Four Lions

Bear or Wookie?

Chris Morris' Four Lions was definitely one of my most anticipated films of the past few months and I was seriously disappointed when I found it wasn't being shown in the cinema at which I work. But determined little me decided it was worth visiting a rival to see it with a few friends, and I can safely say no one went home disappointed.

Four Lions tells the story of four young radicalised Muslim men from the north of England as they begin training to become suicide bombers. Quite a simple idea but it is brilliantly played out, as their targets change from a mosque, to the Internet and finally the London Marathon. All the while, they bicker and fail in their attempts to complete tasks on their road to potential martyrdom.

I have been a fan of Chris Morris for a long while now, mainly thanks to my college theatre teacher who introduced me to The Day Today and Brass-Eye. I loved how Morris was able to twin serious subject matter with ridiculous situations and manage to balance them into a coherent social commentary, and Four Lions is no different. Don't get me wrong, it can either be taken as a social commentary or a comedy, and as a comedy, it doesn't disappoint at all. Any film that has two snipers discussing the difference between Wookies and bears gets my approval.

The production of this film was delayed slightly as the BBC and Channel Four felt the storyline was too controversial, however Morris' three years of research into the radicalism is evident throughout. Despite the film being a comedy, time is taken to make the characters three-dimensional; there are moments of tenderness between radicalised families, and ironically, heartfelt sympathy when the terrorists begin to question their beliefs.
This is mainly due to the actors, who were very well cast and had great comic timing, especially the leader Omar (Riz Ahmed) and Waj (Kayvan Novak), the slow Islamic Jihadi terrorist who compares martyrdom to bypassing the long queues in Alton Towers. They brought real humanity to their characters, and their chemistry was the backbone to the film's storyline.

All in all, I felt Four Lions did what Chris Morris has been doing since The Day Today: showing the public that no subject should be untouchable. Whilst the subject of terrorism is one that carries an enormous history and should be treated respectfully, it shouldn't hold us in silence and fear. Films like Four Lions are needed to show us that we have nothing to fear, and that bumbling idiots are in all forms of life, even the ones dedicated to cause harm. I wish that the film gets a wider re-release soon, as I truly feel it should be seen by as many people as possible.

Rating - 9/10

Robin Hood:

Fighting 'Round The World

I won't lie, I had very low expectations before watching Robin Hood. I assumed, like a lot of my colleagues, that the film was simply going to be "Gladiator in the forest". And whilst this is the fifth collaboration between the director Ridley Scott and the main star Russell "Fightin' Round the World!" Crowe, I felt like this was a very different film and was plesantly surprised.

Robin Hood takes place in late 12th Century Britain, and Robin Longstride (Crowe) is a common archer in the Third Crusade, fighting for his King, Richard the Lionheart, against the French and their King, Philip II. After Richard's death, his younger brother John (Oscar Isaac) becomes King and imposes more taxation on his subjects. This leads to an-almost civil war until Robin can unite the sides to fight the common enemy of the invading French, led by English traitor Godfrey (Mark Strong).

Overall, the storyline of Robin Hood is focussed on the part of the Robin Hood legend that is largely overlooked in previous versions of the tale. Usually Robin returns from the crusades to fight oppression caused from the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham or uncaring King John, and I thought it was very refreshing to see it focus more on localised areas of Northern England rather than it all take place in London.

Recently, Crowe has received some criticism from the press regarding his 'wandering accent' and I have to say I agree. It becomes very evident that Crowe's accent does not stay in one region, and it detracts from the film's quality. For a film based around one of England's oldest legends, you'd expect the title character to be a British actor or at least be able to carry off a decent accent. To be fair, it wasn't just Crowe's casting, there are a lot of non-English actors which I felt a little disappointed by, but it just goes to show the state of the film industry today.
The only two British lead roles are Mark Strong and Cate Blanchett, who do very well portraying the type of character they have recently become used to; the archetypal turncoat villain, and the strong, yet graceful female.

Despite my gripes of a lack of a British cast, Max von Sydow is incredibly entertaining as Sir Walter Locksley, as he embodies a youthful glee when taking Robin in as a replacement son, which is a joy to watch.

All in all, when the film finished, I was content with what I had watched. It was an entertaining two and a bit hours, that managed to introduce the characters of the story we all know and love whilst setting the scene for the sequel. It allowed Crowe and Scott to work together again but didn't turn into a Gladiator clone, which I always felt it was in danger of becoming.
Whilst there were some plot holes (such as why Godfrey turned against John and what was he getting out of Philip II invading?) and some wandering accents, I felt that the film was well directed and written, and would recommend to movie-goers anywhere.

Rating - 6/10

Iron Man 2

A Tale of Two Sons


(You are warned, this is pretty long review. If you have no patience, feel free to read my shortened review at http://dunnonfilm.blogspot.com/2010/05/review-of-jon-favreaus-iron-man-2.html

I've been putting off reviewing Iron Man 2 until I could finally make an overall summary of the film. The first time I saw it, it was straight after I had watched Iron Man 1 and I felt that even though the overall experience was enjoyable, I needed to rate the sequel on it's own. However, since being made to watch it several times as part of my job (horrible job right?) I feel that I now have a firm grip on my thoughts on this graphic-novel inspired sequel.

Iron Man 2 starts immediately where the first film ended; Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) delivering a press conference announcing to the world that he is Iron Man, then we skip six months in the future and Iron Man is beloved by everyone, citing himself to be the cause of global peace.

However the device in Stark's chest is slowly poisoning his bloodstream, the government wants his Iron Man suits for themselves to be used as weapons of warfare, and a rival businessman (Sam Rockwell) enlists a dangerous Russian physicist (Mickey Rourke) to help him knock Stark off the top spot.

I feel that all of the points I have to raise with this film could come across like an essay which may put off a few of you readers, so I think I will amend it to be in bullet-point form to make it easier on you.

1. STARK'S STORYLINE

• As is typical with the second film of a proposed trilogy, Iron Man 2 seems to 'get darker' than it's predecessor by Tony Stark succumbing to the chest device slowly poisoning his bloodstream. He reacts to this in 'very destructive' ways: driving in the Monaco Grand Prix and getting drunk on his birthday in his Iron Man suit. Hardly having suicidal tendancies. However, to me, Iron Man isn't really thought of as being as 'realistic' as other comic-book films, such as Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. It's a light-hearted version, as Stark is an arrogant, self-centred playboy superhero, not the tortured soul like Bruce Wayne. So when Iron Man 2 tries to get serious, it doesn't feel right.

2. VILLAINS - IVAN VANKO

• A comic-book movie is only as good as it's villain. If you get an actor on the rise back to the top like Mickey Rourke, you give him some material fitting his talent. Vanko has an early fight scene with Stark in which he seems to be beating Stark, however he is easily apprehended and then never given any opportunity to be villainous until the finale. It made him seem an non-threat, something Stark could easily overcome.
• If you put an exciting fight scene some 30 minutes into your film, you make sure that isn't the only one until the end of the film. This is supposed to be an action film!
• Rourke has the overall look of a villain and had the potential to be a character that is the opposite of Tony Stark. It is mentioned that Vanko is the 'other side of the coin', and that is what could have made their rivalry interesting. In the film, Stark is the modern-day poster boy for America, coming from a background of money and opportunity. Vanko, on the other hand, was forced to grow up in poverty due to Stark's dad shipping Vanko Sr. off back to Russia. His motivation to attack Stark and destroy his legacy isn't really explored and given the chance to be fully developed.
• The incredibly short final battle has Whiplash vs. Iron Man and War Machine. How is this a disadvantage to Stark? Aren't we meant to feel that he can't overcome Whiplash, so we can cheer in victory when Iron Man does win in the end?
• Vanko's main attack seems to be wrapping his electric whips around his opponent's necks, but it doesn't affect the heroes at all. They just seem mildly inconvenienced, then they start chatting about how they are going to defeat him. Pretty weak for the Big Bad's main strategy of the final fight.

3. VILLAINS - JUSTIN HAMMER

• Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is the shining light of Iron Man 2. He is given all the best lines, and Rockwell just enjoys being the character, stealing the scene everytime he's on screen. However, by allowing him to share the film's comedy with Stark, as well as introducing him as incompetent, he nevers feels like a threat to Stark even with Vanko's help. Eventually when Vanko does take liberties with Hammer's good nature, Hammer does shout at Vanko and takes away his precious cockatoo. However, you don't believe the anger as Hammer isn't built up to be an angry guy.

4. THE SIDE CHARACTERS

• When you watch a slighty-ensemble film like The Dark Knight, you see how everyone has equal screen time and it felt like a balanced film; Bruce Wayne had his personal battle; The Joker was given adequate screen time to build up an imposing threat; and the side characters of Dawes, Dent and Gordon also had their chance to build a third dimension to their characters. Unfortunately this wasn't shared in Iron Man 2
• Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow) was hardly in the film and when she was, her role was of the buzzkill to Stark's party lifestyle. She was the shoulder of support in the first film, and her decreased role made the final scene where her and Tony finally kiss feel flat. There had been no build-up to it through the film, and if you hadn't had seen the first film, you wouldn't know there was any budding relationship at all.
• Natalie Rushman/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) was used as eye-candy, which she did very well, but could have been used more than just that role. Her fight scene was another scene that worked very well, and I might have fallen a little bit in love with her there too.
• James Rhodes' (Don Cheadle) actions in the film weren't really explained. He was concerned for Tony's health and the safety of his suits, but at the first sign of trouble, he dons the Iron Man Mark II suit and has a fight with him. He then flies off with the suit, gives it to the government and alters it to become War Machine. I felt that as long as he became War Machine, then his storyline would be complete, and it didn't matter how it happened. Despite Stark taking a good amount of time testing the suit and working out how to fly it, Rhodes was able to use the suit from the get go, good enough to have a fight with Stark. It just didn't make sense. Plus after Stark and Rhodes' tussle, it ends with a poignant shot of two emotionless robot faces looking at each other, leaving us non-the-wiser as to what kind of emotion was meant to be conveyed.
• Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) was only in the film for a couple of scenes, but I felt that his character wasn't treated with the weight it should have done. His first appearance is in quite a light-hearted scene with Stark at a donut shop. The scene is quite light and humourous, but Fury sticks out like a sore thumb. His appearance is straight out of the graphic novel, and borders on the ridiculous as it is: black leather trenchcoat and an eyepatch. If he is not treated as a serious character, he just seems unrealistic in a film that's trying to be more serious.

Thanks for sticking with me through all that, I feel better now I've vented.

If I were to sum up Iron Man 2 in one word it would be "Rushed". Whilst watching it, I felt that Favreau and his team felt they had made a mistake announcing a release date so far in advance after the original Iron Man was such a success back in 2008. Having a deadline date couldn't allow Favreau to go back and reshoot some scenes, or allow more time to work on the script, which I felt it needed. The scenes with Hammer and Whiplash were quite abruptly cut short, I feel to make more time for Stark's descent into depression with his impending death. However instead of concentrating on the all-important storyline, they pushed it to the side and made them seem superfluous. The storylines weren't given the right amount of time to grow and be resolved.

Tony Stark begins his speech at the beginning of the Stark Expo saying that it's not about him, or us, it's about Legacy. I feel that unfortunately Iron Man 2 has affected the Iron Man legacy and Iron Man 3 will need to up it's game if it is to return to the form that Iron Man 1 set two years ago.

Rating - 5/10