Let’s face it, the Mission Impossible franchise shouldn’t have worked.  It was released at a time when Hollywood had a yen for taking television series to the silver screen and failing miserably. Most of these big screen adaptations of their small screen counterparts smacked of desperation and unoriginality, of cashing in on nostalgia and an existent fan base. The majority fell on their faces and skulked silently into backwaters of obscurity. Remember The Saint? I rest my case.

Not so for Mission: Impossible. Whilst this was essentially just another star vehicle for Tom Cruise, potentially creating a new franchise to compete with the Bond films and turn Mr. Cruise into the American oo7, what they actually delivered was a genuine spy thriller, mixing elements of the sixties cold war films in with the modern action. Cruise was not merely aping James Bond here. He managed to create a resourceful, daring and intuitive agent who, above all, relied on his ability to engender trust in his team to accomplish the mission.

Tom proves to Jeremy that he has a bigger Twitter following.

The success of the film was probably helped no end by having a first class director in Brian De Palma, a triumvirate of three of the best screenwriters in Hollywood (Steven Zallian, David Koepp and Robert Towne) as well as a first-rate cast.

Mission: Impossible attempted to reboot the spy genre, replacing the familiar exotic locations for the dark central European cities, and racking up tension and intrigue rather than the body counts. In short, it attempted what The Bourne Identity resoundingly achieved; only it did it a whole six years earlier.

Ethan Hunt uses his jet-propelled shoes. No, not really. That would be silly. Magnetic gloves, though...

The success of the first film enabled Cruise to continue building the franchise, and 2000 saw Mission: Impossible II. MI:II was very different in style and tone from the first film, but this was very much a conscious decision. The production team of Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner decided to make each installment of the franchise different, with its own unique feel. With this in mind they turned to one of the hottest directors of the day, John Woo, and again to legendary screenwriter Robert Towne. They also decided to film in a location that had seldom been used before in Hollywood: Sydney, Australia. Shooting here provided them not only with a unique backdrop to the story, but also allowed them to make use of the recently completed Fox Studios, which would enable the film to be made more reasonably.

Jeremy Renner finds himself momentarily on the set of Star Trek. Unfortunately, his mobile turns out to be a screwdriver.

MI:II was a very successful film, however, it was not critically well received and has not remained a fan favourite. Comparisons were made to Woo’s other films such as Face/Off, in which many similar themes of duality and identity were explored.  Robert Towne himself was told to wrap the narrative around existing action set pieces, which meant the story played second fiddle to the action. Eagle-eyed film fans might notice that Towne borrowed heavily from Hitchcock’s Notorious for the script and the two films are virtually identical at points. Remember, if you’re gonna rip off a script, rip off the best.

An attractive, eastern European type. Probably won't turn out to be an assassin. Oh, no, wait...

Despite the poor critical response, Cruise was able to make a third installment, this time wisely turning to J.J Abrams, whose television series Alias and Lost were both extremely successful and popular with the public and critics alike.

"Stop! My jacket is caught in your door!"

Abrams succeeded in turning Mission Impossible III into a slick action thriller, applying many of the techniques he’d mastered on Alias to the film. Indeed, at times MI:III felt like a big budget, feature length episode of Alias, which isn’t that far from the truth.

"And what's to stop me sliding right out of these?"

Whilst Mission: Impossible dealt with loyalty and betrayal, MI:II dealt with duality and identity, Abrams’ film focused on relationships and trust. Could Ethan Hunt have a genuine relationship with his wife without honesty? Was his relationship more important to him than his responsibilities as an agent? It was this emotional driving force made the film at heart a love story and breathed life back into the franchise.

…Here!

Which brings us to Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, the fourth installment to the series and the first to be partially shot in IMAX.

At the helm this time is director Brad Bird. Ghost Protocol is Bird’s first foray into live action film-making, however, with the likes of the fantastic The Incredibles under his belt, he is no stranger to grand scale comic book adventure.

Even during an intense chase, Ethan had time for a quick game of Angry Birds.

Bird brings with him Michael Giacchino, a long time collaborator with Bird at Pixar, who provided the bombastic score for The Incredibles and delivers a fine score here. Giacchino has also worked on several projects with J.J. Abrams, who, along with Cruise, produces the film.

When it came to penning the script, we get another pair of Abrams’ collaborators, this time  Andre Nemec and Josh Appelbaum, both previously writers on Alias. You see where this is going, of course? Essentially, bring in people you know and trust and who also happen to be utterly brilliant at what they do.

Before anything else, it has to be said that Ghost Protocol is a thoroughly enjoyable film. However, for just a split second, as the camera soars in over the rooftops of Budapest to the strains of Michael Giacchino’s tense, building string score, you might mistakenly think film is supposed to be taken seriously.  Fortunately, this notion is swiftly swept away as Josh Holloway’s Agent Hanaway bursts onto the screen and we momentarily blunder into what looks like the most expensive and disastrous Milk Tray advert ever made.

Milk Tray delivery boy, Josh Holloway.

This just about sets the tone for everything that is to follow. From this point onwards, we are thrust headlong into a litany of ever more incredible and increasingly unbelievable set pieces that stretch our suspension of disbelief well past breaking point. However, the pace is so phenomenally fast that there is simply no time to wonder at the improbability of the events, or the gaping holes in the narrative, as you are picked up and swept along by Ghost Protocol’s tidal wave of absurdity.

Never sleep with your boss' wife in the world's biggest building.

All this may sound like thinly veiled criticism. It’s not. Ghost Protocol might be utterly unbelievable and make very little sense, but it isn’t supposed to. It is there to provide spectacle and to thrill us. Rarely has a film literally had us on the edges of our seats the way this film has. The stunning set piece in Dubai is a case in point. We know that the reason for Tom’s dizzying ascension of the Burj Khalifa is veneer thin, but that doesn’t stop us from literally biting our nails as he scales the glass, 120 or so floors above the ground. We all know that those gloves are ridiculous, but that does not detract for one moment from the tension or suspense. It doesn’t even matter that the most ambitious set piece of the film is used as the mid-point lock-in and actually surpasses the film’s climax. All that matters is that this is Tom Cruise and he’s climbing a really, really tall building. Eek!

With all this in mind, it might be easy to look at Ghost Protocol as nothing more than a Brosnan-era Bond, full of ridiculous gadgetry and nonsensical plot devices. However, whilst a film like Die Another Day might have had the absurdly invisible Aston, it also felt tired and Brosnan looked bored, four movies in. The same can’t be said about Ghost Protocol and its star. This film feels virtually electrically charged and Cruise, himself four films in and almost exactly the same age as Brosnan in his last Bond, couldn’t look more energized. What Ghost Protocol has that so many films of this genre lack, is a sense of vigor and, perhaps more importantly, a sense of humour. It straddles the line between serious spy film and genre parody, a feat that, after scaling the Burj Khalifa, should be child’s play for Cruise.

Brandt's revelations turn Benji to drink.

Ghost Protocol takes a good look at itself, recognizes its shortcomings and decides to ignore them in favour of style, pacing and a good dose of humour. In most action films you can’t wait for a bit of air, for the down beats and the emotional drama to add a bit of weight to the otherwise rather dry narrative. That’s not really the case here. The moments of calm where a character reveals their motivations or we get a resolution to their arcs generally feel rather flat. You’d be forgiven if, as Jeremy Renner’s conflicted and mysterious Brant reveals the truth about his past, you stole a look at your watch or began drumming your fingers.

Worst chat up line ever.

Not that this isn’t all wonderfully played by the cast. Renner can do this sort of thing in his sleep, and probably is here. Paula Patton, the least known of the cast, strides in with gusto and knocks the ball out of the stadium. Unfortunately, her arc seems to be resolved pretty early and from then on she is reduced to falling back on the rather clichéd role of séductrice.  But you can’t help feel that these are characters that don’t really need any extra layers and these are actors that given such flimsy back stories, simply don’t have to try too hard with what they’ve got. Simon Pegg is given really nothing in the way of back story and it doesn’t seem to matter for his character in the slightest. He still manages to steal scenes, even when there’s World’s Biggest Movie Star Tom Cruise and Best Actor Oscar winner Renner in the room. In fact, the only one of the cast that really seems to suffer from being under-written is Michael Nyqvist’s Hendricks, a Swedish but somehow Russian nuclear strategist who spends the film turning up in various locations with a briefcase.

World's biggest mobile phone.

Clearly, his is the only character that could use a little more depth and a genuine motivation. He’s the bad guy intent on blowing up the world in nuclear holcaust, determined to achieve his goals at any cost. Except we never really buy into why. His whole motivation is apparently to destroy the world so that the strong might rebuild society from the ashes. Even Bond villains stopped with that malarkey back in the seventies because they realized it didn’t make any bloody sense. (Nowadays they concern themselves with hiking water rates.)

Yup, I'd run away from it, too.

Product placement does start to wear a little as the film goes on. One can only wonder what Apple paid to exclusively supply the IMF teams with equipment and  just what the hell BMW were taking when they came up with that concept car?

However, these are just niggles, because as we mentioned before, none of this needs to make any sense. It just has to make us gasp, move quickly and look beautiful and thanks to cinematography from Robert Elswit and editing from Paul Hirsch (the guy that edited Star Wars, for Gods’ sake!) and tight direction from Bird, that’s what we get.

It just remains for us to say, look out for some nice cameos and references to the earlier films. In particular, look out for a certain blond henchman. It’s a very small cameo, but fans of the series will know who this is. Oh, and fans of Tom running will not be disappointed, either.

So, overall, Ghost Protocol is a ridiculous piece of confection, but it is also one of the most vigorously enjoyable films to have been released in a long time. It’s not going to change your life, but it might just put a big, fat grin on your face. No wonder Tom’s always smiling.

Dublo.

A good interview with Michael Kaplan, Ghost Protocol’s costume designer can be read over at ClothesOnFilm: http://clothesonfilm.com/michael-kaplan-talks-mission-impossible-ghost-protocol/23716/

Presumably, there are monks in monasteries high in the Tibetan mountains, dangerous criminals in solitary confinement, and tribesmen in uncharted areas of Peru, all with a copy of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

This cultural proliferation hasn’t stopped at literature, either. The trilogy has already been made into three films in Sweden with Noomi Rapace putting in a performance as Salander that is hard to beat. These films, despite the usual reluctance of many cinemagoers to watch subtitled films, have proven to be hugely successful and have, in most part, remained very faithful to the source.

With all that in mind, with the narrative twists and turns and revelations already so well known to the public, with the fever pitch in freefall, with a defining performance already delivered by Rapace, what more could Fincher’s film possibly bring to the table?

The answer is simple: Everything.

Fincher is arguably one of the best directors in the world today and, after Seven, it is difficult to imagine anyone else at the helm of the Millennium Trilogy. Who else could create the sense of tension and dread, cast such a dark tone over his material and handle the intricacies of telling such a convoluted narrative? And Fincher does not disappoint here. Yes, this might be familiar territory to those of us (everyone) who have read the books or seen the films, but this is no mere remake of the Swedish film, despite some of the shots being extremely similar. No, what Fincher delivers here, what arguably was missing from the previous films, is the tonal discomfort that pervades Larsson’s novels. Perhaps the pacing feels a little slow into the third act, but the choice to keep the pace even has more of a slow burning effect than the need to rack up the tension over dramatically. Ultimately, Fincher has produced what he always produces: a work of dark, unsettling beauty.

The cinematography by long-time Fincher collaborator Jeff Cronenweth is beautiful, too, capturing the stunning Swedish settings perfectly, whilst the desaturated colour from the scenes set in the 60s give the film an appropriately vintage look and feel. Certainly the film is dark, and not just in tone – the colours in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo are often muted and there is a lot of darkness and shadow, however, this only serves to heighten the feeling of disquiet.

In terms of narrative, the film does little to swerve away from the book, although there is a notable difference towards the end of the film, which is something of a departure from the novel. This, however, does not effect the story too greatly and only the truly die hard fans of the books will feel any twinge of disappointment – in fact, the change feels fairly refreshing in a story that is so well known.

Indeed, legendary scriptwriter Steven Zaillian does an incredible job of distilling the intricacies of the novel down into only two hundred and fifty pages or so. It is remarkable that none of the complexities of the novel feel lost. However, there will always be redactions and omissions in an adaptation of this sort, but it is a testament to Zaillian that nothing seems to be glaringly omitted, especially when one considers the novel’s content and the desire for studios to turn in a lower certificated film.

The inclusion of that scene is certainly a brave decision by Fincher, but braver still is the willingness to play it by Rooney Mara.

Mara, last seen in Fincher’s The Social Network, has done what few actresses could do or could hope to do: She has turned in a career defining performance that not only is brave and revealing, that literally strips her bare, but also shows that she is capable of confounding all expectation. For the auditions, Mara was up against the likes of recent Academy Award winning best actress Natalie Portman, as well as Carey Mulligan, a media favourite off the back of her role in An Education, and Scarlett Johansson.

To win the role over these higher-profile actresses is no small thing in Hollywood, where the power of the star-driven opening weekend is all. On top of that, there is the existing base of fans that believe that Noomi Rapace delivered the definitive interpretation of Salander. Indeed, there have been those who consider the idea of an American actress trying to top Rapace’s performance an impossibility. If all that weren’t enough, Mara also had to overcome our own imaginations. Who didn’t have their own, distinctive impression of Salander when they read the book?

Mara took on what many believed was an almost impossible role to play, one that would require not only nudity and sex scenes, but that would also require her to play the victim of a particularly brutal rape scene. But whilst Salander is a victim, she is so much more besides. She is also an empowered woman with a brilliant mind, capable of violence, and possessed of an apparently anti-social attitude. So, she is frail, yet strong, empowered yet not outspoken. In short, she is a complex and contradictory character to play.

Undaunted by all of this, Mara has stepped into the role and totally owned it. She inhabits the role so completely that it is hard to find any fault with her performance. Her vulnerability is there, but so is her anger, simmering constantly. She projects her emotional unavailability but also the tiny chinks in her armor that might allow for more. It is a brilliantly measured performance and one that should certainly see an Academy nomination and should, by rights, win her a statue.

The rest of the actors are similarly well cast, seemingly plucked directly from our imaginations. Christopher Plummer as Henrik Vanger and Stellan Skarsgård as Martin Vanger are a case in point, occupying roles they were somehow made to play and Robin Wright could not be closer to Erika Berger if she tried. However, most notable of all others is Daniel Craig, who excels as Mikael Blomkvist. Whilst every other actor has chosen to adopt the Swedish lilt, Craig goes in all Sean Connery in Red October, his accent not altering a jot, defying all that goes on around him. In spite of this, Craig manages to utterly convince as Blomkvist.

One of the elements of the character in the novels was his charisma, and that is something that Craig has in spades. Craig can deliver the most mundane line and make it cool or amusing. Only Craig could walk around with his glasses dangling off his ears for most of the film and still make it look good. We all know he can do confident thanks to his licence to kill, however, when it comes to showing vulnerability and fear, Craig really lets you feel it.

There is so much more to say about this film. For example, the simply brilliant title sequence (it’s like the darkest imaginings of Daniel Kleinman on the scariest Bond movie ever) and the use of Led Zeppelin’s Immigrant Song, given new fire by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, with Karen O’s searing vocal performance, is simply inspirational and perfectly sets the tone for what is to follow. If there is any justice, the score should give Reznor and Ross another Oscar for Best Original Score.

The production design, for those that care about such trifles, is perfection. The detailing is superb, from the font used on the Millennium office’s header, the mish-mash of dirt bike and café racer that Salander rides, and to the chilling modernist perfection of Martin’s hillside residence. Everything is as it should be, a page torn from our own imagination.

So, in summary, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is everything you could hope for in an adaptation of the novel. Those that feared an American remake would be an abuse of the novels and the films should have expected more from Salander – she wouldn’t let them get away with that now, would she?

Dublo.

The achievement here is not only to make a film that stands up to Le Carre’s masterpiece, but in also making a story set in a Cold War that has long since thawed, still compelling and relevant. Soviet Russia no longer threatens our ideology or promises our annihilation, and the embarrassment of the Cambridge Five is now consigned to the history books, yet “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” impels us to desperately care about the outcome of this mole hunt, despite knowing the inevitable outcome.

“Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” achieves this by presenting a very human face to espionage, by making the film less of a political drama than it is a personal one. The film is populated by characters that are flawed; each motivated by their own desires, their greed and their self-preservation, and it is through their relationships that this film comes alive.

Each actor gives us a revealing character study, every one of them giving us an insight into the lives of their characters that is always pitch-perfect and utterly believable. Whether it is Mark Strong’s withdrawn, heartbroken Prideaux, Tom Hardy’s out of depth and lovelorn Ricki Tarr, or Benedict Cumberbatch’s principled yet closeted Peter Guillam, we go with them on their emotional journeys and are made to feel their pain.

This is nowhere so evident as with Gary Oldman’s Smiley. The film rests squarely on his shoulders and his character’s story. George Smiley, having been unceremoniously ousted from the Secret Intelligence Service known as the Circus, is ordered out of retirement when it is discovered that there is a mole in their ranks. This mole resides at the very head of the Circus, among the small group of men that are running the whole show, and it is Smiley, now an outsider and therefore trusted, who is uniquely positioned to investigate.

Oldman gives a controlled and nuanced performance as George Smiley, a man who has been rejected by his service, cuckolded by his wife and betrayed by a friend. A man who is, at the same time, a brilliant and calculating investigator, determined to uncover the truth by any means. His Smiley is a patient, dogged, but tired man. Like a prizefighter that has been squarely knocked down, but is determined to see it through to the last round, there is a mixture of fatigue and resolution about him.

Each of the men under suspicion have been assigned codenames (the Tinker, Tailor, Soldier of the title) by the since deceased head of the Circus, C, played with appropriate aloof disdain by John Hurt. Each man, whether due to their political agendas, their greed, or simply their desire to please, seems equally likely to be the mole, which, considering their position, does not bode well for the Intelligence Service.

However, the story of how this vital secret was discovered, the very notion that there is indeed a mole in the Circus, is perhaps more vital in terms of the narrative that the actual uncovering of the mole himself. It is a journey that takes us from a botched defection in Budapest to the romancing of a Soviet agent’s wife in Turkey. Each of these events will prove to have shocking and deadly consequences.

The film is also a visual delight. Set in the mid-Seventies, the production design is period perfect, capturing the look and feel of the time without ever slipping into cliché. The drab colour palate of beige and grey creates a sense of overarching sense of melancholia. The detailing is incredible and is supported by the costume design that captures the colour, cut and drape of the sartorial Seventies perfectly.

The photography also seems to capture the period, with the sickly, yellowing neon light filling the Circus, and the cluttered and claustrophobic, cigarette smoke-filled rooms of the hotels and homes impart a feeling of oppression and disquiet.

The direction is simply first-rate. Remarkably for a Swede, Tomas Alfredson has managed to thoroughly create a sense of Britishness, to somehow capture a feeling wet mid-afternoon misery. He has captured the squalid world of espionage that is the antithesis of the glamour and cartoonish violence of James Bond. There are no explosions here, just a measured racking up of the tension and the violence, when it does occur, is realistic, brutal and tragic. There is never the sense of fatherly devotion from the head of the service to the field operative. Instead there is snobbery, betrayal and rejection. Alfredson portrays a service with a schoolboy obsession for pleasing the Americans, obsessed with the quality of the intel rather than the result it might achieve or at what expense it was obtained; a service that teeters on the brink of collapse, and worse disrespectability.

There are stylistic references and nods to such films as “Rear Window”, but whilst this film may pay homage, it is never anything other than a masterpiece in its own right.

Overall, this is one of the most accomplished films of the last few decades, a film that turns the focus of the spy thriller right back to espionage and suspense, a film that is an outstanding display of performance and technical achievement, and a Cold War thriller that has somehow remained relevant by reflecting the mood of a turbulent Britain.

Dublo.

Whether this squabble will resolve itself is something for the courts, however it does bring to light the fact that filmmakers will still look to Philip K. Dick as a source of inspiration. Would The Adjustment Bureau have done as well without Dick’s name attached? Certainly, it had a starry cast, but nothing gives the sci-fi seal of approval like the line “based on a story by Philip K. Dick”.

So, with this in mind, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at some of the other science fiction films that have been based on the works of one of the most prolific writers in the genre. Philip K. Dick has long been the Hollywood go-to guy when it comes to adapted science fiction. In fact, a total of nine films have been based on his novels and short stories, and there are more on the way.

Blade Runner:

Certainly the most famous film adaptation of one of Dick’s stories has to be Blade Runner, taken from the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. Blade Runner remains fairly faithful to the novel in terms of both narrative and theme, although there are some obvious differences and omissions. However, the exploration of what it means to be human is at the heart of both the book and film alike.

Blade Runner is also a beautifully shot film, in which Ridley Scott gives us a visual feast as Harrison Ford’s blade runner scours the dystopian streets in search of the renegade Nexus-6 replicants he must “retire”. Blade Runner’s production design set the benchmark for science fiction films and has been referenced and, let’s face it, shamelessly copied in countless sci-fi films since.

Total Recall:

Next up was Total Recall, based on Dick’s We Can Remember It For You Wholesale, an unlikely combination of Dick’s trademark themes of identity and reality, blended with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s particular brand of physical action.

It would be very easy to dismiss this film as just another low brow Arnie action movie, however, there is far more depth to this film than first meets the eye. Whilst the action set pieces are all present and correct, the idea of fantasy and delusion are subtly played into the mix by director Paul Verhoeven and it is left open to interpretation as to whether the events of the film are happening for real or we are simply witnessing a fantasy played out in the mind of Schwarzenegger’s everyman character, Doug Quaid. There are many hints throughout the film that this is indeed the case, however the film’s ambiguity allows the viewer to come to their own conclusions and no definitive answer is given.

Screamers:

Perhaps a lesser-known film is Screamers, based on the Philip K. Dick short story, Second Variety. The film is actually reasonably faithful to the short story, although the film takes place on an alien world as opposed to a post-apocalyptic Earth, and the ending is slightly different. However, the basic narrative and core themes remain intact.

In both Screamers and Second Variety, a war has left the planet ravaged and the population has been reduced by a number of robot killing machines. These killing machines have evolved on their own and are now capable of perfectly mimicking humans in order to infiltrate the human strongholds and eliminate them. If this sounds familiar to you, then it should. The similarities between this premise and that of The Terminator are fairly obvious and did not escape Dick’s notice, either. He wrote: “When the claws/screamers start changing, their newest models take human forms for much the same reasons the T-800 was created.”

Imposter:

Once again, the notions of identity and what it means to be human are addressed in Imposter, a thriller based on the short story of the same name. Here, in the distant future of a war ravaged Earth, a government weapons designer is arrested and accused of being a replicant imposter. He is told that his heart is actually a biological nuclear weapon and that he will detonate it in an embassy containing Earth’s chancellor, killing her and many other important people. Protesting his innocence, he escapes and goes on the run, determined to uncover the truth.

Minority Report:

After the success of Total Recall, a sequel was planned, based upon another Philip K. Dick short story, The Minority Report. This was due to star Schwarzenegger once again, reprising his role as Quaid, this time working for the police force. The sequel never made it past the script stage. However, the short story was adapted into the Spielberg film Minority Report, starring Tom Cruise.

Minority Report differs quite drastically from the short story in a number of ways, but the original premise of crime being stopped by the predictions of three precognitive mutants and the theme of free will versus destiny remain in both.

What Minority Report truly is though is a Hitchcockian “wrong man” thriller. We see Tom Cruise’s potentially falsely accused cop go on the run for a crime he may or may not commit, whilst trying to clear his name. It certainly bears all the hallmarks of this genre whilst remaining a thought provoking piece of original sci-fi.

Paycheck:

Next year saw the  slightly disappointing John Woo film Paycheck, starring Ben Affleck and based on the short story of the same name. Once again, the film is a man-on-the-run thriller with a twist. Here, the hero agrees to working on a three-year secret project that will require him having his memory of it erased upon its completion, but with the compensation of a hefty financial reward. Having had his memory erased, he goes to collect his paycheck, but discovers that, rather than money, he has signed away his reward in favour of an envelope containing a series of seemingly innocuous trinkets. As the FBI and his former employers pursue him, he discovers that these trinkets, used at the right time, enable him to escape from otherwise impossible and potentially fatal situations. It transpires that, prior to having his memory erased, he had been working on a machine that enabled him to see his future, and was therefore able to pre-arm himself with these items that on the surface seem worthless but actually save his life. The film itself is rather less successful than it might have been, but is elevated by the strong storyline and Dick’s imaginative premise.

A Scanner Darkly:

Of these films mentioned so far, it is really only Blade Runner that stands out as a visual masterpiece, despite Total Recall picking up the Oscar for best visual effects in 1991. However, 2006 gave us Richard Linklater’s A Scanner Darkly, based on Philip K. Dick’s novel. Scanner is unique amongst the Dick adaptations in that it is animated using interpolated rotoscoping over the original film footage, which gives the film its unique and distinctive look.

The story in both the book and the film deal with the themes of identity and duality, this time induced by the addiction to a psychoactive drug that, after excessive use, can cause the hemispheres of the brain to work independently, creating a split personality. This is one of Dick’s later books and parallels his own experience with the drug culture of the 1970s. Dick himself was experiencing strange hallucinatory phenomena by this point, and began to experience a dual life, one in which he was Philip K. Dick, the other in which he was Thomas, a Christian persecuted by the Romans in the 1^st Century AD. The film was a financial failure, but is actually one of the best Philip K. Dick adaptations out there.

Next:

Following A Scanner Darkly’s faithful adaptation was Next, a film only very loosely based on Dick’s The Golden Man. There are a few similarities between the film and the source material. For instance, the film deals with a precognitive mutant named Cris being hunted by the government, but here the similarities end. This film stars Nic Cage and is directed by Lee Tamahori, the director of Die Another Day. I’ll leave it to your own discretion as to whether that makes it worth seeing.

The Adjustment Bureau:

Which brings us neatly to The Adjustment Bureau. Once again, this is a loose interpretation of a Philip K. Dick short story, in this case The Adjustment Team. The premise is relatively straight forward: There is a plan for all of us and the Adjustment Bureau occasionally have to step in to correct the small mistakes that we make when we deviate from this plan. Once again, the notion of fate versus free will is examined, when our protagonist is told quite clearly that he must not continue to have a relationship with a girl with whom he has fallen in love or there will be dire consequences for the both of them.

So, the adaptation of Philip K Dick’s novels and short stories continues unabated. A remake of Total Recall is in the wings, Radio Free Albemuth is completed and awaiting a distributor. The Disney animated film The King of the Elves, based on Dick’s short story, is slated for a 2012 release and The Halcyon Company, the film development company who currently own the rights to The Terminator franchise, are making Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said.

As Dick was undoubtedly one of the greatest science fiction writers of all time, surely more of his stories making the leap to the big screen can be no bad thing.Let’s only hope that his estate is properly recognised for it.

Dublo.

They don’t write dialogue like this anymore.

Well, to set matters straight for those who are interested, The Philadelphia Story is not the one with Tom Hanks. Rather, it is one of the most charming, witty, romantic and engaging films ever made, and boasts one of the finest casts ever assembled. Cary Grant, James Stewart and Katherine Hepburn all make star turns under the accomplished direction of George Cukor and the film’s producer Joseph L. Mankiewicz, perhaps best known as the Oscar winning director of All About Eve.

The film revolves around the forthcoming marriage of Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) to the nouveau riche George Kittredge, an aspiring politician, and the attempts of her ex-husband C.K. Dexter Haven (Grant) to undermine the wedding in order to create a tantalizing story for Spy magazine. Spy have also managed to secrete reporter and budding novelist Mike Conner (Stewart) and photojournalist Liz Imbrie (Hussey) into the household, under the guise of friends of Tracy’s estranged brother. Eventually, Tracy finds her affections torn between Mike, Dexter and George, despite their different motives and notions of class.

The Philadelphia Story starts out playing as something of a romantic comedy of errors, but soon reveals much greater depth. Whilst the narrative is intricate and at times convoluted, often leading in one direction only to rapidly veer off in another, it at no time feels confusing or anything other than entirely genuine. In fact, it is its ability to confound expectations that make the film so enjoyable and fresh, and it never feels predictable, as so many Hollywood films these days tend to do.

This is helped no end by the truly staggering amount of acting talent on display here. Hepburn, Grant and Stewart each give a layered, multi-dimensional performance, and, despite their powerful personalities, they never upstage one another, each allowing the other’s performance to shine. There is tenderness and fragility, indignation and anger, and frivolity and humour in their performances, sometimes all at the same time.

However, the film might not have come into being at all if it weren’t for determination, tenacity and shrewd business sense of Katherine Hepburn. The Philadelphia Story started out as a Broadway play, which had been specifically written for Hepburn by playwright Philip Barry and was based upon Barry’s friend and Philadelphia socialite Helen Hope Montgomery Scott. As it turned out, Hepburn ended up backing the play with her own money, even forgoing her salary in return for a percentage of the play’s profits. The gamble paid off and the play went on to be very successful. However, prior to this, Hepburn had found it difficult to gain acceptance by the mainstream American audiences. So much so, that, after a run of flops (including Bringing Up Baby, which is now considered by many to be a classic,) Hepburn was famously labelled “box office poison”.

Hepburn hoped to capitalise on the play’s success by turning it into a film, which she hoped would allow her to finally make her mark on America. With the help of Howard Hughes, she acquired the film rights to the play, which Hughes then gifted to her. Hepburn then went on to sell them to Louis B. Meyer for the modest sum of $250,000 in return for an unprecedented degree of creative control of the film.

With this control, Hepburn was able to secure the talents of Grant and Stewart, although they were not her original choices. Hepburn had wanted Clark Gable and Spencer Tracy, but both were tied up with prior commitments. It was probably for the best, as Gable had not seen eye to eye with George Cukor on Gone With The Wind, and had the director replaced. Cary Grant only agreed to be involved if he could take top billing, and demanded an unprecedented salary of $137,000. Grant then donated his entire salary to the British War Relief Society.

Unbelievably, the film was shot without a single retake and came in five days under schedule.

One of the funniest scenes from The Philadelphia Story, with the exceptional Virginia Weidler showing of her precocious talent.

Hepburn never had to worry about being labelled “box office poison” again, as in the opening weeks of general release, The Philadelphia Story went on to break box office records and for third-billed James Stewart it meant an Oscar for Best actor. In fact, the film was nominated for a total of six Academy Awards in 1940, including Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay.

So beloved was The Philadelphia Story that it was remade just a few years later in 1956 as the musical High Society, starring Grace Kelly, Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra, and has gone on to be regarded as something of a classic itself.

My, she was yar.

In 1995 The Philadelphia Story was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry after being deemed “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” by the Library of Congress.

“Yes you am, are you” – Hepburn and Stewart shine.

Despite these achievements, The Philadelphia Story seems relatively unknown by audiences, and it rarely ranks highly on those lists of the Top 100 films of all time. Perhaps it’s because people are more familiar with High Society, or perhaps because it is still confused with a Tom Hanks film with which it shares a common word. Whatever the reason, it is a shame more people haven’t seen the film that firmly established the great Katherine Hepburn, which gave James Stewart his only Academy Award for Best Actor, and that only seems to improve with age.

Well, continuing this theme, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at some of my favourite movie homes. Rather than focus on the more obvious abodes, such as the apartment from Rear Window or the sprawling heap of Xanadu from Citizen Kane, I decided to look at the residences I wouldn’t mind making my own. So, with that in mind, here’s my list of the top 20 places to live in the land of make believe.

The Doctor’s Residence, Sleeper.

In Woody Allen’s 1973 film Sleeper, his character Miles wakes up two hundred years into the future. Here, he is taken into hiding by two doctors who wish to use him to overthrow their Totalitarian state. The futuristic home he is taken to is Charles Deaton’s Sculptured House in Denver. A beautiful sweep of concrete and glass, the home is referred to now as the Sleeper House and recently sold for 1.5 million US dollars. Take note, however, that giant bananas do not grow in the garden.

Tracy Island, Thunderbirds.

Okay, we admit it. I saw it. But the truth is that I saw it just to see the coolness of this island base. (By the way, if you’re a good guy, it’s a base; if you’re a baddie, it’s a lair.) This has it all. Private beach, swimming pool, suitably modernist design (although I do kinda like the one from the TV show a little more for its mid-century modern vibe) and more transport possibilities than you can shake a stick at. Sophia Miles will drop in dressed in pink leather, and that’s no bad thing. Trouble is, you get stuck with all the Tracy boys and Brains. Still, did you think a Thunderbirds pad would come with no strings attached?

Deckard’s Apartment, Blade Runner.

Deckard’s apartment is actually Frank Lloyd Wright’s incredible concrete Ennis House – now somewhat in disrepair. The apartment might be what Stephen Fry would generously describe as “compact and bijou”, but it is, at least, big enough to incorporate a piano. Tyrell’s pad might have boasted floor to ceiling windows and offered an incredible view over the city, and J.F. Sebastian’s entire floor of the crumbling Bradbury was certainly much larger, but its Deckard’s place that has the most character, stuffed full of objet (memories?) and with the intricate patterned concrete on show. Invite a chaste Sean Young over to keep you company and tell her all about her childhood memories. Have a snooze and dream of unicorns. 

Thomas’ Studio, Blow Up.

This studio seems to be a labyrinth of tight staircases, split levels, raised walkways and open spaces. This is all the result of clever camera angles chosen by director Antonioni, as the actual studio location isn’t that big, but the effect leaves one feeling slightly disorientated. It’s what you’d expect to see if David Bailey owned a TARDIS. Why live here? Well, it’s swinging London baby, yeah! And this is the coolest pad there is. Why, one minute you’ll have Verushka writhing on your floor, the next Jane Birkin will be begging you to rip her top off. You can get stoned with Vanessa Redgrave and the smashing Sarah Miles lives next door, who’ll happily give you a back rub and a beer whilst you playfully insult her husband.

The Pseudosphere, Charlie’s Angels.

(Okay, I made this name up.) Based on the fabulous Chemosphere by John Lautner, this ultra cool pad has the advantage of being slightly bigger than the real deal. Perched on a single column on a Los Angles hillside, this place has a view to die for. Well, almost, if you’re Drew Barrymore. 

The Lars Homestead, Star Wars.

A bit out of left field, I know, but this place is cool. Well, it would have to be on a planet with two suns. Forget the fact there’s nothing for hundreds of miles in either direction. Forget that your uncle is a bigger bastard than the Emperor. Forget you best friend is a 60 year old man. Here, your hobbies will include driving a floating car, sniping Tuscan Raiders with your unwieldy looking blaster rifle, blowing away Wamp Rats in your T-16, and drinking blue milk. That’s right, milk that’s blue! Crazy! You will also get to indulge in what most teenage boys do, which is watching poorly recorded videos of young women bending over and looking slightly nervous. Except this one will be your sister. 

Patrick Bateman’s Apartment, American Psycho. 

Ah, the eighties. Nearly everything was horrible. However, the super-rich and criminally insane Patrick Bateman managed to make his apartment look fantastic, or as fantastic as the eighties would allow, by keeping the colour scheme monochromatic, the lines clean and the furnishings classic. It boasts a large bedroom for three-way sex and aggravated torture. There’s plenty of storage space for bespoke suits, bodies and chainsaws, as well as a spacious kitchen, complete with a large refrigerator – perfect for storing severed heads. I’d offer this word of caution, however: A predominately white house is not ideal for murdering people with an axe. 

The Carver Residence, The Ice Storm.

Nestled in amongst the trees, this beautiful house was designed in 1972 by architect Richard Henderson and is located in New Canaan, Connecticut.  This low, white, angular house features large panes of sliding glass and a deck that extends out over the rocky outcropping. Perfect for a bit of afternoon delight with Sigourney Weaver, but watch out, she has a whip.

The Frye Residence, Ferris Beuller’s Day Off.

Ferris coldly dismisses Cameron’s place as “cold” and “like a museum”. Have you looked around your place lately, Ferris? It sucks. Give me the beautiful glass and steel box of delight that is the Frye residence any day of the week. Mia Sara in the pool and a ten million pound Ferrari 250 GT California in the garage. Que Bella, indeed. 

Jason Nesmith’s House, Galaxy Quest. 

Probably better known as The Stahl House, or Case Study House #22, this stunning piece of mid-century architecture was designed by Pierre Keonig in 1959 and is one of the most recognisable examples of modern architecture in Los Angeles. Be prepared to be woken by fans at some ungodly hour whilst you’re trying to sleep off you hangover.

Willard Whyte’s Summer House, Diamonds Are Forever.

Not an easy choice, this one. I could just as easily have written “every single villain lair in the entire James Bond series” but that would have been a cop out. Why not Piz Gloria, Goldfinger’s ranch or Palmyra? Well, whilst I’d love to be stuck up a mountain with those Angels of Death, I’d prefer not to find Irma Bunt in my bed one evening. And whilst a roll in the hay with Honor Blackman (curiously, the only Bond girl whose real name is also a double entendre) might be many man’s idea of a fun way to while away an afternoon, it isn’t particularly mine. Of course, Palmyra has Claudine Auger doing laps and Luciana Paluzzi working the pump action, but ultimately it has to come down to the fact that Willard Whyte’s house is the fantastic Elrod House by John Lautner, and that should be reason enough.

Catcher Block’s apartment, Down With Love.

One for the boys, for sure. This bachelor pad looks like it was dreamt up by Ken Adam, and it even has the hallmark gadgets one would expect from the veteran Bond production designer. There’s a state-of-the-art sound system, a well stocked bar, and at the flick of a switch, the lounge becomes the bedroom. The perfect place for entertaining. For the ladies, Barbara Novak’s apartment might just be the perfect female equivalent. 

Sean Ambrose’s Sydney Harbour House, Mission: Impossible II. 

Like many of the cool movie houses on this list, this one doesn’t actually exist. The whole thing was built out of flat-packed polystyrene and sailed across the harbour in a boat to Bradley’s Head, where it was assembled. It nearly didn’t make the journey. Still, it looks pretty damn awesome. It features a private jetty, a sweeping garden with fabulous views over the harbour and a private security detail headed up by Richard Roxburgh, whose improbable accent swings between South African and a poor impression of Prince Charles. It also comes with the gorgeous Thandie Newton, who I can attest from personal experience, is one of the loveliest women in the universe.

The Cullen Residence, Twilight series. 

Okay, this is a bit of a cheat as it’s more than one house. Certainly the best thing about the first film was the vampire’s choice of lair (yup, I know what I said about it being the bad guys that have the lair, but the rule applies here too, as I can’t imagine anything more evil than their acting.) The Cullen residence in the first film is a beautiful, modern building, all wide panes of glass, jutting steel and warm wood cladding, surrounded by tall conifers and gentle mist. This is actually the Hoke House in Portland, OR, and was designed by architect Jeff Kovel. Edward’s room in this house is just beautiful. However, serious architecture lovers will perhaps be more familiar with the house used in the second film, New Moon. Designed by one of my favourite architects, Arthur Erickson, this low level residence is actually in Vancouver, Canada, and was recently on the market for about three million Canadian dollars. Actually, a proper bargain. It didn’t even come with the annoying, angst-ridden tweeny vampire set, which I think should probably add another million to the value right there.

George Falconer’s House, A Single Man.

Let’s face it, there are not many things that can happen in your life that are worse than loosing your soul mate. However, if you have to spend your last days on Earth grieving, why not do it in style? The beautiful wood and glass house featured in Tom Ford’s directorial debut is the Schaffer Residence, yet another John Lautner creation, and is utterly gorgeous. This redwood, glass and concrete house was also recently on the market for a cool 1.5 million dollars. 

Sam Flynn’s Container Home, Tron: Legacy.

In this age of carbon footprint reducing, environmentally conscious, energy-saving responsibility, what better way to make your home than out of the detritus left behind by global industry? Sam has shown us how to make responsible use of waste by stacking up these empty shipping containers and turning them into a house. The entire walls simply roll up, creating either an easily accessible front door or providing a view across the harbour. All this and it comes with not one but two Ducati bikes. The jaw-droppingly beautiful Ducati Sport 1000 can be garaged behind the sofa for easy access. Sam can keep his little mutt, though.

Kevin Flynn’s Grid Hideout, Tron: Legacy.

Okay, I know it’s from the same film, but this Kubrick inspired den is one of the most incredible apartments you’ll ever see on celluloid. Full of mid-century design classics, such as the Eames 670 Lounge Chair, the Barcelona chair and the Arco floor lamp, this glowing white apartment has a sunken lounge, a fireplace that produces what looks like water flowing upwards, and a view across the digital frontier that is simply like nothing on Earth. Access is secure and there’s parking for the fastest lightcycle on the Grid. Your live-in young lady is the delectable Olivia Wilde, who lounges around in skin-tight rubber and, in her wide-eyed innocence, hangs on your every word. She is also able to cure all disease, which is handy if you’ve been around the block a few times. Eagle-eyed viewers will have noticed that Sam and Kevin’s homes are laid out almost identically, although the scale and interior design is somewhat different. 

The Vandamm Residence, North By Northwest. 

Inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright’s Fallingwater, this almost perfect home, situated atop Mount Rushmore, is, like many other movie homes, completely artificial. What a shame, because it is utterly gorgeous. Constructed out of a blend of matte paintings and practical sets, this house has large windows that lead out onto the cantilevered balcony, giving a wonderful view across the mountain and the surrounding woods. With a huge open plan living room, maid service and a garden big enough to land a plane in, it’s no wonder that Cary Grant was prepared to get his palms scratched to get a peek inside.

Syndrome’s Lair, The Incredibles.

Okay, this very nearly came in at number one. This vast complex pretty much has all the elements of every Bond villain lair throughout the franchise. It has so much cool stuff going on, I really don’t know where to start. The fact that it’s on it’s own tropical island? The fact that the waterfall opens up like someone throwing open the curtains? The cool monorail system? The secret rocket base? The giant computer interface protected by a wall of lava? (One can only imagine that your “special computer time” would not be interrupted by you mum knocking on the door to give you a cup of tea.) There are just so many cool things about Syndrome’s lair that it really is difficult to beat. But beaten it has been, by a rather more modest abode…

Tony Stark’s Residence, Iron Man.

Okay, this is the biggy. Trumping Syndrome’s lair by virtue of just being the coolest building in the known movie universe, Tony Stark’s Lautner inspired residence is simply the number one place to live in the world of movies. Why? Well, firstly it is perfectly placed, nestling on top of Point Dume in Malibu, with a panoramic view of the Pacific. Secondly, it is simply exquisitely designed and beautifully conceived, fusing all of the best elements of John Lautner’s designs into one tidy package. Lastly, the whole place is practically alive, being precisely run by the computer, Jeeves, who, one imagines, precisely monitors those little things like energy consumption and climate control. Oh, and I nearly forgot the garage. Filled with an assortment of boys toys and automotive excellence, this really is where Tony hangs out the most. However, why be limited to just the garage? Why not make yourself comfortable in the massive lounge, sit back in your Eames chair and strum either your Gibson 335 or you Fender Telecaster? Curl up on the sofa by the roaring fireplace, or mix yourself a martini in the bar. If you feel like a work out, there’s a full gym. Whatever your tastes, you’ll be comfortable here. There is, of course, a helipad, but with a super-alloy computer-aided combat suit, capable of supersonic flight, why bother? In fact, the biggest question is why Tony Stark bothers leaving it at all?

So, that concludes my list for now, although it can never be complete or comprehensive. I have to admit that it is somewhat ironic that so many of my dream homes are in the land of make believe, but then again, where else would they be?

Dublo.

Brosnan & Harris at the premier of "For Your Eyes Only".

Fast-forward ten years and a new actor was put into the frame. However, this time the actor in question certainly wasn’t everyone’s mental image of James Bond. Daniel Craig wasn’t what you might call born to play the part. He was blond for a start, which prompted the tabloids to quip, “No Mr. Bond, we expect you to dye!” He was also an inch or so below the regulation six feet, and for many people was that was an unforgivable sin. It wasn’t helped by the fact that at the press conference announcing his introduction as the new James Bond, Daniel Craig, nestled amongst several Royal Marine Commandos, seemed to be rather gaunt and ill-at-ease. Not only that, but, on this auspicious occasion, he was criticised for wearing a life jacket on his trip across the Thames – despite a Royal Marine insisting that he wear it.

Craig, about to be introduced to the press.

In fact, so against archetype was Daniel Craig, that the tabloid press had a field day, and it seemed not a week went by during the filming of Casino Royale without some derogatory article hitting the headlines, making insinuations about his less than Bond-like credentials. Amongst Craig’s host of apparent sins were that he hated guns, he lost a tooth in a fight with a stunt man, he had heat stroke, he was afraid of water, and could not drive a manual car.

The press conference introducing Daniel Craig as James Bond.

All this was compounded by the fact that the producers had bravely decided to reboot the franchise and have Bond start afresh with a newly-minted OO7. Of course, to die-hard fans, this was too much to take. Ordinarily, the fans are fairly positive and encouraging when it comes to the introduction of a new Bond, but this time there was undisguised hatred. A website called DanielCraigIsNotBond.com was launched and was instantly picked up upon by the tabloid press.Even though the released image of Craig in the tux looked great, and the reports from the set were very favourable, many people expected, nay, demanded, that Casino Royale should be a flop. Certainly, no one in Fleet Street expected to be eating quite so much humble pie.

The Sun does an about face.

The reason I bring this up is that it is easy to forget the negativity in the build up to one of the best, if not the best James Bond films of all time. It was so well received, so utterly brilliant,  adored by fans and critics alike, that it seemed to simply wash away the criticisms of its detractors. Chief amongst its assets was the incredible performance from Craig, who, with bags of charisma, style and charm, simply bulldozed though the negative expectations.

Craig's impressive physique in Casino Royale scored him a legion of female fans

At the end of this, there were no smug we-told-you-so’s from EON Productions, no rubbing it in the face of the tabloids. They simply allowed the film to stand on its own merits and for the positive word of mouth from the public to announce that James Bond was indeed back. Daniel Craig may not have been the safest bet, but, just like in the film, sometimes playing safe doesn’t win the game.

The cover of the latest issue of Confidential.

Casino Royale is a fantastic James Bond film with a very interesting history. To learn more, order a copy of this month’s MI6 Confidential magazine, which takes a detailed look at the build up to Casino Royale, and offers in-depth articles, as well as behind the scenes insights and exclusive interviews with cast and crew.

Dublo.

Photos courtesy of http://www.mi6-hq.com & mi6confidential.

MI6 Confidential:

Order online: http://mi6confidential.com

Facebook: http://f.mi6confidential.com 

Twitter: http://twitter.com/mi6confidential 

For Hollywood, a successful franchise is a licence to print money. Making films is always a gamble and requires a huge upfront stake. The money involved in producing, distributing and marketing a film is staggering, so it’s no wonder studio execs are scared to green light anything new, original, or untested. It makes much more financial sense to look to a genre that they know has been profitable before and to stick to that. Even more profitable is to have a whole plethora of sequels that they can spin off the back of them.

This is why there have been such a glut of superhero movies over the last couple of decades. With the comic book adaptation, you have a built-in audience, a hardcore of fans who have grown up reading the comics, and now, with real jobs and real disposable income, they are able to watch the movie, buy the box set and invest in all the associated merchandising of the movies. The studios don’t need to invent character dynamics or arcs, they don’t need to create plotlines; those nice people at Marvel and DC have already done all this for them.

Forget Kryptonite, it only took 4 years to kill Brandon's Superman.

These films don’t just attract the comic book geeks; they also attract the usual summer blockbuster crowd, too. Those who couldn’t care less about the caped crusaders, who are after the visceral thrills of fight scenes, shoot outs, car chases and explosions, can have all of that in their latest comic book adaptation. Whilst the boys enjoy the carnage, the girls can reflect on the inner conflict of the hero and their fragile emotional relationships, whilst at the same time admiring a good-looking muscular guy in spandex. Kids can go with their parents, who will laugh at some subtly included adult humour, but sigh as they inevitably shell out for the action figures. In short, the superhero movie is a multi-demographic winner, allowing the studios to cover as much of their global roulette table as possible and get the best return on their sizable investment.

A reboot after 5 years? Incredible.

All this sounds rather peachy for the studios, except that having it so easy often breeds contempt for their audience and for the source material. In other words, sometimes they put nipples on the bat suit. What happens then? Well, mostly they just ignore it, pretend it never happened, and simply reboot the franchise. This will usually require a new cast including some hot, upcoming talent, and inevitably a director who will, in the lead up, explain how they see this as a much darker film that will go back to basics and explore the roots of the character in much greater depth. Reboots can be fantastic, don’t get us wrong, and every now and then you get a Batman Begins. However, this is little comfort to those that shelled out their money and two hours of their life on Batman & Robin. It’s like being taken out to dinner at 21, but only after five dates at McDonald’s where you picked up the cheque.

Some franchises need to be rebooted.

It doesn’t stop there, though. There are the reboots of the reboot. Superman Returns was made just five years ago and was supposed to be the reboot of the franchise, giving us a new Superman in the form of Brandon Routh and a new Lois with Kate Bosworth. However, poor returns mean that next year we’ll be getting Superman: Man of Steel, with Henry “almost Bond” Cavill donning the cape. Why not just stick to the earlier cast and make a better sequel? This isn’t the first time either. Remember Ang Lee’s Hulk? Well, just five years after that, The Incredible Hulk was relaesed, again an apparent reboot of the reboot. The last Spiderman film was in 2007, but the franchise will be rebooted in 2012 with an entirely new cast and The Fantastic Four are lined up for the same treatment.

Lemme guess. A darker, more realistic look at the character?

Then you have the spin-offs. Now this is real franchise building. First, there was the X-Men film series, then X-Men Origins: Wolverine – which was clearly intended to be the first in a spin-off franchise, as well as also somehow being a reboot – and soon X-Men: First Class will hit the screens. First Class (I imagine there is no intended irony in the title) then is a prequel to a spin-off of a reboot.

All this is as of nothing when compared to The Avengers. This is going to be the mother of all comic book franchises and will include The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, Thor and the upcoming Captain America: The First Avenger amongst its titles, with more to follow. The Avengers franchise was first set up in 2008 with a post credits cameo from Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D, at the end of Iron Man. Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony stark pulled a similar trick by featuring at the end of The Incredible Hulk. Since then we’ve had Iron Man 2, which essentially worked as a big advert for The Avengers, with nods to Captain America: The First Avenger, and set up Thor with its post credit sequence.

The Avengers series is possibly the biggest cross-over/spin-off franchise that has ever been attempted in Hollywood’s history and, they’re certainly making sure that we know all about it. Whilst for a number of comic book fans this is a dream come true, for many other moviegoers this feels a little bit more like being force-fed those Big Macs with that date at 21 seemingly a false promise.

Who knows where it will end? This franchise might grow exponentially, like a culture growing in a Petri dish. Thor will have its sequel, and that will spawn yet more. The Iron Man films will go on. Captain America: The First Avenger will have a sequel and, according to producer Gale Anne Hurd, more Hulk movies will be headed our way, too. Cross-over characters, like Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow, might feasibly get a spin-off from this spin-off. Soon, the only films in cinemas might be from The Avengers franchise.

I exaggerate, of course, but, honestly, how many more origin movies can we take? How many more reboots of franchises? The studio’s mentality seems to be that people are stupid and will watch anything. If they do make a turkey, then they’ll just reboot it later, as they plan to do with Daredevil and Ghost Rider. Well, why not just make a good film in the first place? Here’s a hint: Don’t cast Ben Affleck or Nicolas Cage.

Of course, the reboot/franchise/spin-off phenomenon is not limited to comic book movies alone, but it is conspicuously evident in that genre. The truth is, the current situation is only a result of supply and demand. Moviegoers are still demanding comic book films, but just of a higher caliber. Now there is that demand, studios are simply supplying them, conveniently forgetting about their past mistakes. One thing seems certain: It’s a trend that’s not stopping any time soon. So, super villains, you’d best remember that you cannot defeat a superhero. After all, superheroes don’t die: They just get rebooted.

Dublo.

Liam Treanor is one such designer. He has taken the ethics of mid-century design and applied them to his own work, producing a collection of pieces that are simple, elegant and functional, as all the best design should be.

There is honesty in material and construction in his work, and the clean lines and organic forms produce a lightweight aesthetic, redolent of the best of mid-century design.

Liam’s furniture uses only English grown timber from Forest Stewardship Council woodlands, and each piece is made to order, allowing the customer to choose the timber or specify the colour of the painted elements.

I caught up with Liam and asked him about his inspiration, influences and his plans for the future.

When did you first become interested in design and furniture design?

I came across furniture design due to rejection of further education at university level; I wanted to do something practical. So following my A Levels I opted to learn the art of cabinet making at a local college. This is where my love of design started to prevail, but more so after I left college and continued the subject on a more design-led course at university a year later. I’ve always been a hands-on person and I have a pragmatic mind, so being a designer maker is ideal.

What and/or who would you say are your biggest design influences?

Marcel Breuer’s pioneering designs led me to realize what good, intelligent design is; the importance of not designing a product around the aesthetic, but more so for its function and commercial viability. Following my discovery of Breuer I then went on to read about the Bauhaus school of art and design and Modernism in general. I pretty much taught myself how to design through research into the ethics of the Modernists through the 20^th Century. I would recommend this approach to any budding designer.

What was the first piece that you created and did you consider it a success?

The first piece I designed and made was a plant table with pale green tapered legs and a visually floating natural poplar top. The poplar has green tints that worked really well with the coloured legs. It’s at my parent’s house. My Mum won’t let me have it back. If it makes her happy then I like to think it was a success.

Have you worked for any other designers or in a furniture-making capacity before setting out on your own?

I decided I wanted to set up my own company straight away after graduating from university in 2010. I don’t really like working under people or constraints. Working under somebody else would have meant I could be producing products I don’t necessarily enjoy making or agree with, whilst progressing their business whereas I could be establishing my own.

In starting your own business, what challenges have you faced and how have you overcome them?

Sourcing enough work to balance the costs of exhibiting and marketing is the main challenge. Dreams are expensive indeed. I wouldn’t say that I have overcome this challenge yet; it is still early on in my career. But I do spend much time trying to source work and invest all available money on my business rather than going out and spoiling myself.

What is your latest project, and what inspired it?

The next big project will be a collaboration piece with a friend from my university course. I’m really excited about it. Due to attempting to keep a consistent identity throughout my current range of furniture I find there are restrictions as to how creative I can be. So with this new project you can expect to see products embodying interesting concepts and a fresh aesthetic.

What are you plans for the future?

In the short term – keep designing furniture and create an extensive collection; put more products into retail; move my business to London.

 In the long term – manufacture my designs in a larger scale; open a shop to retail my work and the work of designers I think are talented.

Ultimately, I aim to make beautiful, affordable, design-led furniture accessible to wider audience.

To find out more, visit http://liamtreanor.co.uk/

Photography by Spadge – http://spadgeuk.com/

So, how have they achieved this universal appeal?  Well, the answer may lie in the fact that the company is a blend not only of the traditional elements of an established brand, but also of the influence of their relatively new Creative Director, Emma Hill. Whilst Mulberry celebrates its 40^th anniversary this year, Emma Hill will have been with the company just three short years. However, in that time, it is fair to say that she has entirely rejuvenated the brand.

Which is why it is not surprising that The Book, launched in celebration of its respectable milestone, is not some fusty, dull retrospective of the last 40 years, but rather a honest, fly-on-the-wall, look back over the last few years of the brand, infused with the sense of playfulness and joy that Emma has brought to the company in that time.

This book is a delightful, candid glimpse into the world of Mulberry. Photographed beautifully by regular Mulberry collaborator Venetia Dearden, it contains a wealth of behind-the-scenes photographs, taking the reader from the studios of New York, to backstage at Claridges for London Fashion Week, and on to the Mulberry factory itself in Somerset. Three years in the making, The Book is luxuriously finished, with the kind of attention to detail that has become synonymous with Mulberry.

The Book, then, is a true reflection of a brand that has somehow managed to blow away the cobwebs associated with many of the established British luxury labels and has become reinvigorated by an injection of whimsy, colour and fun.

For more details, go to Mulberry.com.

Images from Mulberry: The Book. Photography byVenetia Dearden.

Dublo.