Which isn’t surprising, actually. The X-Files has been the big love of my life for 14 years now. My deep involvement with the show - as a fan and as an academic - has pretty much dictated which television shows and films to watch and invest in. In essence, as a fan, IWTB is something that most fans have almost given up hope for: a follow-up film, a decade after the first, and 6 years after the show ended in 2002 after a 9-year-run. Makes it harder to be unemotional when one is clearly emotionally attached.

The title of the film itself - I Want To Believe - probably resonated with a lot of fans. It was at the crux of the show even though ‘The truth is out there’ and ‘Trust no one’ might be more familiar taglines to casual viewers. Mulder’s ‘I Want to believe’ poster has always been one of the centre-pieces of the basement office; and it once again makes an appearance in the film, forming a central theme (once again).

You might think the ‘review’ would be biased because I speak as a fan. But what reviewer isn’t subjective in their choice of good or bad films? The secrecy surrounding the plot of the film, for instance (false plots, including photo evidence of a werewolf, were leaked to the internet), as well as the unavailability of the film for a preview for critics in America convinced them that the filmmakers believed the film was so bad, they’re trying to do damage control (something that George Lucas should have done for the new Star Wars trilogy in fact). The simple fact of the matter is, in this day and age where anything and everything is leaked on the internet months before they’re due (look at my post on the pilot of Fringe as the perfect evidence!), the only control the filmmakers were trying to impose on, is piracy.

Back to The X-Files. One of the things that first drew me to the TV show was the fact that the show wasn’t afraid to look at issues that might be uncomfortable for some. The film is no different.

At the centre of the plot is Father Joe Crissman (Billy Connolly), a convicted paedophile priest who is seeking redemption and forgiveness for his past crimes. As young women - one of whom an FBI agent - continually turns up missing, Father Joe calls the FBI to alert them to his psychic visions, claiming that the FBI agent is still alive. Running out of time, and having to substantiate the credibility of his ‘gift’, the FBI reluctantly turns to Fox Mulder (David Duchovny), who when we last saw in 2002, was on the run from the government for bogus murder charges. Their only way of possibly contacting Mulder is his former FBI partner, Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson), who is now working in a Catholic hospital in Virginia. Scully claims to no longer work with Mulder, but the FBI dangles a full pardon for Mulder if he helps them out on this case.

It is with this that we learn Mulder and Scully are in fact, together (much to the relieve of thousands of fans around the world). Mulder’s natural curiosity and his infinite boredom at being stuck at home with his files and newspaper clippings will undoubtedly draw him out of hiding. And his obssessive dependence on Scully will ensure that she gets dragged along for the ride, despite her own real-world battles with the hospital over her terminally-ill patient. A 6-year-old boy named Christian, whom the hospital administrators want to send away to die.

It is here that the two seemingly unconnected storylines intersect, albeit metaphorically. Mulder’s aid in the investigation headed by the no-nonsense FBI agents Whitney (Amanda Peet) and Drummy (Xzibit) who have brought him in gradually uncovers what appears to be an illegal organ trafficking operation that is hiding something more insidious. On the other hand, Scully refuses to give up finding a cure for her patient when the hospital, as well as the parents have given up. Like proper Catholics, they believe that it is all in God’s hands now.

It is different for Scully however, as being told by Father Ybarra (Adam Godley) that she has to let the boy go is probably a stark and unwelcome reminder of what - or who - she had to give up 6 years before: her son with Mulder, William. So she suggested an alternative treatment for the boy, Christian - stem cell therapy. One of the arguments against stem cell research (I’m not just talking about the Catholic church here) is the boundaries of scientific inquiry. At what point is scientific experimentation on human-derived cells considered over the line? While it is entirely possible that the treatment might afford Christian some semblance of a childhood, we see the other side of the spectrum in Mulder’s investigation: the horror of scientific experiments done on humans. Which, again, arguably, may or may not have been helped by stem cell research (stem cell research might provide a cure for the cancer of the abductor’s life partner, but it could also have propelled the experimentation to such a stage in the first place).

Do we believe that God will step in and grant a miracle, or should we put things in motion so that it would seem like God has stepped in and land a hand much like Scully and the abductor, Janke Dacyshyn (Callum Keith Rennie) had? These characters are essentially all ‘playing god’ by making that initial decision that they will not let a loved one or a beloved patient die. But it begets the question: when Dacyshyn abducted all those women in favour of keeping his life partner alive, is he doing God’s work or the Devil’s?

This makes Scully’s struggle to take Father Joe seriously even more interesting. Can you forgive a man of God who has done horrible things to children? A man who is himself seeking redemption for what he has done. Before he collapsed, Father Joe had divulged that all he had wanted was to serve God and he went so far as to castrate himself when he found that he could not control his urges. Is that God’s work or the Devil’s? If the Devil had prompted him to molest the children, is God now giving him a chance at redemption through his psychic link to the cases? Save a girl’s life, you are forgiven for your sins. Scully clearly struggles with that, at the thought that perhaps God is offering redemption to a man – a man of God nonetheless – who has done despicable things to children. But then, who are we to decide who it is that God forgives? One of the fundamental teachings of Catholicism has always been that God works in mysterious ways. Why are we suddenly judging whether or not a convicted paedophile is working through God or the Devil? When Scully herself can be accused of ‘playing god’ by subjecting her patient to painful procedures if only to prolong his life.

The ethics of medical science once again comes back into the picture. At what point does a doctor or a scientist say, this is too much. The Catholic church condemns geneticists for playing god, but aren’t they essentially doing the exact same thing by judging? Yes, these Popes and priests claim that they have a higher mandate. But what if the scientists believe that they are also doing God’s work? It is medical science after all, and Catholics are allowed to seek medical treatment when they get ill. Aren’t the doctors then essentially playing god if they cure someone of cancer? Or they prolong the life of someone who is HIV positive? What are the boundaries in that?

Many critics have criticised that the film lacked the usual CGI effects, car chases and explosions. A lazy supposition when a little film could do so much more if only they bothered to dig a little deeper. Roger Ebert of Chicago Sun Times had remarked that The X-Files film questioned morality as seriously as The Dark Knight. Issues like these always make the average filmgoer uncomfortable because they do not want to be challenged - it is why films like The Happening are flops. This version of The X-Files film returns the iconic franchise of Mulder and Scully to its form: posing uncomfortable questions through a possible paranormal link in a post-911 era where the world has seen a return to form of ultra-conservativism.

It’s the kind of film that’s lacking in Hollywood for years now, present perhaps only in little indie films popular in festivals like Sundance that will hardly see the light of day due to lack of funding. It also works as a love story because ultimately, it can be about the relationship of Mulder and Scully.

Out of all the superheroes out there, whether they are personified in film or not, Batman is my favourite. If a superhero is indeed an ordinary man able to achieve the extraordinary, then Batman is it (Iron Man’s Tony Stark comes a close second). He wasn’t bitten by a radioactive spider nor is he an alien from the planet Krypton. Not that Bruce Wayne is your average run-of-the-mill guy, mind you. He is, after all, a billionaire.

Chris Nolan’s ressurrection of the franchise with the 2005 Batman Begins introduced us to the makings of a hero and presented a much darker Batman that was actually able to incite fear in his adversaries. Fears he himself have to overcome (bats being one of them from a childhood trauma). It was also the fear of losing himself to vengence that he had to overcome. And perhaps his alter-ego in the Batsuit can double as therapy. Nolan’s Batman is steeped in reality - Batman’s gadgets are the results of the many R&D investsments of Wayne Enterprises overseen by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) who became a trusted ally. His enemies are the Mob who runs Gotham City.

In the follow-up to Batman Begins, we see the aftermath of Bruce Wayne’s actions. Yes, he is helping Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) rid the city of the Mob, in extension giving the Mayor a good name. But unlike the city’s new hotshot DA, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), considered a ‘white knight’ by many, Batman can’t reveal his true face. Bruce Wayne is an unapologetic ladies’ man and trust fund baby while Batman was born out of a vengeful force. Throughout the film, we see Bruce Wayne struggle with this - he continuously talks of giving up so that he can finally be with his childhood friend and love, Rachel Dawes.

However, his aggressive stance against the Mob has its consequences. It certainly caught the attention of the Joker (Heath Ledger, who delivered a stunning performance and stole every scene he was in) who slyly courted the Mob in order to be hired as the hitman to take out Batman. For the Joker, this is all a game - he sees Batman as his other half, their only difference is that Batman plays by the rules whereas the Joker sees anarchy and chaos as art. A line that can be easily crossed, as the Joker continually tries throughout the film.

On the other hand, we also see the incarnation of Harvey Dent into another notorious Gotham villain, Two Face. Now it all seems much when you read about it, but in truth, everything falls together. The villains - the Mob, the Joker, and even Two Face - are creations of society and circumstances. It goes to show that Batman can’t just swoop in to save the day: there are always dire consequences. The film does explain why it uses the moniker ‘the Dark Knight’, and it also goes further to suggest that to do what is right, one sometimes has to be hated. It’s the endurance of all the hatred that makes one a hero, as Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) - more a father figure than a loyal butler - tells the bitten and bitter Bruce Wayne.

I honestly think that was what Spiderman 3 was trying to get at, but failing miserably. The Dark Knight is easily THE film of the year. As Michael Caine remarked that he’d pay good money to see anyone else but Heath Ledger win the Best Supporting Actor for next year’s Oscars, I’d pay good money to see another film that’ll manage to top The Dark Knight this year! Both in terms of number of excellent reviews and the amount of money that it made.

On a sidenote, I had to book my ticket at the London IMAX 3 weeks in advance, and even then the 1st day (24th July) and most of the 2nd (25th) was already full!

From the outset, this will look - and sound - like The X-Files. And normally I’d cringe at attempts like this if not for Abrams and co’s name (Abrams collaborators, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, who wrote Transformers and the highly anticipated Star Trek are co-creators) attached to it. That, and Abrams has professed to being a fan of The X-Files.

FBI agent, Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) was forced to work with a brilliant yet perhaps slightly unstable scientist, Walter Bishop (John Noble) when a mysterious biological contagion killed 147 passengers on an airplane. Dunhan became personally invested in the case when her partner-slash-lover was infected with the same ailment while they were chasing down a suspect. The complication is that Bishop has been institutionalised for 17 years after being accused for killing his lab assistant and experimenting on human subjects. His specialty? ‘Fringe science’. In other words, pseudo or paranormal science: mind-reading, remote viewing, astral projection, reanimation and the like. Fox Mulder would probably have found him a useful ally if the X-Files department existed in this universe. Bishop is only allowed visitors if they’re immediate family.

Enters the third main character, Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson), Walter’s estranged son. There seems to be an unspoken animosity between father and son that will hopefully be explored further as the series progresses. Peter, a high school dropout with an IQ of 190, is the sceptic here. But as Olivia tells him, he “speaks Walter” - think of the older Bishop as an absent-minded Dr. Frankenstein, so Peter is our translator. He’s Scully, in this case, challenging his father’s scientific theories as well as ‘legitimising’ his work.

The premise is interesting, as I said earlier. And there are some homages to The X-Files as well as The Twilight Zone. Abrams’s signature is all over the show: the father-child estranged relationship, the familiar eerie music which fans are sure is Michael Giacchino’s brilliant work, the time/place stamps that Alias fans are so familiar with (using the Lost font this time around) as well as the mysterious and ambigious supporting characters and big organisations. The title of this entry is a quote from Dunham’s other partner, who was lamenting that law enforcement has become obsolete because big corporations have a higher clearance for the big picture than they do. Big corporations who don’t necessarily play by any rules or subscribe to ethics. The twist at the end of the hour and a half pilot was somewhat predictable, but it does up the complication level a notch for the show.

The relationship of the characters were laid out clearly, and it definitely sets up the rest of the show nicely. John Noble, as expected, was exceedingly good as the mad scientist. The moments when he was lucid and trying to reconnect with his son was played with a touching vulnerability, and it makes you wonder what went wrong in that relationship. Joshua Jackson (yes, he of Dawson’s Creek fame) was not surprisingly good as the estranged son and the sceptic who is equal parts con man and a son who is perhaps trying to understand his father (I’ve seen Jackson in a play before in London, and he certainly held his own next to his co-star, Patrick Stewart, much to the agreement and surprise of theatre critics). My only problem is actually with Anna Torv. It’s not a big problem per se. I just think she needs to grow into the role more.

At the moment I’m unconvinced she’s an FBI agent - I don’t know if the character was deliberately set up this way (a la Buffy) as the first introduction we have of her is post-coitus with her FBI partner, talking about how fraternization among partners are usually frowned upon. Perhaps the kind of introduction would show her struggle to be taken seriously more adequately (especially when she’s blonde). However, Jennifer Garner she is not. In the pilot episode of Alias, Garner had already shown that she owned Sydney Bristow, not the other way around. Within minutes, you know she can kick anyone’s ass but also be vulnerable at the same time - the lost little girl who is desperate to connect with her father. I don’t see that with Torv and her character yet. Not to mention, her American accent sounds as weird as Sophia Myles’s in Moonlight (Torv is Australian). I can only hope that Dunham’s character is like Sun (or even Kate) in Lost - they unravel slowly, like onions. Because otherwise, it’ll be very hard to convince me her credibility as an FBI agent who wants to understand what is going on.

I also think they want to set up a chemistry between Dunham and the younger Bishop (as expected, since they’re the leads after all). And again, I don’t see it yet. Mulder and Scully they are definitely not. Nor Brennan and Booth from Bones. Those chemistry radiate off the TV screen in high alpha waves, right from the start so it’ll be enormous shoes to fill. Again, that is perhaps something that time will reveal. But for those looking for quality TV from a trusted source (given Abrams’s history of work), this isn’t bad.

To be honest, I am not a fan of M. Night Shyamalan’s work except for The Sixth Sense, which I really thought was brilliant and very raw. However, Unbreakable was forgettable; Signs aggravated me because I’m a scifi fan and the film was just lame. The Village was worse - I figured out the plot halfway through the film and was very bored throughout. Lady In the Water, I couldn’t even be bothered. So, why did I go and watch it then?

I think if Shyamalan hadn’t cast Zooey Deschanel as the female lead, I probably won’t have bothered. Then there’s the fact that the cinematic trailer for The X-Files: I Want To Believe is tagged to the film. So I reasoned that I could fork out the £5.50 to ogle Zooey Deschanel and get the chills of hearing the familiar theme as well as hear the words ‘Mulder’ and ‘Scully’ on the big screen again. A decade is, after all, a long time to wait. Anyway, I digress.

I was actually prepared to be disappointed yet again. Or more like frustrated. But to my surprise, I actually found the film rather decent. It’s almost back to Shyamalan’s form in his debut work. I said almost.

So what didn’t I like? The scripted dialogue for one. There were parts where it almost seemed natural and parts of the film where the dialogue just sounded wrong and unnatural. I don’t think Shyamalan is a bad filmmaker/director, but I think he falls into the ‘George Lucas’ territory in my book - great vision, great way of evoking a certain mood, but seriously, they need to get proper scriptwriters who can actually, you know, WRITE!

Secondly, I’m not entirely convinced by the casting of Mark Wahlberg here. He doesn’t even sound like he’s believing in himself when he’s spouting out all the scientific jargon. A science teacher, he is not. Female characters in Shyamalan’s films are sometimes underused. Or they’re hysterical. In this case, I would have preferred Alma (Zooey Deschanel) to be fleshed out more.

Having said that, I do like the story. I think it has potential, and it’s certainly a marked difference from large scale disaster films Hollywood so loves - the type where everyone screams and runs because it’s only through hysteria that you’re showing emotion. But having a large group of people in a seemingly harmless park suddenly freeze, walking backwards, saying weird things or jumping off buildings are equally creepy. And I’m not one to be creeped out easily! But it works for me in some scenes. I could do without the sometimes over-the-top music though.

A film that depicts environmental disaster is always a tricky and sensitive one, I feel. I read a lot of the reviews before I went to watch this, and to me, it seems like a lot of the critics were critical of the story itself. As if the thought of nature defending herself or retaliating against humans is actually a ludicrous idea. Why is it impossible? Because as humans we have seemingly conquered Mother Nature, who has survived millions of years of evolution - 5 extinctions, if you want to believe the Navajo creation myth. That seems to be the trappings of our Enlightenment forefathers.

I think, in part, the criticism against the film is political. Come up with a film about environmental disaster, the Conservative Right in the US - in fact, the world - will accuse you of creating a progaganda to further the Liberal agenda. We must recycle; we must find renewable energy and sustainable resources; we must be concerned with our carbon footprint - a lot of people still believe global warming a myth. And I truly believe this adds to the unpopularity of the film.

Perhaps my liking the film also has to do with the fact that it agrees with me politically.

I’m a Whedonite by nature, having been a huge fan of all of Joss Whedon’s works - Buffy, Angel, Firefly - despite having a somewhat love-hate relationship with some of his creative decision on characterisation. But when word got round that Whedon is returning to TV through Buffy and Angel alum Eliza Dushku’s (who played rogue slayer, Faith) new show, Dollhouse, the TV geek world went into a frenzy. More or less. Whedon has stayed away from TV since the premature cancellation of his brilliant scifi western, Firefly, staying predominantly in comics (both the Buffy and Angel franchises are continued via comics). And with a lot of intelligent cult TV drawing to a close soon, this is definitely a welcome return.

That aside, what is the premise of Dollhouse? Whedon has described the show as “part Alias, part Quantum Leap” (TV Guide interview), as the main character Echo (Eliza Dushku) can be anyone but herself. Echo is a member of a group of people known as ‘Actives’ or ‘Dolls’, who are hired by the rich to be anyone they wish them to be. At the end of the assignment, their memories are wiped clean. In their childlike state, these ‘Actives’ or ‘Dolls’ live in the Dollhouse where they are looked after by a bunch of scientists and doctors. But as with any Joss Whedon show, all is not as simple. Echo begins developing a self-awareness, and to add to that, an FBI agent (played by the remarkable Tahmoh Penikett of Battlestar Galactica) starts to become obsessed with investigating the Dollhouse. Suggesting that perhaps rather than being volunteers, there might be something more insidious going on with the procurement of the Dolls.

The Futon Critic identified Dollhouse as Whedon’s most accessible work. Which actually gives me pause. I have never thought Whedon’s work to be inaccessible in any way. But then again, I’m fascinated with vampires so Buffy and Angel have never bothered me in any way. It remains to be seen if Fox would continue their investment in this. Practically, being deemed ‘accessible’ would probably be a good thing rather than bad. Being accessible means being able to attract the majority of the audience who don’t normally have a taste for intensely layered and metaphorical cult television (of course, it being a Whedon show, I won’t expect anything less. Just that the layers will be there for fans, but for the general public, it can equally be enjoyed as is - I’m hoping). Nevertheless, it’ll make for interesting TV once it premieres in the US next January.

View the trailer here.