Ostensibly a satire on Middle Eastern despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Cohen’s General Admiral Aladeen has “lovingly oppressed” his oil-rich home country of Wayida. He subsequently heads to the UN in New York to denounce their latest sanctions against his nuclear weapons programme (which, in between knowing smirks and guffaws, he insists aren’t for attacking Israel). Shortly afterwards he is abducted by a member of his American security detail who cuts off his beard; leading to a series of events that leaves him unrecognisable and penniless on the streets of New York, Prince and the Pauper style.

Director Larry Charles helms the piece well, but the gag rate is hit and miss. The ones that stick are invariably the more shocking – for instance, Aladeen plays a terrorism computer game on his Wii with a level entitled “Munich Olympics” – but there are also much broader gross-out gags, one involving a pregnant woman that will have many squirming in discomfort. It hardly needs saying that this film is not one for the easily offended. It contains strong language and bawdy sex-related humour throughout (one scene suggests Aladeen’s oppressive tendencies are down to a lack of self-abuse), although I must say much of it had me in stitches.

There is some good support in the cast from the likes of Anna Farris and Ben Kingsley, and there are a few amusing cameos. Additionally, a speech near the end provides a surprisingly pertinent comment on how America itself is something of a dictatorship. However, as a whole The Dictator lacks the savage satirical bite of, say, Four Lions, and it has a surprisingly feel-good vibe which takes the edge off a bit. That said it’s worth a watch, especially for fans of Cohen.

Simon Dillon, May 2012.

On the other hand, if The Raid is your idea of a good time, then you’re in for an action-packed treat that’s even more entertaining than the recent Jason Statham picture Safe. Writer/director Gareth Evans has crafted something of an instance genre classic; a stripped-down, no nonsense melee of suspense and brutal conflict. The threadbare plot involves an armed response policeman who finds himself trapped inside a high-rise building filled with dangerous criminals after an ill-conceived raid to capture the criminal mastermind goes awry. However, this setup is merely the hook on which the tremendous set pieces hang. The fights are brilliantly choreographed, often shot in long takes, and with no CG pixels in sight, they look bruisingly, painfully real.

Obviously The Raid owes a huge debt to the likes of Die Hard, Assault on Precinct 13, Hard Boiled and several other weapons grade action pictures, but it also feels unique enough to stand on its own two feet. When it’s not kicking someone in the face, that is.

There are occasional interesting moral/spiritual bits and pieces amid the bloody mayhem – an interesting example of reaping what you sow, and a sibling conflict that isn’t really properly resolved. But you won’t leave the film pondering spiritual matters. You’ll leave feeling as though you haven’t breathed for an hour and forty minutes.

In conclusion I can only reiterate the extreme nature of the violence (and accompanying swearing) contained herein. For some, this will be a turn-off. For others, it means the highest possible recommendation. Either way, you have been warned.

Simon Dillon, May 2012.

Safe is a cracking bit of bone-crunching action cinema, with Statham on top form as suicidal down-and-out Luke, who is suddenly given a fresh reason to live in the form of eleven year old Chinese girl Mei (Catherine Chan). Kidnapped by Chinese gangsters on account of her photographic memory, Mei has memorised a code which is also wanted by Russian gangsters and various corrupt policeman. Whilst fleeing all three sets of villains, Luke becomes her protector, and in the process his mysterious past comes to light in between scenes of brutal violence.

And it’s certainly violent, with a body count to match the heyday of 1980s action movies. The fights are spectacularly choreographed, and it’s impossible not to cheer Statham on as he unleashes righteous vengeance on all manner of scumbag villains. In the grand tradition of such films, the one-dimensional baddies thoroughly deserve everything they get having been well established as utterly reprehensible within the first act.

All that said, there are some strongly redemptive elements amid the punch-ups and shoot-outs, most of which occur as a result of the (appealing unsentimental) bond between Mei and Luke. There are also understated spiritual lessons that are bang-on from a Christian perspective, which I shan’t discuss as it would spoil the plot. I can understand why the violence (and swearing) might put off some people, but if action movies are your thing, Safe is a hugely entertaining slice of popcorn mayhem.

Simon Dillon, May 2012.

He loves trailers for films that aren’t suitable for him.

This candid admission brought back memories of watching enjoyably disreputable trailers from my own cinematic childhood. There is something thrilling about those tantalising glimpses of forbidden fruit; of something dark and grown-up that you will most certainly not be permitted to view. Just as I recall watching edgy previews for the likes of Aliens, The Untouchables, Beverly Hills Cop and Jagged Edge, so my son finds trailers for Safe, Prometheus, Dark Shadows, The Woman in Black and other unsuitable features a fascinating and invigorating part of the cinema experience. Of course the trailers never show anything too disturbing, but they hint at it, and sometimes the effect of what isn’t shown sets the imagination racing even more. 

All of which got me pondering, what are my favourite ten trailers of all time? Not just the scary ones, or the most famous examples from cinema history (such as Hitchcock’s memorable trailer for Psycho), but those that really hooked my interest at the time for one reason or another. In some cases these trailers turned out to advertise pretty poor films (conversely, some terrible trailers turn out to advertise great films), but that isn’t really the point. Here then, in no particular order of merit, are ten examples of trailers that really hit the spot for me when the films in question were about to be released:

Dune full theatrical trailer: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg06ZBdHb5M

This was the first trailer to ever seriously grab my attention. Obviously I’d seen trailers before, but this one, with its over-the-top eighties style narration, made me desperate to see what appeared to be a more grown up version of Star Wars. The film turned out to be a mess (even though the novel is great), but the trailer had me riveted. 

Teen Wolf full theatrical trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbIerQkXm_k 

I don’t know why, but I remember loving the bit where his eyes go red in the shop during this trailer. The film isn’t great, but the trailer really got my attention, which is obviously the point.

Jagged Edge full theatrical trailer: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx3BeVHNUtI

Unfortunately I can’t find the full version of this trailer anywhere online, but here is a snippet. This 18 certificate courtroom thriller is one of my favourites and worth repeat viewings even if you know the ending. Back in 1986, the trailer had me on the edge of my seat. I can also remember the tuts of disapproval from my friend’s Dad that such a trailer would be on before whatever children’s feature we happened to have gone to see. 

The Untouchables full theatrical trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIF_WdPUBFo 

I remember seeing the trailer for this before a James Bond film my Dad had taken me to see. I really wanted to see it but I was too young. When I did finally see it (on video) the film was even better than the trailer, and it remains one of my all time favourites.

Batman full theatrical trailer: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdEHOta-Uc

Bearing in mind that for years all I had seen of Batman was the 60s TV series, when I first caught this glimpse of Tim Burton’s dark vision, I was overwhelmed by just how different (and truer to the comics) it was. The film didn’t quite live up to expectations, but I still love the trailer. 

Terminator 2: Judgement Day second teaser trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KfJ9kqRec4 

The full theatrical trailer for this film spoils too much, but this one generates tremendous excitement for this action packed spectacle. Great film too.

Independence Day first teaser trailer: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYJfxI6QjJQ

This simple teaser, culminating in the exploding White House, told you everything you needed to know about this alien invasion extravaganza, and back in 1996 it had me really excited. The film itself remains a disappointment beyond act one. 

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace teaser trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYkHD9y8EqI 

As the first taste of a new Star Wars film in sixteen years, I was as excited as everyone else. Of particular note was the subtle way Vader’s breathing is mixed into the opening seconds. Great trailer. The film however was another matter.

Spider-Man first teaser trailer: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xNgtWG09TQ

This notorious teaser was pulled from cinemas following the 9/11 attacks, as it featured Spiderman capturing a bank robbers helicopter in a web between the world trade centre. All the footage was removed from the final cut of the film, which in my opinion was a crying shame. Still, it’s a great trailer. 

The Incredibles teaser trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU6Djgf0gNo 

A great example of Pixar’s marketing genius. A very funny scene that gets across the spirit of the film perfectly, but that didn’t make the final cut. Nor should it have.

And also worth a mention… 

Born of the Fourth of July teaser trailer:

Another trailer I can’t find online anywhere (hence its excision from this list, although the other, less effective trailer is available). A great shame, as the montage of powerful images and music (the incomparable John Williams with one of his best non-Spielberg scores) really seized my attention at the time. The film is good too, possibly Oliver Stone’s best. 

Perhaps at some point I will list ten really terrible trailers (trailer trash, if you will)…

Simon Dillon, May 2012.

I am getting thoroughly fed up with the prevalence of supposedly hip, smug, self-referential “look-we’re-poking-fun-at-the-genre” pseudo-innovation in the horror genre in particular. I’m not saying it’s impossible to poke fun at a genre whilst creating a tremendous example of it in its own right (Pixar’s The Incredibles is a good example, though obviously from the superhero genre, not horror), but The Cabin in the Woods fails because of one very obvious factor: it isn’t scary. Or at least, it won’t be scary to its target audience.

Oh, it’s certainly gory. Repulsively so. But gore is a tool that should be employed selectively in horror films, and throwing buckets of blood and dismemberment at the screen is no substitute for genuine scares and chills. During The Cabin in the Woods I craved the straightforward gothic terror of The Woman in Black – a film that succeeded in scaring the living daylights out of me without resorting to gore. Even the bloodletting of the original Evil Dead (which this film draws obvious inspiration from) has a relentlessness to it that puts the audience on edge. By contrast, The Cabin in the Woods lets the viewer off the hook by repeatedly cutting to (SPOILER WARNING from hereon) Bradley Whitford from The West Wing in the Truman Show-esque framing device.

And boy, that framing device is ridiculous. I’m all for suspension of disbelief, but the idea that five teenagers have to be lured into this silly (and no doubt insanely expensive) set-up in order to be sacrificed to appease the evil ancient gods beneath the ground to prevent them destroying the world is just too stupid to swallow, even in a film like this. Even Sigourney Weaver’s cameo can’t save it.

Don’t get me wrong – the film is competently put together. It’s well directed (one early shot of a bird flying into an invisible barrier is a neat touch), and the cast (which includes Chris Hemsworth aka Thor) do their best with their deliberately clichéd roles. But it’s all much ado about nothing. It’s also worth pointing out (and as an apologist for horror movies I say this with gritted teeth), that the pagan, moral relativist worldview of The Cabin in the Woods really is spiritually abhorrent.

Even more unforgivably, it’s not scary.

Simon Dillon, April 2012.

Director Joss Whedon is clearly one such fan, and his love for the characters and material is very evident. His trademark one-liners and fine attention to characterisation are as apparent here as they have been in his previous works (most notably TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer). The plot is overblown nonsense of course (something about a cube of unlimited power enabling rogue Norse god Loki to ally himself with an alien race and take over the Earth), but that is exactly what is expected in something as ludicrously over-the-top as the Avengers.

The eponymous Avengers – led by uber-secret agent Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) – are recruited by the mysterious SHIELD organisation to deal with Loki (played incidentally, by the excellent Tom Hiddleston). True to the comics at first these superheroes fight each other before fighting the villain. Plot threads left hanging from previous movies are drawn together as Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), and Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans) join Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlet Johannson) and Alint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) under Nick Fury’s command, and the resultant brawls and banter are very amusing indeed.

Whedon manages to traverse that immensely tricky tightrope of ensuring each Avenger gets his or her moment to shine. In particular Steve Rogers’ struggle to adjust in the modern world is highlighted, along with his personality clash with Tony Stark. Thor has to wrestle with the fact that his brother has turned evil (again), but with a somewhat different focus from what happened in his previous adventure. Incidentally, making Loki the bad guy was an excellent choice as he was by far the best villain of the previous films; having been given proper, three-dimensional motivations. Bruce Banner’s role is well-judged in a way that previous Hulk instalments failed to nail, and the character of Black Widow is developed in a way that ensures she isn’t merely eye candy. Even Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) is given more to do this time (“His first name is Agent”, Stark quips). Admittedly fans of Hawkeye may feel a little short changed, but he does have a very active role in the spectacular finale.

And boy is it spectacular. The special effects are truly astonishing; with swooping, eye-popping vistas of destruction as the alien menace is unleashed upon New York (does any city get more attacked in the movies?). The melee of aliens, monsters, exploding vehicles, collapsing buildings and obviously the Avengers finally fighting the enemy instead of each other is almost overwhelming, though thankfully it never descends into Michael Bay-style tedium.

On a technical level, everything is top notch – from the afore-mentioned visuals to the cinematography and sound effects, as well as Alan Silvestri’s appropriately heroic music score. There’s also a mid-credits scene that sets up a sequel, though it will probably only make sense to fans of the comics.

Avengers Assemble is very silly if you think about it for even one second, but it’s got wit and action to spare. It’s also worth saying that seeing the previous films isn’t strictly necessary, although some references will no doubt go over the heads of newcomers. Despite a slightly over-inflated running time, Avengers Assemble really delivers the entertainment in spades. My inner seven-year-old (and my actual seven-year-old) both loved it.

Simon Dillon, April 2012.

Make no mistake: this box office smashing tale of doomed love aboard the notorious White Star line vessel contains serious flaws that ought to sink it – the afore-mentioned characterisation for one. It’s something of a miracle that Rose (Kate Winslet) and Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) are as winning as they are, given the limitations of their cardboard cut-out roles (DiCaprio especially has to make do with some particularly irksome bohemian cliches in his role as a travelling artist). The supporting cast don’t fare much better, but its fun spotting the likes of Kathy Bates, Bernard Hill and others in key historic roles.

On the subject of real-life characters, one particular hero was subjected to an inexcusable rewrite of history. First Officer Murdoch, who saved several lives before his death, is here depicted as a coward who symbolically shoots an Irishman before turning the gun on himself. Given that this adds absolutely nothing dramatically, and that the rest of the film features not a single sympathetic English character, it becomes easy to see this as something of an IRA fundraiser (especially with minor characters wittering on about how the how brilliant the Irish are because they built the Titanic). Of course, this was made before 9/11 and therefore before Hollywood discovered terrorism was actually not a nice thing.

There are many other nits I could pick, such as the cliched depictions of dull, snobby upper class types puffing on cigars contrasting with noble, fun-loving lower classes partying happily in steerage. There are crass attempts at emotional manipulation throughout – cutting to the tearful faces of those listening to the older Rose’s story is a particularly odious example. Elements borrowed wholesale from the superior A Night to Remember (such as the man who places his wife and children on a lifeboat knowing that he won’t see them again) are rendered far less effectively here. And that’s before I even get to the monstrosity that is Celine Dion.

And yet…Titanic on the big screen is an irresistible epic well worth catching just to feel the width (not to mention depth in a pointless 3D conversion). As a piece of overblown disaster movie nonsense this somehow manages to rise above its flaws and become a hugely satisfying entertainment. The special effects, lavish production design and opulent cinematography still stun to the point that the audience is battered into submission. And yes, the now legendary “There’s a boat Jack!” moment still elicited tearful snuffling sounds from the audience I saw the film with.

Fifteen years on, in spite of all its shortcomings, Titanic is still a fantastic evening at the cinema. Apart from Celine’s bit on the end credits…

Simon Dillon, April 2012.

The plot is set in a dystopian post nuclear war America. Twelve districts are forced to annually select two teenage “tributes” from each district, a boy and a girl, to fight to the death until one is left standing in a televised reality show called the Hunger Games. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to take the place of her younger sister when she is selected at random to enter, so makes the journey to the Capitol to train and ingratiate herself with the public (in an attempt to pick up all important sponsors), before being plunged into the deadly conflict.

The cast is very good, especially Jennifer Lawrence (who in some ways is merely reprising her superb turn in Winter’s Bone). Supporting her is Josh Hutcherson as fellow tribute Peeta, Lenny Kravitz as image consultant Cinna, Elisabeth Banks as the grotesque Effie, and Donald Sutherland as the truly villainous President Snow. Stanley Tucci turns up as an odiously smarmy talkshow host (along with an all too brief appearance by Toby Stephens), Wes Bentley crops up as the Games Master, and Woody Harrelson is also good as her drunken mentor Haymitch (even though his character is somewhat softened compared with the books).

Ross holds the thing together reasonably well (though with rather too much shakycam for my liking), and the screenplay generally does a good job of getting the thrust of the book across – with one exception. A critical element of the plot concerning the relationship between Peeta and Katniss isn’t properly conveyed, as it relies on the fact that she is deliberately playing up to the cameras (something the books explain by revealing her thoughts).

The other major flaw in this film is that it simply isn’t vicious or gruesome enough. The book suggests 15 certificate/mid-R rating levels of gore, but this has been toned down not once but twice – first by the studio who insisted on a PG-13 rather than R rating in the States, and second by the BBFC in the UK, who demanded cuts to remove “splashes of blood” to get that commercially viable 12A certificate. One particular scene (the initial bloodbath at the Cornucopia) needed to be really, really bloodthirsty and shocking to do the book any justice. By removing what few “splashes of blood” were present in the scene, the BBFC have actually made the film less suitable for 12 year olds. They are now presented with a bland, sanitised sequence that lacks the force needed to drive home the moral agenda, ie that these people are not so far removed from ourselves.

This story holds up a mirror to our society, and as such the film needed to be more shocking – especially given the pervasive, desensitising nature of reality television in all its ghastly manifestations. Simon Cowell’s penchant for subjecting the (clearly) mentally ill to national mockery in the likes of The X Factor is a case in point. Obviously in one sense The Hunger Games is nothing new. The subject matter has been covered in films as diverse as Rollerball, Series 7: The Contenders, and most obviously Battle Royale; not to mention literary influences such as The Lord of the Flies. But The Hunger Games brings a fresh take, and as such I would recommend both seeing the film (in spite of its shortcomings), and reading the books.

On a spiritual note there is no mention of God, yet that is perhaps the point. The horrifying moral relativism depicted herein, which echoes the most decadent excesses of Ancient Rome, is in itself a statement of where the human race could end up again if left unchecked. Katniss Everdeen does what she has to in order to survive, but it is also clear that she knows the system is wrong (and there are hints of where the plot will go in the sequels).

Some American right-wing Christian groups that clearly don’t have the word “context” in their vocabulary have claimed that depictions of children killing children are evil whatever the circumstances. Ignore them. Read the book. See the film.

Simon Dillon, April 2012.

Based on the books by Gideon Defoe, the wonderfully absurd plot concerns the Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) who is determined to win the coveted Pirate of the Year Award. He and his motley crew end up kidnapping Charles Darwin and impersonating scientists in London; earning the ire of the entire scientific community and Queen Victoria for reasons too delightfully ridiculous to spoil.

This has as many jokes for adults as for children (some of them slightly risqué, though they will no doubt go over the heads of the wee ones). One particular nod to The Elephant Man had me in stitches, and there are some perfectly judged slapstick set pieces that really tickle the funny bone. There are also some great map related jokes that even rival the recent “travelling by map” gag in The Muppets. It’s also amusing to note from the end credits that “No dodos were made extinct during the making of this film”.

The vocal talent is considerable, particularly Hugh Grant’s Pirate Captain, David Tennant’s Charles Darwin and Imelda Staunton’s pirate-hating, sword-wielding, nigh-on psychotic Queen Victoria, who also has a penchant for eating endangered animals. Martin Freeman (Pirate with Scarf), Brenda Gleeson (Pirate with Gout), Ashley Jensen (Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate – a girl pirate disguised as a man), and even the wonderful Brian Blessed (Pirate King – dressed as Elvis) provide great support, and there are also small roles for Salma Hayek, Jeremy Piven and Lenny Henry.

Directors Peter Lord and Jeff Newitt blend stop-motion with computer generated backgrounds to terrific effect, and the palette is colourful and opulent. It’s not perfect – the pacing is a little uneven for instance – but the flaws are relatively small.

From a moral perspective, this is about being true to yourself, the importance of friendship over success and other appropriate themes. For the Christians out there, please don’t let the presence of Charles Darwin put you off. Yes there are some (highly amusing) references to his theories, but this isn’t some form of insidious evolutionary propaganda (as some will misguidedly claim). It’s just a very, very funny bit of nonsense for all ages.

Simon Dillon, March 2012.

The BBFC are only a part of the problem, and the blame on their side is down to the current classification system. If 12 were a mandatory rating like 15 or 18, then there would be less of an issue (for instance, The Hunger Games got the equivalent of the 12 rating in Ireland without cuts). It is generally accepted that children can sneak into films one or two years underage, but because in the UK 12 became 12A, irresponsible parents can (and do) bring screaming three year olds into films entirely inappropriate for them. For this reason 12A has become a peculiar middle ground where the BBFC either mollycoddle to the point of insanity (for instance, there is no way Thor or Captain America should have ever been anything above a PG), or they get into arcane debates about the appropriateness of “splashes of blood” in a film clearly aimed at an older audience, lacking the courage to be flexible and judge the moral context of the story with which they are presented. 

There is a compelling blog on the Telegraph website arguing that removing said “splashes of blood” in The Hunger Games removes the consequences of violence for the twelve year old audience, and thus waters down the moral message. There also is an equally good argument in a blog I read on the Guardian website, saying how pandering the twelve year old market is madness, and that The Hunger Games really ought to be rated 15. I see merits in both arguments, but haven’t seen the film yet so can’t comment properly. Based on the audience the books are aimed at however, I would say a 15 rating would be the logical certificate to aim for as that would exclude the afore-mentioned irresponsible parents. The underage adolescents who want to see it could easily sneak in (as I used to as a teenager) – provided the ticket seller isn’t a complete jobsworth!

But in spite of the flaws of the 12A certificate, the main problem isn’t with the BBFC but with the studios, who are allowing this watering down to cash in on the tween market. Take for example the recent case of The Woman in Black. This is a story that is emphatically not for children and thematically would have been much better placed at 15 (given that GCSE students sometimes study the book, this seems the ideal certificate). Even in its cut form, I would still have argued 15 would have been a more appropriate certificate. It was the presence of Daniel Radcliffe in the role that prompted distributors to request at 12A rating, and given the cash they have raked in as a result, it is a hard decision to argue with. Except on one front: artistic integrity. 

In the case of The Hunger Games, similar edits have been made to remove those troublesome “splashes of blood”, and these cuts are already on top of other cuts made when the film was submitted to the BBFC in an unfinished form. Yet something was rotten in Denmark from the very beginning with The Hunger Games, in that the studio was going for a PG-13 rather than an R rating in the States. PG-13 is roughly the equivalent of a 12A in the UK, and R-rated films generally either come out 15 or 18 over here. Anyone who has read the Hunger Games trilogy (which incidentally is something I would highly recommend doing) will tell you that the blood and gore is absolutely integral to the entire point of the story. To censor it demonstrates a remarkable lack of artistic integrity. In fact, in my view the absence of gore actually makes the story potentially offensive (something underscored in the afore-mentioned Telegraph blog).

As I mentioned earlier, I have yet to see The Hunger Games. I may really like the film. But it annoys me that the first time I see it, the film will have been censored not once but twice by the BBFC, not to mention any potential damage done by trying to make the film PG-13 for the US market. It may well end up being less The Hunger Games and more The Slightly Peckish Games. With such cynical chasing of the bottom-line, it’s easy to sympathise with one comment I read online that suggested these studio executives should be forced to “man up and watch Battle Royale” (an 18 certificate Japanese film with similar themes to The Hunger Games). 

On an even more serious note, there are deeply disturbing rumours that Ridley Scott’s upcoming Alien prequel Prometheus might end up with a PG-13 rating. This means distributors will almost certainly chase the 12A rating again in the UK, something that is patently ridiculous for a film set in the Alien universe. Prometheus could and should be nothing less than an R-rated/18 certificate film. Scott has said that if this ends up being the case then he will release the uncut version on DVD, but darn it all, I want my first viewing to be of the uncut version in a cinema on a huge screen with a terrified audience. For me seeing a watered down cut first at the cinema then the uncut version on DVD would be like visiting the Sistine Chapel only to find all those scary hellish bits blotted out, then being handed a postcard of the complete version from the gift shop on the way out. I even wonder if a compromise of this nature with Prometheus could actually drive away the adult audiences at which it is supposed to be aimed.

One thing is certain: whilst Hollywood continues to greedily try and maximise profits in this way, stories aimed at grown-ups will continue to suffer.

Simon Dillon, March 2012.