After the global success of Borat in 2006, the notoriety of the follow up Bruno, and not to mention the extravagant public appearances, Sacha Baron Cohen must have wondered how he could continue his career if everyone recognised him and his characters. The solution he has come up with in The Dictator is to depart from the hidden camera hijinks he became famous for and instead go back to a more conventional narrative comedy style. But I wonder whether this was a choice on his part or if he is a victim of his own success.

Luckily the film itself is pretty funny - fans of Baron Cohen will not be disappointed - but the bad news is it does not reach the giddy heights of Borat. In fact, it has more in common with Ali G in Da House than his last two mockumentaries. 

The latest character to be unleashed on audiences is General Aladeen, the beloved oppressor of the fictional North African state of Wadiya. He struts around his oil rich nation as the supreme ruler where all his subjects have to obey his every whim. That is until his jealous uncle (played by Ben Kingsley) stages a coup during a trip to a United Nations summit in New York. Aladeen escapes but robbed of  his trademark beard he is forced to walk the streets as an anonymous foreigner. Liberal American Zoe (Anna Faris) takes pity on him and takes the deposed leader on as an employee at her organic food store. 

The aim of the film is to make the viewer sympathise with someone who is completely detestable and it achieves this through sheer brute force. Aladeen is effectively a spoiled toddler given control of a country. He holds his own Olympic games where he wins every medal by shooting anyone who dares to out run him and he orders scientists to be killed because the missiles they make aren't pointy enough. But once you become acclimatised to his exploits you come to care for him as you would any other flawed protagonist. 

The laughs come steadily and there is a good mix of close to the bone un-PC jokes and gross out humour. It's not a movie for those who are sensitive or easily offended either by middle-eastern politics or the sight of genitals. Baron Cohen's trademark sharp satirical sense is also present, especially in *SPOLIER ALERT* a climactic speech when Aladeen describes the benefits of living in a dictatorship which are all too familiar, such as having all the media controlled by one family. 

Although it works as a straightforward story, it lacks the thrill of seeing interactions with actual people. So rather than linking together a series of improvised scenes with a loose plot as in Borat, you get some fairly functional scenes, performed by actors heading, towards a predictable outcome. 

In the end, although it isn't quite a worthy successor, The Dictator is just funny enough to rule on its own. 

So after years of waiting, five reasonably OK movies and hundreds of millions of dollars it's finally here. But was it all worth it? After all that, I'm glad to say, geeks everywhere will be releasing a united sigh of relief so huge it could power a wind farm, because it lives up to the hype.

Avengers sees a diverse group of Marvel heroes join forces to save the world. Previous tie-ins have introduced us to Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America, with a pair of assassins (Black Widow and Hawkeye) thrown in along the way. Under the leadership of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and the organisation S.H.I.E.L.D., they have to put their differences aside to battle Norse God Loki who is threatening to use a magical cube, the Tesseract (not unlike the Allspark in Transformers), to summon an extraterrestrial army to conquer Earth.

With most of the exposition already out of the way, the film is able to let loose and deliver on the fun the concept promises. It's big, crowd-pleasing and genuinely funny, a lot of which is down to über-nerd director Joss Whedon. If there anyone alive would be able to marshal all the different strands into a cohesive story, it would be the Buffy creator. 

There are so many different elements at play with magic, mythology, aliens and technology, all co-existing in the same world. But instead of coming across like someone trying to herd a pack of cats, the film is like watching an impressive juggling act. Most importantly, despite having so many protagonists vying for your attention, each one is given enough time to develop. That being said, Mark Ruffalo as The Incredible Hulk steals the show. After one misjudged (Hulk, 2003) and one forgettable (The Incredible Hulk, 2008) big screen adaptation, they have finally, finally managed to get Dr Bruce Banner and his green alter-ego right. Ruffalo plays Banner as a tragic and reluctant hero, while scenes with the Hulk have some truly hilarious moments.

Tom Hiddleston returns as principle bad-guy Loki and does an excellent job as the evil counterpoint to the six super heroes by striking a balance between menacing mastermind and pantomime villain.

At nearly two-and-a-half hours long it could be accused of being overly long but to be honest the time flies by. It’s not quite the comic book movie to end all comic book movies, but it really is a remarkable achievement. 

A group of American high school students go for a drink, drug and sex-fuelled break in a remote cabin in the forest (so far, so cliché). The stereotypical athletic jock, lusty girlfriend, innocent heroine, black guy and stoner are all accounted for. However, far from being the most formulaic teenage slasher of all time, The Cabin in the Woods manages to turn the whole genre on its head.

The less you know about the content of this film, the better. For that reason, this review will not give away too much if you haven’t already seen it. Modern horror films have become something only hard core fans can enjoy, Drew Goddard's directorial debut clearly seeks to remedy that. 

Co-written by Joss Whedon and Goddard, both of Buffy and Angel fame, Cabin seems like it was made by people who both love and hate predictable horror movies. All the usual clichés are there, but they are used as satirical comments on how weary audiences can see most things coming a mile away. At the same time, it revels in those clichés and there are plenty of knowing references to much-loved classics. It also touches on reality TV culture and the public’s apparent need to build people up just to bring them crashing back down again.

Hardened horror fans might feel that the film’s askance view of the genre compromises the impact of the violence and gore –it is only a 15 – but non-die hards will find it hugely entertaining. I’m not sure if Cabin will completely change how horrors are made from now on, but as a refreshing break from the norm, it works perfectly. 

I went into Battleship with the expectation of seeing something so actively bad, that it's actually good, in the same way as you can't help but watch a train crash or a nutter auditioning for X-factor. However, it was disappointing even in this respect, it was just awful, awful, awful. 

From the same toy company that brought you Transformers - so therefore it must be great- comes this adaptation of the childrens' board game. The story centres on a US navy crew that sets out from Hawaii on a peaceful exercise, but ends up in the middle of an invasion from the most inept aliens since Signs. 

Apparently they decided the best way to take over the planet is from the sea. The enemy creatures are capable of travelling light-years through space but, for reasons that are never made clear, are still unable to fly their ships more than a few feet above the water. Instead they hop around in the ocean like a toddler with arm floaties. You actually start to side more with the aliens as you feel sorry for them, whereas you couldn’t care less about what happens to the human characters. The aliens at least look fairly cool and the humans say idiotic things like: "If we get invaded by aliens it will be like when Columbus discovered the Indians - except we're the Indians!"  

The way it incorporates elements of the board game are so contrived it becomes ridiculous. At one point they have to fight the enemy without seeing where they are, so they actually start playing the game for real on a large grid. The only thing missing is the little red and white pegs. 

Perhaps the worst thing about Battleship is that it seems to be a big, expensive recruitment video for the US Navy. This and the recently released Act of Valour seem to be part of a worrying trend in Hollywood at the moment. But even the bits that try to glorify the servicemen come across as patronising rather than sincere. In one scene, *SPOILER ALERT* a group of elderly seamen take over as the crew of the ship. I'm not sure if these extras were genuine naval veterans, but the whole scene is unintentionally hilarious. It suddenly turns into an American version of Last of the Summer Wine on a boat. 

Battleship is so bad, it nearly sinks to the level of the depth charge that was John Carter of Mars which is currnently front runner for worst film of the year. Both of them star Taylor Kitsch, which begs the question: why is this man in such big movies? Being the lead in two absolute turkeys in the space of a few months cannot be good for his career. 

Director Peter Berg seems to be trying to pay homage to the films of Michael Bay. The plot is basically Transformers meets Pearl Harbour, except the Japanese are now allies and so they have been replaced by extraterrestrials. Unfortunately, any film that tries to be as good as Michael Bay is doomed from the start.

Spring is in full flow, and pretty soon the Sun will be shining, the mercury will be rising and Olympians will be running, which means...it will be time to huddle together in a cold dark room to watch movies. Yes, the summer's bounty of films is approaching, but which ones are worth your hard earned cash? This helpful guide will tell you which ones I predict will be the good, the bad and the turkeys this sunny season. 

Can't wait to see...

1. Prometheus (June 1)

I have a good feeling about this unofficial/loosely-based prequel to the Alien saga, directed by the man who started it all: Ridley Scott. It tells the story of a group of astronauts who discover a spaceship which is possibly the craft from the first Alien, complete with the infamous Space Jockey. With a cast including Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron and Guy Pierce, this is shaping up to be really rather special. Also with rumours circulating that James Cameron wants to direct a sequel, the cycle could be repeating itself all over again. Let's just hope it doesn't end with Prometheus vs Predator 2. 

2. The Dark Knight Rises (July 20)

I had a sneaking suspicion that this would turn out to be a disappointing third instalment, but on second thoughts, Christopher Nolan has a habit of making thought-provoking films that also appeal to the masses. But the question will always be: can it top the genre-altering The Dark Knight? In what promises to be the final chapter in the recent reboot, Batman will face off against Bane, played by Brit Tom Hardy. With the trailer featuring a spectacular shot of an American football field collapsing during a game, I think this could be a match for the previous instalment. 

3. Avengers Assemble (April 26)

Ok, ok, Captain America was forgettable and Thor verged on the ridiculous at times but this comic book crossover could be the superhero film to end them all. If anyone can pull off a film of this magnitude, it is uber-geek Joss Whedon. Whatever you think about his TV programmes (Buffy, Firefly, Angel), he could be the ideal director to hold the various strands together. Marvel characters, including Ironman and The Incredible Hulk, have to put their differences together to prevent the end of the world. If nothing at all, this film should be a larger than life popcorn flick.

4. The Cabin in the Woods (April 13)

This has been out in America for a while now, where it has drawn comparisons with Shaun of The Dead. Speaking as someone who is not the biggest fan of predictable horror films, this seems interesting because it subverts the traditional slasher clichés. If you enjoyed the excellent Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010) this should be right up your street. 

4. Casa de me Padre (May 10) 

Will Ferrrell stars in this comedy with the dialogue entirely in Spanish. I'm sold.

Might be worth a watch...

1. Lockout (April 20)

This Sci-Fi actioner looks like a cross between Die-Hard and Escape From New York. Guy Pierce is a gunslinger who has to enter a high security space prison to rescue the President's daughter. It features a deranged looking Joseph Gilgun from This is England fame. I think it could be great. 

2. Ted (August 3)

The creator of Family Guy, Seth McFarlane directs and co-writes this live-action comedy about a man (Mark Wahlberg) whose childhood teddy comes to life. The trailer is pretty hilarious with the foul-mouthed Ted voiced by McFarlane himself. 

3. Men in Black III (May 25)

This threequel has a lot of making up to do but, who knows, it can't be worse than the second instalment, can it? Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are back in, err, black, this time with some time travelling thrown in for good measure.

4. The Dictator (May 18)

Sacha Baron Cohen introduces a new character, the Middle Eastern despot General Aladeen. This promises to be more of a narrative-led story than his previous mockumentaries Borat and Bruno, with Ben Kingsley and Anna Faris also starring. 

5. The Amazing Spiderman (July 4)

Is it too early to reboot the Spiderman franchise? I guess we'll find out this summer.

6. Total Recall (August 22)

This is a tricky one. On the one hand it is directed by Len "Die Hard 4.0" Wiseman, but, judging by appearances, this could be a slick, 60s style Sci-Fi thriller. Also, anyone who says, "how dare they remake the 1990 classic", should realise the original was hardly Citizen Kane. So it could go either way. 

Avoid like the Plague...

1. Battleship (April 11)

This dire-looking action flick comes with the tagline: "From Hasbro, the toy company that brought you Transformers", as if that is suddenly the new benchmark for quality. It stars Taylor Kitsch, who single-handedly killed Gambit with that awful attempt at an accent in X-Men Origins: Wolverine and who was also in the biggest flop of all time (and rightly so) John Carter of Mars. To compound the misery, Rihanna makes her feature film debut in a role she said she spent ages researching (really?). The plot features aliens, capabale of inter-stellar travel, who decide the best way to attack Earth is via the sea. This just screams shameless cash in and I await with dread the inevitable line, "you sunk my battleship".

2. The Three Stooges (July 20)

No. Just no.

Greek mythology has proven to be a fertile ground for Hollywood as of late. Having a go at re-writing the legends this week is Wrath of the Titans, sequel to the instantly forgettable Clash of the Titans remake from 2010. In this film, half human half god Perseus (Sam Worthington) has retired from Kraken killing to live as simple fisherman with his son. He is called back into action, however, when god of the underworld Hades (Ralph Fiennes) captures his father, Zeus (Liam Neeson), with the help of his jealous half-brother and god-of-war Ares. Perseus has to stop them from unleashing the volcanic Titan Kronos on the world. In order to do this he enlists the help of of Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike) and his cousin, another demi-god called Agenor. Filling the role of Agenor is the talented British actor Toby Kebbell, from the brilliant Dead Man's Shoes and not so brilliant Rock 'n' Rolla. 

The best thing to be said about Wrath is that it avoids being as bad as some of the other recent sword and sorcery epics that have ambled on to screens recently. Clearly, the makers of the first film, which was hardly a runaway success, have taken a look at where they went wrong and tried a different approach this time. The result is a much grimier, grittier and ultimately better movie. The sleek shininess of the first is replaced with a darker hue and the action, which features some impressively long takes, is more up close and personal. 

At a streamlined 99 minutes, you might think it's unfair to call the film an 'epic', but this actually works in its favour. The story is tight enough to sustain your attention more-or-less throughout, unlike the bum-numbingly boring Immortals from last year. It strips away most of the pointless sub-plots and extraneous characters who would only end up dying after five minutes anyway. The plot speeds along nicely up to a satisfying final set-piece which is basically an army versus a volcano. What you are left with is a more focussed and entertaining popcorn movie, but not much else. 

A major problem with the film is Sam Worhington, who has to be the most anonymous leading man in history. How he has been in so many big films is a complete mystery. The director, Jonathan Liebesman, seems to have taken into account his lack of talent and said to him: "Don't worry Sam, you can just speak in your Aussie accent. Trust me, it won't seem distracting in this film set in ancient Greece, because who cares anyway? Just spend most of the film looking sweaty and you'll be fine."

The supporting cast are not much better with Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes looking like they shared a taxi to collect their paychecks. Bill Nighy even pops up for a cameo but is gone in the blink of an eye. Toby Kebbell does his best to lift the film and add some comic relief but his character goes nowhere and the script lets him down. On that note, the dialogue is pretty awful. It sounds like it was written by someone who typed "Greek mythology" into wikipedia and went from there. 

So not a great film, but at least a step in the right direction from the recent spate of bloated, dull 300 rip-offs. 

It would be easy to prejudge The Hunger Games as another young teeny thriller along the lines of Twilight. Something designed for a particular audience, based on a young adult novel, not suitable for anyone with a driving license and a cynical outlook. But it is much more than that. 

Rather than another young adult adaptation sensation, this film deserves respect in its own right. It is, to be honest, a solid piece of Sci-Fi that just happens to be about teenagers. 

It is set in a post conflict North America, where the nation has been divided into 12 districts that are presided over by the affluent and corrupt Capitol, headed by an evil autarch, President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Each year, as a show of its dominance, the Capitol holds a tournament where a boy and girl from each district, aged between 12 and 18, have to fight to the deathon live television. The last one alive is crowned the winner of the Hunger Games. The heroine Katniss puts herself forward instead of her younger sister, who is cruelly picked to fight. 

The plot alone, borrowed from the violent Japanese classic Battle Royale, is fairly harrowing. You are effectively watching young people stab, slash and blow each other up. There were reports that cuts had to be made to achieve the box office friendly 12A certificate, but what did make the final effort certainly pushes the boundaries of what can be allowed. However, when scenes of violence do appear, the director gets the tone exactly right. Instead of revelling in the blood letting, sometimes the sound is lowered or even removed completely, which maintains the shock factor but stops it from entering the realms of exploitation. 

Although it is aimed at pre-teens, the subject matter is positively grown up. There is plenty for a cynical head to enjoy. Such as the satirical spin on modern reality TV, where the Hunger Games are simultaneously a method of social control and the most popular form of entertainment consumed by the masses. Plaudits have rightly been given to Stanley Tucci for his portrayal of the ridiculous yet sinister blue haired TV host. As for the leading lady, Jessica Lawrence is more than competent in portraying the strong yet conflicted Katniss. 

The film is not without it's flaws, at nearly two-and-a-half hours long, there are some inevitable sags in the pace and it drags slightly towards the end. There is some slightly ropey CGI, but with that said, it is genuinely entertaining.

 As the third highest opening for a film in history, maybe the sequels will be even more violent but with a PG rating. 

Dear Mr Dr Yoda,

I am writing this letter to you out of love and appreciation, so let me begin by saying how much I loved your performances in The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of The Jedi. You were truly great in those films. Funny, heartbreaking and most importantly: real. There were times I forgot I was watching a film and I was instantly transported to the Dagobah system. I'm not ashamed to say you moved me to tears. 

But surely an actor of your calibre should realise its time to move on. 

A cursory glance at you imdb page shows me that the only roles you've taken since your Oscar worthy turn in Return of The Jedi has been in the Star Wars prequels. 

Pardon me for being brutally honest but you let yourself down in those movies. They have recently been re-released in 3-D and, on reflection, it was great to show off your athleticism in the light sabre fights (pretty impressive for someone of your age I admit) but you just seemed...soulless. Like you a cartoon or something. 

The icing on the cake, which prompted me to write this plea, was your debasement in those Vodaphone ads. Yes I get it Yodaphone is a clever pun, but taking the greasy corporate dollar flies in the face of everything you ever taught us in your movies. In your own words: "Attachment leads to jealousy, the shadow of greed that is." 

I understand it must be hard out there for actors of your skin tone and stature, as your cousin Kermit says: 'it's not easy being green'. but have you considered being a stunt double for Anthony Hopkins?
And one more thing, I know George Lucas discovered you and gave you you're big break, but I suggest you stop returning his calls from now on. He seems determined to ruin the legacy you created together. 

Yours sincerely, 
A concerned Star Wars fan

Another year, another Academy Awards ceremony over. 

The Artist deservedly won best picture and best director and I'm glad that something out of the ordinary was picked over some pretty dull fare. 

However, it cannot be said that the academy have very unconventional tastes, in fact the opposite is almost invariably true. For instance, a lot of peolple's film of last year was Nicholas Refn's Drive. It was stylish, well acted, visceral and memorable. And how many Oscar nominations did it get? 0. Well, actually one in sound editing. 

But still, this snub has to go down in history with other injustices doled out by Oscar such as Pulp Fiction losing out to Forrest Gump, or the fact Titanic took home 13 little gold statues. Seriously 13!

Or...is it a good thing that Drive lost out.

What are awards anyway? Why does it mean so much to get one? First of all, the people who decide who gets the much coveted prize are on a committee. They judge what constitutes the 'best' by a concensus, in other words what is the least offending and fashionable. 

So when something truly original comes along like the violent masterpiece that is Drive, the committee don't know what to do so they reject it. This has given rise to the so called 'oscar-bait' films, the feel-good, star-spangled and utterly, utterly bland movies that come out every January. I haven't seen Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, but i'm fairly certain it was designed to tick boxes on an Oscar checklist. The fact is, it worked, it got a nomination which probably boosted its box office receipts so its makers walk away happy.

Had Drive tried to appeal to Academy sensibilities, it would not be half the achievement it is. I don't know about you, but I would rather watch something ahead of its time than sit through something mediocre. 

That being said, the Academy have redeemed themselves slightly by recognising the genius of Bret McKenzie (from Flight of The Conchords) and giving him an award for best song for Man or Muppet.

Liam Neeson has fashioed a niche for himself as the preeminent portrayer of no nonsense, man of action types. His latest film, The Grey, sees him continue on this current carer trajectory, along the same lines as his previous roles in Taken and Unknown.

But let's clear something up: Neeson is NOT a bad actor; in fact his performance in Joe Carnahan's latest offering proves just that. You cannot deny the guy has a charisma and a screen presence that draws you in. Yes, he is in danger of becoming typecast and, judging from his cameo appearance in Ricky Gervais' hit-and-miss sitcom Life's Too Short, even he is poking fun at his serious on-screen alter-ego. But he is easily the highlight of The Grey and he manages to hold the emotional weight of the film squarely on his shoulders.

As for the film itself, it is a solid survival drama that tells the tale of a group of Alaskan oil drillers stranded after the plane home from their remote outpost crash lands in the icy wilderness. The survivors then find themselves beset by a pack of wolves, who see them as intruders and are intent on killing them off one by one. Conveniently, a man named Ottway (Neeson), who was hired to protect the workers from wolves, also made it and he now has to lead the handful of men to safety. 

One thing The Grey has going for it is that is so bleak and brutal. There is a distinct lack of clichéd moments of bravery and the plot keeps you guessing enough not to leave you completely indifferent. Although, you are never really given the chance to care about what happens to the supporting characters, as they are little more than pawns in a game of chess between Ottway and the Wolves. 

There are some really suspenseful scenes and director Joe Carnahan clearly realises that what you can't see is more terrifying than what you can. For instance in one scene, the vapour rising in the air from the wolves' breaths as they hide in the trees is enough to get across a sense of real menace. However, when he actually shows the lupine stalkers, the CGI is pretty ropey and there is nothing threatening about the cartoonish wolves.

It is possible to view the film on some level as an existential exploration of death and how far we will go to survive. However, in that respect, the ending might be a bit disappointing to some and cinema goers were audibly disgruntled as the credits started rolling when I saw it. 
I was expecting two hours of Liam Neeson punching wolves; in the end, it was probably deeper than that.