Iron Man 3

Back To Basics

The release of Iron Man 3 brings fond memories for this film reviewer.

Unfortunately, not the memory of visiting the cinema on my twentieth birthday and being blown away by the impressive first Iron Man, but being so disappointed two years later by the sequel Iron Man 2. 

After watching the storyline drearily wander from one dull, tedious set-piece to the other like an arthritic turtle, my mind was filled with alternate story-lines  character arcs and witty one-liners that I thought could have vastly improved the insomnia-curing opus. I got to a laptop, began typing and the final result was the very lengthy review found on this website.  (Feel free to give it a read if you have a day off work) 

My opinion still remains that IM2 is the weakest of The Avengers’ prequels and a lot of hope lay with IM3 to 're-energise' the Stark name.

It needed to ‘spark’ more interest.

It would need to ‘jump-start’ the road to The Avengers 2.

As well as …ahem… ‘battery’ the Hollywood competition.

Anyway, Iron Man 3 takes place a few months after the events of The Avengers, with Tony having moved back to California and continuing to improve on his Iron Man suits, but apparently to the point of obsession. He cannot sleep, buries himself in his work away from girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and begins to suffer from anxiety attacks when anyone mentions his brief visit to deep-space that occurred in the Battle of New York.  But malice has begun to surround Tony Stark and threaten the closest to him.  An emerging terrorist, The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), has begun to attack America and threaten the President; a once-ignored competitor and a once-spurned lover have joined forces to bring new threats to Tony; and Pepper may be getting tired of Tony’s fixation on his dangerous alter-ego.

Now, one of the many things missing from IM2 was an interesting and exciting plot. Thankfully, this is an area where IM3 has vastly improved. The film features much more humour and action that a 'popcorn movie' like this requires, and whilst some sections and plot twists may not make much sense, you forgive the film for such ridiculous spins as it has entertained you so much up until that point. You even start to warm towards that typical Disney-fied smart-mouth kid that Tony encounters.

But where the film really excels is the personal journey of the man inside the iron suit. Tony starts off mentally suffering from the New York attack, and it just starts getting worse for him. 

(NERD ALERT) 

I have been waiting for the writers of the Iron Man films to start shifting towards the dark, alcohol-fuelled descent of Tony Stark that was quite popular in the Iron Man graphic novels. I don't mean to try and direct the Marvel films to be more like the style of Christopher Nolan and his Dark Knight trilogy, but I feel like Stark's personality is so typically flippant and light-hearted, a move towards the dark part of Tony's life would be a smart move. Stark is such an interesting and conflicted character that to go deeper into his psyche is only a good thing.

Thankfully the side-characters are utilised much better than in the first two films. Previously, 'Rhodey' was Tony's right-hand man in dire times, but in IM3 Pepper also has grown to become more than a damsel-in-distress, holding her own in tough situations and Paltrow is finally given some credible acting-time in this film, even if she does quickly return to being the damsel that Iron Man must rescue.

As well as Pepper, Tony's best friend 'Rhodey' is also finally utilised properly. So far, his role has been simply sit back, alternate between looking like Terrence Howard and Don Cheadle and moan and gripe whilst flying around in one of Tony's suits. However, the director Shane Black's previous experience with buddy-cop action films seems to have had influence on Stark and Rhodes' partnership and I feel the film genuinely benefits from it, as they finally feel like a real team.

When it comes to the villains, I can't love Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley enough.  Even if they may not be as memorable as Mickey Rourke's Whiplash or imposing as Jeff Bridge's Obadiah Stane, they both bring their personal swagger and charm to both roles, despite Kingsley looking like a less suspicious Jimmy Savile crossed with Bono.  The only problem would be the film's lack of Rebecca Hall who plays Guy Pearce's deputy. She is a great talent who is under-utilised and pushed to the side, sometimes literally by Stark, and she should have had a more pivotal part to the story.

The film overall moves along with a steady and exciting pace, leaving enough room for character development along the way. I just wish there were more. Like I previously mentioned, delving deeper into Tony's background and emotions would make him even more three dimensional and empathetic, but hopefully that will carry on in future Marvel films. Even though I felt like the final fifteen or so minutes of the film were unnecessarily saccharin and sweet, I had to realise with Disney in charge of these films, I'll have to get used to seeing these kind of denouements and appreciate the fantastic first two hours before the obnoxiously sentimental finale.

Saying that, if Star Wars: Episode VII features two hours of light-sabre swinging action, then ends with Yoda and Chewie leaving Andy as he goes off to college, to go live with a new kid at the day care centre, I might shed a tear. Hang on, I think I got mixed up...

Rating - 8/10

Django Unchained

The N Word, Poorly Knitted Hoods and One Awful Accent

Unfortunately, as I currently write this review, Django Unchained has been released for a few months, so this review is hardly timely. However, I feel that the ability to look retrospectively on how the film was gauged by audiences gives me a better understanding of my own opinions on Quentin Tarantino's latest film as it has taken some time for me to fully verbalise my thoughts.

Tarantino has built his entire filmmaking career on shocking the audience whilst simultaneously referencing films and genres that he grew up watching.  His first film, Reservoir Dogs, captivated and intrigued audiences, providing inspiration to aspirational film-makers.

He followed this with Pulp Fiction, which cemented his place in the public's common knowledge. Critics loved him and his fresh, innovative approach to gritty American films. However, in recent years, Tarantino has been acquiring his share of negative criticism, with viewers becoming tired of his constant pop culture references and infatuation with sleazy exploitation. With 2007, came Death Proof. Critics and audiences were labelling it Tarantino's least beloved film, a sentiment that the director shares to this day.

However, Inglorious Basterds was a return to form, certainly in this critic's opinion and with QT branching out to work within genres, such as Basterds' war-time era, hopes were high when he announced his next feature Django Unchained was going to be Tarantino's first foray into the genre of westerns.

The story of Unchained centres around the relationship between the bounty hunter/dentist Dr Schultz, played effortlessly by Tarantino's latest muse Christoph Waltz, and the titular slave Django, played by Jamie Foxx. Django is the only alive person to have seen Schultz's latest bounties so acquires his help in locating these ruffians.   In return, Schultz will split the bounty money with Django and promises to try and free his wife, Broomhilda, from the clutches of slave-owner and plantation baron Calvin Candie, ruthlessly portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio.

The promise of a Tarantino film starring three fantastic actors in Foxx, Waltz and Leo had me salivating like a goth at a Tim Burton meet-and-greet when I saw the teaser trailer for the first time.  Tarantino usually can be counted on to give worthy actors an amazing script with which to work; Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds; Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel and Steve Buscemi in Reservoir Dogs; Bob de Niro, Robert Forster and Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown. He continues the trend here with the script being pithy and tongue-in-cheek but also quite vicious and scandalous, particularly in the continued use of 'the N word'.

Tarantino seems to have quite an affinity for this word, as Samuel L. Jackson uses it in nearly every film in which QT casts him. In this instance, Tarantino has said it is to bring the audience into the era in which the film is set, and to give us an example of how black people were treated. While this does produce the desired reaction at first, the effect becomes tedious the hundredth time you hear it and starts distracting from noticing what else is being said in the dialogue.

The script is also thirty minutes too long, as an appropriate ending to the storyline presents itself and I was left thinking, “Ah, here is a perfect place to finish it and it will seem like a rip-roaring revenge epic, the like that only QT can produce!”, but no, it continued for a full half an hour more! Here comes Quentin himself, with a god-awful Australian accent! It goes from bad to worse!

As well as the screenplay beginning to falter in the final act, so does the calibre of it's leading man. I have nothing against Jamie Foxx as an actor whatsoever, but unfortunately late on into the film, both Leo and Waltz's characters do not feature and the action is laid solely at the feet of Mr Foxx, and he doesn't really grab the audience's attention. This isn't due to Foxx not portraying Django properly, as I felt he acted perfectly fine in the role. However, the first hundred minutes of Unchained make the dynamic and animosity between Leo and Waltz's characters, Candie and Schultz, feel as if this is the main backbone of the film, rather than the titular hero's. So when they leave the film, the audience is left with the silent slave-turned-gunslinger, and we don't have that much passion for his journey to be fulfilled as much as Schultz's growing vendetta against Candie.

However, those criticisms aside, it still was an outstanding experience, filled with laughs, grimaces and overall entertainment from start to finish. Tarantino manages to produce a very decent entry into the western film genre, and now can move onto whatever project he now wants to focus on, word is it is a sequel to Kill Bill.

But regarding Django Unchained, it is not one of Tarantino's best, but even that is better than most of the production-line fare that is coming out of Hollywood these days.

Rating - 6/10

Les Misérables

Hardly Master Of The House

I've been struggling over my opinion of Les Misérables since it was released back in January.  Can I start by saying that the musical/opera Les Misérables is, without doubt, one of the most fantastic Broadway musicals ever made.  The longevity it has sustained is evidence enough to how well-crafted it is.  It inspires tears and horror, whimsy and joy, pride and passion, a sense that you’re watching something that will stick with you forever.  However, in my opinion, the film of Les Misérables does not.

Now I don’t want that to sound like a overly negative criticism towards the film of Les Misérables; I did find the storyline transferred well to the screen, the songs were as captivating and entertaining as ever, and the overall theme of national and personal pride shone through, just not in the same way as the stage show.

For those uncultured swines out there, Les Misérables tells the stories of a horribly downtrodden lot of people in Revolution-era 18^th century France.  Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a bailed prisoner tries to start a new life by escaping the law, leading him to be hunted by tireless policeman Javert (Russell Crowe).  Whilst starting fresh, he agrees to care for the child of a dying prostitute, Fantine (Anne Hathaway).  Valjean and the child begin to care for each other, forever worried that their true identities will be uncovered.

Years later, the French Revolution begins and a whole mess of stuff happens, but I feel like I've lost your attention already.  In short: Wolverine gets chased by Gladiator, until he meets Catwoman, takes care of the blonde girl from Mamma Mia!, and then participates in one of the biggest political uprisings in European history.  Simples.  Yet it is a mystery as to why I feel Les Misérables failed to live up to my expectations.

Could it be a problem with the director? Not at all, as I'm a huge fan of Tom Hooper's previous films (The King's Speech and The Damned United), and I felt like he brought the same visual technique and personal direction to Les Misérables as he did with Speech and United.

Could it be a problem with the songs?  Hardly.  The songs were thankfully unaltered from the stage production with the odd exception or addition, and now being bellowed out by new actors and actresses with as much blood, sweat and tears as humanly possible.  Seeing these songs sung on film rather than on a stage gave Hooper an interesting opportunity to use a variety of close-ups and long shots to truly experience the pain and anguish these characters live through.  The tears and emotion of Fantine whilst singing 'I Dreamed A Dream' (AKA 'Susan Boyle's Curse') truly transformed Anne Hathaway into a beaten and homeless French prostitute and not the perky, smiley Disney princess we all know.  I feel that this was hugely due to Hooper's use of having the cast properly sing whilst filming, instead of miming and then recording the singing separately afterwards.  It made the emotion and words feel more real and heartfelt, which I'm sure assisted Hathaway onto her path of deservedly winning the Best Supporting Actress Oscar.

Alongside Hathaway bringing the audiences to tears, I personally felt that the female cast were the highlights of the film whilst the men were simply cast for their notoriety rather than their vocal quality.  Undeniably, the human-owl that is Amanda Seyfried carried Cosette’s high notes well and casting Samantha Barks as the over-looked Eponine was a wise decision as she starred in the same role in the stage production of Les Misérables.  However, the main partnership of Valjean and Javert just didn’t have the special quality I felt it needed.  I completely understand how because by being a film, Les Misérables had to feature actors rather than singers for the roles.  If there were no singing involved, I'd be more than content for Wolverine and Gladiator to chew the scenery, but no; this film requires a degree of vocal harmony, of which I felt was lacking with Jackman and certainly Crowe.

It all looks majestic and breathtaking, but personally it just lacked a certain 'je ne sais quoi'.  I'd say the equivalent was attending a Rolling Stones concert, but watching Prince paint it black instead of Mick Jagger; still fantastic set-list, stage design and overall experience, but just not perfect, mainly due to the miscast front man.

Rating: 6/10

Gangster Squad

---------------------------

**NOTE** 

Hey guys, thanks for coming to my blog to read this, my first written review in over a year.  In the beginning of 2012, I tried branching out into video reviews and uploaded several to YouTube, but complications with my workplace meant I had to stop reviewing until I left there late last year.  Now I'm currently struggling in creating my own website, rather than using this blog to share my opinions on this year's film releases.  But since it's taking me a while to get any traction with it, I felt like I could still write my reviews on the blog until the site's ready.  So here we are.  

Please enjoy, and I apologise for how late these reviews are, but I've got a few stored up that I'd like to share.

---------------------------

as empty as Nick Nolte's fridge...

My experience with gangster films hasn't been vast. Apart from the classic mafia films such as The Godfather trilogy and Goodfellas, I'm not that well versed. 

'Cops vs. Gangsters' films were introduced to me by L.A. Confidential, a slick and stylish film noir that showed me how a crime film could look visually stunning amazing whilst still having an interesting mystery running throughout. This first taste led me to gritty crime dramas such as Roman Polanski's Chinatown which helped propel Jack Nicholson to limelight, and the true story of the takedown of Al Capone in Brian De Palma's The Untouchables.

As I watched these films, I began to notice similarities and difference between certain types of gangster movies. Whilst Chinatown and The Untouchables focussed on the gritty crime and injustice underpinning the storyline, conversely LA Confidential centred on portraying the atmosphere, fashion and style of 1950s Los Angeles, as it was not really based in reality but of a fictionalised LA, found in pulp fiction novels. In between these styles of gangster films, we find one of 2013's earliest releases: Gangster Squad.

Set in the late 1940s, the men of Los Angeles are still recovering from the end of the Second World War.  Honest policemen like Josh Brolin and walking-smoulder Ryan Gosling are trying to reacquaint themselves back to the homeland and the ex-boxer-turned-gangster Mickey Cohen, played by Sean Penn, is slowly establishing a crime syndicate in Los Angeles.

To fight him, the gigantic bear of a police chief, played by Nick Nolte, puts Brolin in charge of an elite crime-fighting squad with the objective of taking Cohen's empire down. Think The Avengers but with tommy-guns and coquettishly-worn trilby hats. They start using violent means to fulfil their task, but obviously Cohen doesn't take kindly to anybody getting in his way.

Like I mentioned earlier, the way I see gangster films is that they are either the gritty 'law must survive' films, or the suave 'good guys wear trilbys, bad guys wear pinstripe suits'.  The problem with Gangster Squad is that it was trying to be LA Untouchafellas... or Good China Confidential.   It wants to showcase the tension and anguish of the reality of 1950s Los Angeles, but also show how classy and sophisticated it was at the time.

That might be admirable of the relatively-new director Ruben Fleischer, but unfortunately the experiment doesn't seem to work; the film juxtaposes the real-life scenario of underdog cops fighting for what's right against a maniacal gangster's empire, whilst all the time having a glossy sheen of a fictional Los Angeles. A scene where Ryan Gosling swoons and smoulders across his screen, entirely for the ladies in the audience, is followed by a torture sequence where Penn kills an informant with a drill into his forehead. Trust me, no amount of Gosling in your film will keep your women smiling after a grisly scene like that.

The film doesn't give these real-life heroes any real screen time or interaction to establish their characters fully, only giving brief clichéd glimpses into their home and work lives and leaving the rest up to you. Brolin's got a wife who's having a baby and waits up all night worried about when he will come home, Gosling is just a womaniser who foolishly sets his sights on the local kingpin's girlfriend, played by the wasted talent of Emma Stone, the ever-supporting Giovanni Ribisi has a wife and kids therefore doesn't want to get involved with such people, but does anyway because of what's right. It desperately lacks inspiration.

If your aim is to watch an visually interesting and still mysterious crime film, there are much better examples out there then Gangster Squad. Usually anything from Al Pacino or Robert de Niro's early film career.  So please stick to those fantastic films and don't waste your money with Gangster Squad.   It'll leave you feeling as empty and drained as Nick Nolte's fridge.

Rating - 3/10