have only seen me in one role, and I need to prove to them that I can do other stuff. If that means auditioning then fine, I’ll audition.

For Kill Your Darlings, I auditioned originally when I was doing Equus on Broadway, was when that first came around I got the part, then I went off to film Harry Potter 6 and the film was like, “Well we’re going now so we have to go without you I’m afraid”, and they cast Jesse Eisenberg and Chris Evans and that was that incarnation of the film. Then the financing fell through that time and now when John started again he came back and said, “Hey look, we’re trying again, you’re now available, do you want to do it again.”

Did the notion that The Woman In Black was going to be made by Hammer appeal to you?

I’m somebody who is very, very proud to have been a part of the British film industry all my life and to have been involved with a very important piece of British film history. So yeah, to be going from  something as prestigious as Potter to something as equally prestigious as Hammer was very exciting. There are a few weird links between Potter and Hammer too, in that Amanda who did my makeup for all the Potter films, her dad, Eddie Knight, had done all the makeup for the original Hammers.

I used to watch Dracula as our end-of-term film at school too – we had a copy of it in the telly cupboard, so I used to watch that a lot. I felt I wanted to be fulfilling what I regard as the Peter Cushing role. If The Woman In Black had been made then, Peter Cushing would have beaten me to this part ten times out of ten.

Does it seem weird that you said if you attach yourself to the project that it would get the green light?

This project was already far enough along and had enough people behind it, including the Hammer name to be getting it going, I was just the final thing that was needed.

You’re being modest…

I promise it’s not false modesty though. There are very, very few actors whose name you know… even people like me and Rob Pattinson, who are at the moment big names and bankable - whatever that means - there are very few actors whose saying yes to something would mean a green light for that film. I think probably George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Johnny Depp, are the only three that have that kind of pull, and that comes from how they’ve had very long careers and are universally respected as actors and as professionals. So there’s a long way to go before we’re at that stage.

But it is also a very nice thing to know that you are going to be able to help get films made that otherwise might not get made. Particularly, I’m in a position now where I am very fortunate financially on Potter, so I don’t have to work for the money now, and I can just do things that interest me. I like the idea of not having to do stuff for the money, and if I want to, I can pick indie projects for the rest of my life and be quite happy doing that.

Did you have lots of different scripts sent to you when you were finishing Harry Potter?

There were a few around the end. There were certainly two or three that we were looking at, but this kind of went straight to the top of the pile as soon as it arrived. It was the best, most complete film script that I read. It was also the one with the most realistic chance of filming soon, so everything about it was kind of perfect.

Was there anything that stands out you had to say “No” to?

One of them was a comedy. It wasn’t really about saying no, it was more the fact that they were nowhere near ready to go and The Woman In Black was in a place where it was getting ready to go and if I entered and got attached then it, would probably be the last little boost it needed to get it over the finish line. It wasn’t so much saying no to other things – some of those things are probably on the table, just not in the immediate future.

When you receive scripts to read, are there things that make you think “Oh, that’s something I won’t do”, a pet peeve?

I don’t think there’s anything that I would really balk at doing on screen. I have got certain pet peeves about writing. One pet peeve I have when reading scripts is when they give you a line reading, there will be a line next to your character’s name that says “very angry”, and you think , “Well I’ll decide that, actually”. There are little things like that, that’s a slight pet peeve, but most scripts have them so that’s something all actors have a little issue with.

Were you taken aback by the massive amount of affection that the last Potter film generated?

It was wonderful. I’m very proud of the franchise because these are big movies, made ostensibly by an American studio – Warner Brothers – and we manage to keep the integrity and the care, there was never a moment when anyone got complacent, everyone always really cared and wanted to make great films.

To have kept that ethic up for ten years is impressive and is deserving of the affection and love that it generated. It was a wonderful thing, the moment I’ll never forget is standing in the square, I mean somebody said there were 25,000 people there. It was crazy.

What do you remember about your first Potter press junket?

I remember it very clearly. I remember seeing Lizo Mzimba there and thinking, oh my god! Lizo is here, he’s off Newsround, I’m really excited. It was bizarre, I remember Rupert and Emma being really sweet to me. I’d only read the first two books at that point and I’d completely forgotten the second one, and somebody in the interview asked, “Who is Tom Riddle?” and Rupert was writing the answers down for Harry Potter questions I didn’t know the answers to and trying to slide them over to me. I look back on that day with great affection.

Speaking of the last Harry Potter film, you and a few other senior people  in the movie have said that you should probably be considered for an Oscar, do you still feel very strongly about that now that we’re in that fever? [NB: Interview took place before the 2012 Oscar nominations were announced.]

I feel very strongly about Alan [Rickman]. I feel it would have been wonderful for him to get some recognition because I think what Alan’s done is an incredible achievement. Obviously, there are a lot of other actors too – Christopher Plummer particularly in Beginners gives an amazing performance. Alan manages to give such an emotive performance in not very much screen time, he tells such a clear story. I thought he just did it wonderfully.

In terms of the rest of it… Do I think we’re the best picture of the year? No, probably not. Do I think we’re a great movie? Absolutely.
How much of a pat on the back do we really want? We’ve made $6 billion worldwide at this point. If you think about that, it’s not just about box office figures which, when they’re quoted, can sound very cold, but what that means is that people not only went and saw the film, but they went back again and again and again to the cinema.

I met someone once after the second film had come out who’d seen the film 20 times at the cinema. That’s mind-blowing to me, but people really love them and it speaks to the affection for what we did, and they go back and back and back. Obviously an Oscar would be lovely, but we’re not desperately in need of it.

Do you ever think you’ll get to the stage of Alec Guinness who advised Star Wars fans not to go and see it again?

I’m just not sure. I always remember there was something Robert Smith (lead singer from The Cure) said about fans which I’ve always remembered, which is that someone asked why he still dresses the way he does on stage and he said it was because people went to his shows dressed like that, and if they look up and saw him not dressed like that it’s somehow a betrayal. So I’m not going to be one of those punks who claims they were never in a band 20 years later who is a stockbroker now.

I’m always going to be very proud of Potter and what it has done for me. There’s no way I would be doing The Woman In Black or would have got to Broadway without it. So I never want to play down my association, it’s something I will always be very proud of and the fandom is a wonderful crazy thing. Maybe in 30 years then I’ll change my mind, but for now I will not discourage anybody from watching those films.

As someone who’s grown up in the British film industry, do you have anything to say about David Cameron’s recent comments about the need to make more commercial films here?

I kind of don’t know where they came from, I think it’s bizarre. I haven’t seen the context yet, I do have to say that. But he’s saying we should make more commercial films and I mean, how much more commercial do you mean than Captain America, War Horse, and Harry Potter [all filmed in the UK]?

We’ve made the most successful commercial franchise in film history here over the last ten years, and last year we had quite a lot of really big films being made here. Also he can’t just offer a decree unless he’s going to offer some incentive. We’re not going to be able to compete with Eastern Europe unless he’s talking about tax breaks or something like that, which I don’t know that he is.

So you can’t just say “We need to make more commercial”, it kind of sounds like someone who doesn’t have an understanding of the industry. But hey, he’s a politician so he must be right. I’m sure they wouldn’t speak so confidently if they were at all ill-informed [Just in case it doesn’t come across, Radcliffe delivers this last line with not a small amount of sarcasm].

Would you be interested in producing your own material and forming your own company?

Down the line, absolutely. I would love to self-generate films, I think it would  be amazing. Directing is more what I would like to get into eventually. Frankly I feel like it would be a waste if I didn’t because I’ve spent so much time on film sets and I know how they work and I love them, and I love leading them. I would like to do that as a director definitely.

I’m looking at people at the moment like the guy who wrote Martha Marcy May Marlene, Sean Durkin, and that is a completely self-generated film. He wrote that himself, directed it himself, got the financing and produced it. That kind of filmmaking I think is really exciting and gives a kind of creative freedom that all directors aspire to. I think that’s the way to do it.

How self-critical are you?

Very critical, I hate watching myself. But I know I have to watch it because I know I’m going to be asked about it, so I need to have some semblance of knowing what the film is like. It’s not an enjoyable experience watching yourself. I hate it less than I used to, but I still don’t enjoy it. I am critical but I try not to get to a point where… Being self-critical is good, begin self-hating is destructive. There’s a very fine line there somewhere, and I walk it carefully.

Do you ever Google yourself?

I have. Do you know why I Google myself? I Google myself to find out what it says when you type in Daniel Radcliffe [on autosuggest]. That’s always very amusing. I believe at the moment it’s Daniel Radcliffe, Daniel Radcliffe Gay, Daniel Radcliffe Twitter, Daniel Radcliffe Alcoholic, which is kind of awesome.

What was great was when me and my girlfriend got photographed for the first time together within 48 hours when you typed in ROSA - her name’s Rosanne Coker - she was Google’s third search result between Rosacea and Rosa Parks. I find that quite amusing and also what I love about the gay thing is that really every single person I type into Google, anybody, if you are not being called gay, you don’t have a career.

Playing Allen Ginsberg will help with that one… Do you pay any attention to it or do you just blank it out?

A little bit. Sometimes you can’t help but pay attention to it, because sometimes you’ve got mates texting you going, “What’s this? Tell me!” But you try not to pay too much attention to it because it’s generally not constructive. It can be very funny, and in that case it’s fine to pay attention to it if you’re going to laugh about it.

But if it’s going to get you angry then it’s a big pointless waste of energy, so I try and be selective about what I take an interest in reading about myself. I don’t read articles but occasionally somebody will say, “This has come out. Just so you know, you’ll probably  get asked about this so read it!” but generally speaking you just let it wash over you.

You’re often asked to mock yourself and your career on TV, what with Extras and your recent Saturday Night Live performance. When writers come to you with ideas for skits, do you ever think ‘Hang on, that’s actually a bit hurtful’?

Not at all, no. Especially with the Potter sketches on SNL – most of the people writing that are massive Potter fans, so it’s all done with love. I don’t ever see it as taking the piss. The comedian Brendon Burns has got a great line where he says “You’re in the alpha male club, it’s time to sit back and have a fucking sense of humour about yourself”, and I think that’s it. Once you’ve been in the biggest film franchise in the world, people are going to make jokes and that’s fine.

But also I’ve had some great references. I got mentioned in The Thick of It which was one of my favourite mentions ever, I remember the line, it was, “If you resign now, this party will be out of power until Daniel Radcliffe is advertising walk-in baths in People’s Friend.” I was very, very pleased with that, and also there are a couple of great Harry Potter references in South Park. I think you’ve got to be able to laugh at yourself.

Do you have any more plans for theatre?

Absolutely, that’s my next mission, to find a play to do in England. That’s what I want to do. I’ve been in New York for the last couple of shows, and they did talk about [the Broadway musical Radcliffe has been starring in] How To Succeed In Business coming to London, but I was tired and I’d done it for 11 months, which is longer than I’ve ever done a stage run before.

Do you think Potter would work on stage?

Erm… [makes a horrified face]. I’ve been asked. I know Darren Criss did the Very Potter musical, but I don’t think there should ever be an official version of it. I don’t think Jo would sanction that either,  I’m pleased to say.

Daniel Radcliffe, thank you very much.

The Woman In Black comes out in the UK this Friday. Our review's here.

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

Well, that story didn’t last too long.

Yesterday, it was widely reported (including by us) that Harrison Ford was involved in a natter or two about signing up for Ridley Scott’s new Blade Runner movie. Given that the film’s financier’s, Alcon Entertainment, had given the strong impression that the new movie would involve Scott only from the original, this seemed like something of a long shot. And so it’s proved.

Chatting to Deadline, an Alcon rep said that “it is absolutely patently false that there has been any discussion about Harrison Ford being in Blade Runner”. He added that “what we are trying to do with Ridley now is go through the painstaking process of trying to break the back of the story, figure out the direction we're going to take the movie and find a writer to work on it."

That last comment suggests that the new Blade Runner movie isn’t quite as far along as we might have thought. If there’s still no writer in place for it, and the story hasn’t been hammered down, then it’s a couple of years off at the earliest, it would seem.

It does seem clear though that, whenever it turns up, Harrison Ford will not be involved…

Deadline

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