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.             

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.     

Skyfall

 Skyfall

Director: Sam Mendes  
Written By: Neil Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan
Photography: Roger Deakins 
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem 
Year: 2012
Country: UK, USA 


Let me start by saying that this is a spoiler free review, however, if you want to go into Bond Number 23 completely fresh, stop reading now. But come back later, ok?

 The James Bond movie franchise reaches it's 50th anniversary this years, going from when Dr. No was realised back in 1962. Although, Skyfall wasn't intended to be an anniversary special, the original release date was 2010, but due to financial troubles at MGM, production was held back for a couple of years. 

 Since '62 we've had a Scottish Bond, an Australian Bond, a How the Hell Does He Do That Thing With His Eyebrow Bond, a Time Lord Bond and a Former Thief Turned Private Detective Bond. Now we have Daniel Craig playing the agent with the licence to kill. Skyfall is Craig's third outing as Bond, after Casino Royale  (which was really good) and Quantum of Solace (which sucked). Craig is the Bond who everyone wants to say is the best Bond, but feel it's too early to say. The emotional, sentimental Bond which was started by Lazenby and expanded by Dalton is perfected by Daniel Craig.

 It's hard to talk about the plot of Skyfall without divulging a plethora of spoilers, big and small. But what Skyfall is about, on a non-superficial level, is the co-existence of new and old. Bond and M are dinosaurs in an MI6 and a world that's changing at a speed they can't keep up with.             

 Skyfall is a Bond first, never before has bond had an Oscar winning director at the helm. Sam Mendes, who's directed American Beauty, Road to Perdition and Revolutionary Road among others gave Skyfall his  love, care and attention. Mendes creates something that is both pensive and stylish, but for all intents and purposes, a Bond film.    

 Not to worry if you're more a fan of corny jokes, sex and expensive set pieces, Skyfall has more than enough of all of those.   

 The real star of Skyfall is cinematographer, Roger Deakins, who has been the DP on nearly all the Coen Brothers' movies post Barton Fink. I long thought Deakins to one of the greatest living cinematographers, now Skyfall has confirmed it. Through stunning lighting and composition Deakins creates something where every frame is a money-shot. Deakins has been nominated for an Oscar nine times but never won, hopefully this time.

 Skyfall's other Oscar possibility lies in Judi Dench reprising her role as Head of MI6, M. Skyfall takes a longer look at the character of M than any Bond film has in the past, in a way the film is more about M than it is about Bond. The legendary thespian isn't someone you expect to surprise you, you go in with high expectations in the first place, but Dench goes above and beyond with this one. And hey, if she can win an Oscar for 5 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare in Love, I don't see why she can't win one for this.    

 The Villain, Silva is played by Spanish actor, Javier Bardem. Although it's not a bad performance, quite good in fact, I would rank it as his worst. Bardem is post famous for his murderous role in the Coens' No Country For Old Men. I find his best performances lie in films in his native language, Spanish and Mexican films like Biutiful and The Sea Inside. 

 It's also nice to see Q get a bigger role than usual, because we all know he's the best character. Ben Whishaw is the new Q, I'm not sure about the whole geek-chic thing, but he's a very good actor. 

 The film is not without fault, I could have done with learning about Bond's childhood, the third act feels more Home Alone than James Bond and the film is overflowing with overt product placement. There's also the confusing bearing of whether it's a sequel, prequel or reboot. At the beginning of Casino Royale it implies that we're seeing Bond from the very beginning of his double-o career, yet Skyfall keeps making light of Bond being old and referencing past films. 

 As an intelligent, well made blockbuster Skyfall gives The Dark Knight Rises an run for it's money. Go watch it, it'll probably be the best film to play in ever theatre this year. 

The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man

Director: Marc Webb
Written By: James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves.
Photography: John Schwartzman
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone and Rhys Ifans.
Year: 2012
Country: USA   

It's hard to believe that the Sam Rami Spider-Man movie was only 10 years ago, with the third instalment only 5. But nether the less we already have a franchise re-boot. But don't forget that Spider-Man has another 50 year old source material.


The Amazing Spider-Man goes back to the origins that we saw in the first film, it tries to retell it in an original way. Which I think it does honourably, but fails to pull off successfully.


I've been a reader of Marvel Comics since I was thirteen and Spider-Man was always a particular favourite of mine, so I had a lot of hopes and predictions for this movie, a lot of which came true.


I was pleased that spider-strenght was among Spider-Man powers. Although the way this was established was done poorly. A bathroom scene where he breaks taps and doorhandels, a scene I saw a few years ago in X-Men Origins: Wolverine and other films before that. And then a basketball scene lifted straight from Teen Wolf.


Web-blasters are back, although these seem to be unlimited web-blasters because he doesn't run out or change cartridges at any point.


There were lots of little things I liked about the movie, that Spider-Man wears a backpack when he's swinging through New York. That Peter has a Rear Window poster on his wall, Richard Feynman as his desktop picture and has equations written on the bottom of his skateboard decks.


Andrew Garfield is a great Spider-Man, a great Peter Parker and a great actor. A lot of people are talking about how great it is that Spider-Man is funny, like he's supposed to be. But this is only true in one scene. The scene where's stopping the carjacker, which we've all scene in the trailer.


Emma Stone is fantastic as Gwen Stacy. Given that her and Andrew Garfield are a couple in real life, too means chemistry between the two in the film is incredibly believable.


Rhys Ifans, who's an overrated actor as it is, is quite good as Dr. Connors but in my opinion is pretty poor as the Lizard. I wasn't a fan of the way the Lizard looked either.


Marc Webb's only directorial experience is (500) Days Of Summer. Coming in to a big action blockbuster
with only indie rom-com credentials is a pretty big jump which Webb doesn't quite make. The action scenes were badly directed and for the most part incoherent.


The film's pretty sloppy, too. Story threads are dropped at random, like Spider-Man's hunt for Uncle Ben's killer. Aunt May, who is such an important part of Peter's life, is as good as pointless, and the final battle with the Lizard was just copied from Iron Man.


Which brings me to The Amazing Spider-Man biggest fault: it's too reliant on a sequel to finish telling the story, so much that it doesn't work as a stand alone film.


This review is sounding mostly negative, which is because it is. But there were things I liked about it: the score from James Horner was incredible and the practical effects and stunt double work was a treat.


The Amazing Spider-Man is flawed, but so where it's predecessors. Despite these flaws, I believe there's enough there for me to have confidence that Marc Webb can come back with more directorial experience, and in the sequel give us the Spider-Man movie that we want.


Score: 2.5/5