Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3

Director: Shane Black

Written by: Shane Black and Drew Pearce 

Photography: John Toll 

Starring:  Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Kingsley

Country: USA 

Year: 2013  

I feel that I should start this review with an apology for the recent absence of activity on this site, I've been distracted with other non-film related activities and I haven't actually been to see a film at the cinema since Stoker two months ago, in fact, I haven't really watched that many films in the comfort of my own home either. But fear not, I'm steadily getting back on pace now and I should be posting regular reviews from now on. As a result of my hiatus, I've fallen far behind on my Blind Spot challenge, so you can be assured of at least three new posts this month (he says).        

Anyway, I digress, Iron Man 3... 

The first two Iron Man movies, the first one very good  the second one not so much, were both directed by actor/director Jon Favreau. In Iron Man 3 Fravreau remains on as a producer and as an actor in a quite a big supporting role but the directing role has fell to another man. The director that was chose as Favreau's replacement was an odd, but in hindsight, a brilliant decision. Shane Black, who made is name as a screenwriter known for making 18/NC-17 rated action-comedies with creative and colourful  language, most famously the Lethal Weapon franchise and the brilliant Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. And for playing the role of Hawkins in Predator. Shane's auteur style brings a refreshing burst to a sub-genre that's been dominating the box office for over a decade. 

Regardless of the number three that appears at the end of the title is not so much at sequel to the previous two Iron Man films, but more to last year's Avengers Assemble, with Tony Stark trying to psychologically adjust after the events at the end of that film. Suffering from insomnia and anxiety Stark spends his nights obsessing over the Iron Man suit. Parallel to this the United States is falling victim to a succession of terrorist attacks from an international terrorist known an the Mandarin.

Robert Downey Jr. gives a fantastic performance once again. He's even more enjoyable to watch in this film as he suits Shane Black's sharp witty dialogue so fell. Gwyneth Paltrow, as annoying and unlikable as she seems to becoming in real life, is still highly watchable on screen. Don Cheadle is far more interesting in this film then he was in Iron Man 2. Ben Kingsley and Guy Pearce were both very good. The real disappointment though was Rebecca Hall, her character was severely underdeveloped, waste of a great talent. 

The film looks great, the most beautiful of the Iron Man films. Containing lots of strong bright colours that make the film reminiscent of the old silver age comics. The cinematographer on the film was John Toll, a fantastic DP, whose filmography includes Braveheart, The Last Samurai and The Thin Red Line.              

It's for certain that some fans of the comic book source material will react negatively to the film and the artistic freedom Pearce and Black have taken especially concerning The Mandarin and Iron Patriot. Personally it didn't bother me because I felt it worked in the narrative of the film. Others might be disappointed that there is a lack of screen time containing Iron Man. Much like in The Dark Knight Rises, most of the film is Tony Stark weak and lost scrapping together materials to keep him self alive. I like this, it reminds us that Tony Stark's greatest asset is his intelligence, not the suit. 

Overall I found Iron Man 3 to be one of those films so enjoyable that I'm willing to look over few flaws, it's also evidence that the superhero sub-genre has a lot of life left in it yet.             

Stoker

Stoker

Director: Park Chan-Wook

Written by: Wentworth Miller

Photography: Chung-hoon Chung

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Nicole Kidman

Country: USA, UK. 

Year: 2013

Emotions rest in the balance for fans of new wave Korean cinema this year, first we have Park Chan-Wook's debut into English language film with Stoker and then later in the year director Spike Lee's remake of Park Chan Wook's cult masterpiece, Oldboy.  

When I first saw the trailer for Stoker I was initially disappointed that it didn't appear to be a biopic of Draclua author, Bram Stoker. But with multiple re-watches I became more and more intrigued by what appeared to be a dark, twisted psychological thriller combined with stunning visuals.  And that's what I got. 

After India Stoker's father dies in a car crash on her birthday, she learns how disconnected she is from everybody else around her including her mother. She soon has to learn to live with a new person in her life as her father's brother, an Uncle she never knew she had, comes to live with her and her mother. 

The plot is hugely inspired by the classic Hitchcock thriller, Shadow of a Doubt.  In fact the mysterious Uncle in both films are called Charlie. There's also continuous references to various Hitchcock films throughout especially to Psycho. 

Stoker is set in the present day yet the art direction suggests something set in the '40s or '50s, again I think this is drawn from the Hitchcock influence but it gives the film a timeless look. 

There are three fantastic central performances from Goode, Kidman and Wasikowska. And as all too often in film, Jacki Weaver is given far too little screen time, but everything she does in that short time is sublime. 

Stoker isn't so much driven by it's narrative, heavy in symbolism it's more a study of the innocence lost in the transition into adulthood.

I was kind of grateful for it at the time because I had an engagement directly after, but Stoker after being slow and atmospheric throughout suddenly nosedives into an ending and it leaves you feeling a little cheated. 

Stoker is thought provoking, beautifully shot and lingers in the mind long after viewing.Highly recommended.  

Mama

Mama

Director: Andrés Muschietti

Written by: Andrés Muschietti, Barbara Muschietti, Neil Cross 

Photography: Antonio Riestra 

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Daniel Kash

Country: Spain, Canada

Year: 2013

Mama started life as a short film of the same title which found itself under the gaze of Pan's Labyrinth director, Guillermo Del Toro. The director of the original short, Andrés Muschietti, returns to make his first feature length film. 

Two young girls, one three and the other one, are abandoned by their father in a cabin in the woods of West Virginia after he has murdered their mother brutally. The girls are discovered five years later, still alive, but living like animals after a long search funded by the girls' Uncle, played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau. The older girl pins their survival on the assistance of an imaginary maternal figure called Mama. After some psychological tests, the Uncle wins custody of the children and they are sent to live with him along with his pedophobic girlfriend, Jessica Chastain . It's not too long before we question whether Mama is really imaginary and whether she may have followed the girls. 

Mama is fundamentally a horror film, but in true Del Toro fashion it poses itself as a kind of modern day fairy tale. As a horror film Mama isn't the most original, it's really just another hunted house film. There's original stuff in there that deserves applauding but even as someone who isn't too well versed in contemporary horror I can tick off every cliche as they come.    

The film is surprisingly well shot with some great Hitchcockian direction. Perhaps this is too soon to say, but I think Muschietti is someone you should be getting really excited about. If the quality of work goes up from here he could be one of the next great directors.   

It should be hard adjusting to Jessica Chastain in this role as a distant punk with rock star dreams straight out of Zero Dark Thirty, but she is such a chameleon actor and slips right into the role. 

The film is really about mother and daughter relationships leaving any male characters expendable. Although that's clearly a fault with the film, It's refreshing to type as it's usually the other way around. 

The most important question to ask when looking at a horror film is 'is it scary?' And, yes, Mama is scary. Some attempts at jump scares are met only with laughter but for the most part I was kept on edge.    

Mama provides as many genuine scares as it does cliques, despite some dodgy CGI the film is really beautifully shot and it's decently enjoyable up to its ridiculous and unrewarding ending. In all Mama is your standard three star horror film.      
            

Blind Spot Series 2013: #1: Whisky Galore!

Whisky Galore! 

Director: Alexander Mackendrick 

Written by: Compton MacKenzie, Angus MacPhail 

Photography: Gerald Gibbs

Starring: Basil Radford, Joan Greenwood, Gordon Jackson. 

Country: UK 

Year: 1949

Based on the novel by Compton Mackenzie, which itself was inspired by true events. Whisky Galore is set on the small and fictional Calvinist island of Todday in the Outer Hebrides.  Depression hits the island hard when they're temporally deprived of Whisky. To their luck, a cargo ship carrying 50,000 crates of Whisky runs dry just off the coast of the island. Though unfortunately this being an strong Calvinist community and consequently Sunday observers, the male islanders have to wait patiently till the clock strikes midnight before they can go and fetch their precious whisky. 

The film is a child of the legendary British film studio, Ealing and director Alexander Mackendrick. Unusual for an Ealing film, Whisky Galore! is shot primarily on location, specifically on the Isle of Barra. This was Mackendrick's first film as a director who went on to make other such classics as The Ladykillers and Sweet Smell of Success. It's interesting to note that Mackendrick is indifferent about Whiskey Galore! and he doesn't understand is lasting popularity. But then what do directors know about their own films, Woody Allen hates Manhattan. 

The film was released in 1949, WW2 had been over for five years but rationing was still in place, meaning for it's original audience would have found in the islanders a sense of relatability and aspiration. What would have also applied to it's audience at the time was the Islanders cunning deception and victory against the English commander of the local home guard, Captin Waggett who represents the petty bureaucracy of the time.        

That's not to say that Whisky Galore has lost it's value, it hasn't, it's still wonderfully funny and there are some fantastic performances especially from Basil Radford (perhaps most famous for his role in Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes) and Gordon Jackson. 

It's interesting how Whiskey Galore deals with it's own clouded morality. This is after all a film about a group of islanders who successfully steal thousands of bottles of whisky. Which might explain why an appendix is hastily added saying how the price of whisky inflated so much that nobody could afford it and they all became depressed.                

The last quarter of the film doesn't hold up to the previous three, it feels rushed and just a little bit silly. It's a shame because everything before it was so strong. 

So in conclusion Whisky Galore is a great fun film and I did enjoy it, but to me it doesn't hold up to great Ealing films the likes of The Ladykillers.     

To view all films of the Blind Spot Series 2013 list click here 

Zero Dark Thirty

Zero Dark Thirty 

Director: Kathryn Bigelow 

Written by: Mark Boal 

Photography: Grieg Fraser 

Starring: Jessica Chastain, Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke. 

Country: USA

Year: 2012

Back in 2009 one movie swept the Oscars beating the even the hotly tipped Goliath, Avatar. That movie was The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by Mark Boal. That dream team have now reunited to bring us Zero Dark Thirty, the story of the decade long manhunt for Osama Bin Laden.   

The movie was originally about the failed hunt Bin Laden, but part way through principal photography he was killed by U.S Marines, which meant that Bigelow and Boal had to fashion a new ending for their film. I would like to know how the original movie was going to end because I just can't imagine how it would have worked. Unless it just ended abruptly which would have sucked. 

We're introduced at the beginning to CIA operative, Maya, who at the beginning is kind of a rookie mocked for her age and gender. We're pitched that this is one woman's fight to capture Public Enemy No.1. As the film takes place over a decade, we see Maya and the approval of those around her develop quite rapidly as the film progresses. The films been criticized for not giving any back stories to any of the characters. That's true off most, but then characters in Zero Dark Thirty are pretty expendable and they go as soon as they come. But Bigelow did something very clever with Maya, in the foreground you have this massive story about the hunt for Bin Laden but if you look carefully at the background; the wallpaper on Maya's laptop, the photos on her desk you'll begin to paint a picture of her past which I thought was a pretty interesting way of going about it. 

Kathryn Bigelow's direction is phenomenal, I've been critical of her in the past, I've said that there are at least half a dozen female directors that deserve the accolades she gets more than her. But I take some of that back now, Zero Dark Thirty is stunningly shot and all the performances are fantastic. Although I'll still stand by The Hurt Locker being very overrated.

Jessica Chastain has been having a fantastic couple of years and it's becoming repetitive to say how good she is, but I can't not talk about her astonishing job in this film, she really does carry it. Other actors, especially Jason Clarke, do great jobs too, but as I said before most of them aren't given a great deal of screen-time. Torchwood fans may be disappointed to learn  that John Barrowman only gets two lines and not good ones at that. 

Zero Dark Thirty, as you probably know, has been the target of much controversy surrounding it's depiction of torture as a means of getting information, some people say that it shows torture in a positive light. It's the kind of insistence when you really have to just see the film for yourself and make your own mind up. But for my money, no it doesn't. It doesn't show torture working to any great effect, they gather more information from straight interrogation and you're not walking out of the cinema at the end with your fist in the air shouting 'YEAH, TORTURE'. Boal and Bigelow decided to tell the story as truthfully as they could and not to whitewash history, which honestly I think was the right decision. 

The film is two and three quarter hours and to say that every frame is gripping would be a lie, the best part of two hours is spent talking in boardrooms and shiftily through papers. Some people will be bored, I know this for a fact because I counted two people walking out and never coming back. Although these scenes help to build a connection between the audience and the story, you're going on this journey with Maya and when she hits a brick wall, you feel her frustration. And if you stick with it you'll find the last forty minutes of the film is the action film you may have been hoping for. 

The film does a great job of being accessible to everyone without dumbing down too much. For a film that focused on the intelligence side of the mission to find Bin Laden, at no point did I feel lost in translation or not understanding what was going on.  

Zero Dark Thirty is a step above and beyond for Bigelow and Boal after The Hurt Locker, fantastically shot and acted, definitely worth checking out.   

Django Unchained

Django Unchained 

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written By: Quentin Tarantino
Photography: Robert Richardson 
Starring: Jamie Fox, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio.
Country: USA
Year: 2012  

Oooh Djangoooooo!

Quentin Tarantino isn't your run of the mill film school graduate, he's the video store clerk who set up a production company named after a Godard film (much to Godard's displeasure), making throwback films to all the exploitation and spaghetti westerns he loves so much. And Django Unchained  is nothing if not yet another homage to films that came before it, most notably films like Mandingo and obviously Sergio Corbucci's Django films. Tarantino's known for being a massive admirer of the great spaghetti western director, Sergio Leone, and I think everyone was expecting Django Unchained to be the grandest ever love letter to Leone's westerns. But there's a surprising lack of influence from Leone, it was there more in Inglorious Basterds. To me, Django Unchained is a Sam Peckinpah movie more than anything else, not thematically but in style; the slow motion gunfights and the strong violence. Given that he essentially invented movie violence, Tarantino owes quite a debt to Peckinpah.

Many people may be tried of Tarantino's fanboy filmmaking, it's 21 years now since Reservoir Dogs premiered at Cannes and I can see how for some people the joke may be wearing a bit thin. I still find a lot of fun in what Tarantino does. My problem with Tarantino is he's wasted talent, he's undeniably a very skilled director, if he wanted to, I'm positive he could be making films to the caliber of Paul Thomas Anderson's. But he doesn't want to. 

After some of the coolest opening credits ever, the film beings at night with two slavers making there way through a forest carrying a chain line of slaves behind them. Towards them comes a wagon ridden by Dr. King Schultz, a bounty hunter posing as a dentist. It becomes clear that this isn't a coincidental crossing of paths, Dr Schultz wishes to acquire a specific person in the two slavers' company, Django. To cut a long story short, this is a three hour Tarantino movie we're talking about, Django becomes an assistant of Dr. Schultz's in the bounty hunting trade. After a long winter of Bounty Hunting in the mountain, Dr. Schultz agrees to help Django free his estranged wife, Broomhilda from the infamous plantation, Candyland owned by the villainous Calvin Candie. 

Many people have made comment about the run-time of the film, that it's unnecessarily long. The film runs for 165 minutes, which is long and strange for something that's essentially an exploitation film, which tend to run for about 80 minutes. But honestly, I didn't have a problem with the run time it never dragged. Actually, I would have liked it to be longer, I wanted to see more with Dr. Schultz and Django bounty hunting in the mountains. 

There's always controversy surrounding the violence in Tarantino's movies, but this time more so given recent events. I have many opinions on movie violence and it's relation with real life violence, but I'll save that for another time as I don't want to digress. What I will say is that to call Tarantino's films mindlessly violent is an example of looking at a film rather than watching it. Think back to the scene in Reservoir Dogs (SPOILERS) when everybody dies, as the bodies lay cold on the floor,it's at least 5 seconds before it cuts, Tarantino is forcing us to see the consequences of violence. Django Unchained has a sense of humor within it's bloody cathartic violence. But it's depiction of the slave trade is uncomfortably brutal. Tarantino is a much more intelligent director than some people give him credit for. *cough* Mark Kermode *cough* Spike Lee.
     
Perhaps it's hyperbole for Tarantino to be boasting that he's getting people to talk about slavery  like they haven't before. The slave trade's been talked about. But I've seen many films in my time that touch on the slave trade, but I haven't seen any films that depict it's brutal reality as unapologetically as Django Unchained. 

Tarantino is a brilliant actors' director, he can pull performances out of actors that they can't release with any other directors. Jamie Foxx is brilliant, Samuel L. Jackson is great, Leonardo DiCaprio is really good if maybe a little miscast, and Christoph Waltz is basically playing Hans Landa again but who cares because Hans Landa is one of the best characters in recent cinema history. One of my biggest frustrations with Django Unchained is that all the female characters suck. Neither Laura Coyouette or Kerry Washington are never given anything to do. And I know Tarantino can write good female characters; Jackie Brown, Mia Wallace.        

The soundtrack as usual from Tarantino is fantastic. It's a mixture of contemporary R&B and classic Ennio Morricone scores with a Johnny Cash song thrown in there for good measure.   

The film is very long and it has no pace, but it's extremely fun and more intelligent than some people would have you believe. Quentin Tarantino's best film since Jackie Brown.     

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Director: Peter Jackson 
Written By: Peter Jackson, Guillermo Del Toro, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens
Photography: Andrew Lesnie
Starring: Martian Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage. 
Year: 2012
Country: USA, New Zealand.  


I was going to be a lot kinder to the Hobbit in this review, but last night I had the pleasure of revisiting Guillermo Del Toro's stunning film, Pan's Labyrinth, and was reminded just what The Hobbit could have been. If you're unfamiliar with the production history of The Hobbit, here' a brief summery: Originally, Mexican director Guillermo Del Toro was set to direct the (then two) Hobbit movies. But after countless delays on a set filming date, Del Toro has no choice but to drop out as director, although staying on as a screenwriter. Ultimately, Peter Jackson was re-crowned as director and scraped all of Del Toro's concept art. 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, of course, is based on the J.R.R. Tolkien's children's novel and precursor to The Lord of the Rings. Or it's at least on the first third of it, as this 378 pages novel (with pictures) is being turned into three separate 160 minute films. 

As someone who has read and loves The Hobbit, it's enraging to see how desperately Jackson and his team have tried to flesh out the story, by porting over tales and characters from Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion like Radagast the Brown. Or from their imagination created new tedious scenes with Galadriel, although it's nice to have a female presence, if only brief, now in a male dominated story. We'll probably even see Tom Bombadil in the next film. Oh joy! 

It's hard to tell if Peter Jackson actually knows what he's doing, he's made some pretty impressive films like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and by-all accounts Heavenly Creatures, but he's also been behind the uninspired King Kong remake and The Lovely Bones which is one of the worst directed films I've ever seen.  The direction in The Hobbit is... pretty poor, but not so much that it's unwatchable. 

Speaking of unwatchable, let's move onto the editing. Not only is the film ridiculously long, with many scenes that could and should have been cut out, the actual editing of the film is clunky and occasionally leads to problems with continuity.

The writing is also a pitfall, the book is written mostly in rhyme, is quite comical and is basically written for children. The film takes lines from the novel but doesn't draw inspiration from it for the rest of the dialogue. So what you're left with is a film jumping between two very different languages.     

Martian Freeman is the saving grace of the film, he's brilliant and Bilbo is a much more engaging character than Frodo ever was. Andy Serkis is great reprising his role as Gollum and Ian McKellen is probably the only person who could play Gandalf. The band of Dwarfs are nearly all annoying and other than Thorin, all underdeveloped.

The Hobbit doesn't have the sense of awe that The Lord of the Rings trilogy did mostly thanks to an over use of CGI. The Lord of the Rings films took full advantage of the gorgeous New Zealand landscapes which The Hobbit doesn't. Also the fact that all the Orcs and Goblins are done with CGI is a huge disappointment.  

The problem with Peter Jackson is the same of that of James Cameron, he seems to be primarily concerned with getting himself into the history books. Both men seem to think if they are the one to push 3D or to push higher frame rates, they'll be remembered along Sergei Eisenstein and Edwin S. Porter.   

This review has probably made the The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey sound much worse than it is, it's not terrible, it's okay, if you enjoy the Middle Earth universe you might even enjoy it.  If this review seems rather lack luster I apologize and my only excuse is that this isn't a review of a film, it's a review of a third of a film.