Dawn of the Dead can be summarised in two words: Consumerism and Materialism. It can also be placed amongst the small group of sequels that are better than their predecessors which was quite a feat even back in 1979.
It's also a strange sequel as the only things that carry over from Night... is the premise. None of the characters from Night... or anyone related to them make so much as a references in Dawn... which not only means you can watch Dawn without worrying about dangling plot threads, but it also means that like Night..., no one is fully safe and anyone can die at any given time.
Set an undisclosed amount of time after the initial outbreak, the world is slowly going to hell, martial law has entered several American cities and the dead are still rising. Two SWAT members and a couple decide to flee the cities and end up hauled up in a mall.
From the offset, Dawn... is a much better film than its predecessor. All the dread and tension of the first is still there, but there's a much greater sense of urgency and the action is a lot more fast paced which is much easier on the eyes.
All four main characters are intensely likable this time around which also raises the audiences hope that they'll make it through an ever decreasing situation. Tom Savini (who was drafted to Vietnam and missed out on Night...) is on hand with the special effects which must have been mind blowing at the time. Even now in retrospective, there's a real beauty in his work (even with the bright red blood).
On the whole, Dawn... is not just a great zombie flick, its a great film, easily one of the best in the horror genre. Although again like Night..., it has aged, it has a certain unmistakable charm to it that even after repeated viewings, it doesn't wane or bore, it simply becomes more entertaining which after the initial scares, is something to be cherished in a horror film.
Social Commentary:
Materialism is the obvious one. Our heroes spend the majority of the film in a shopping mall which is full to the brim of items they need and don't need. But once the excitement disappears and they have everything, they become bored and desperately want to leave.
Consumerism is again tied to the shopping mall. Our group constantly race to different stores in order to get the things they need or luxaries. The zombies are stuck outside, sometimes even clawing at the glass desperately trying to enter (although not for the products, but more the people themselves).
Racism is touched upon at the start of the film with the apartment block with one SWAT member gradually going insane and wondering why they get to live in an apartment in the first place.
Sexism is briefly touched upon with Fran finding herself left out of the boys plans to be rid of the zombies and secure the mall. Eventually Fran is trained to fly the helicopter (which becomes crucial in the final moments of the film).
The ethics of death are also prominent. The initial attack on the apartment block is down to people not handing over their deceased loved-ones as Peter puts it "they still believe there's a respect in dying" with a reverend holding several zombies in the basement. When Roger is bitten, he suddenly finds himself in the same position as someone terminally ill and is also treated in the same manner.
There's also the prospect of bombing major cities with nuclear weapons as a means to be rid of the zombies. Dawn... was created during the middle of the Cold War where similar apocalyptic scenarios were a constant threat.
Zombie Evolution:
The zombies appear to congregate at the mall as "it was a special place to them" according to Stephen
There are several segments with people debating on television about the zombies. A Government doctor is keen to point out that the zombies attack only the living and thus their behaviour isn't cannibalism as cannibalism implies an inter species activity.
Whilst in Night..., the government believes the zombies may be the result of a satellite from Venus burning up in the Earth's atmosphere, Peter believes the outbreak might be more akin with a doomsday scenario. He chillingly references a warning his grandfather (a voodoo priest) gave him when he was younger referring to the dead walking.
The zombies show far less intelligence here than in Night... (almost to the point of comedy).
When Stephen returns as a zombie, he remembers where the others were hiding upstairs and possibly, inadvertently, leads a group of them to where Peter and Fran are hiding. Memories will become a massive feature in then next film of the franchise; Day of the Dead.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Zombiethon '10: Night of the Living Dead
The grandaddy of them all and the only film on this list you can legally watch on Youtube, Night of the Living Dead is the first in Romero's Dead series and sets all prerequisites needed for the franchise including social satire, buckets of blood and gore (or in this case, chocolate syrup and roasted ham) and somewhat slow zombies.
On face level, Night... is a throwback to the fifties Saturday matineé horror movies; you have several damsels in distress, a level headed antagonist surrounded by people who should have died long ago from a severe lack of functioning brain cells and bizarre monsters.
On that same face level however, the film is notoriously gory and horrifying for something from the sixties. Radio broadcasts constantly update the group of characters (and us for that matter) on what exactly is going on beyond the farmhouse with each becoming more horrible than the last (with each update being recreated soon after).
There's a huge amount of tension and dread throughout the film. Our heroes (if you can call them that) are trapped in a somewhat haunted house, the ongoing threat outside is amassing and as time goes by, any chances of escaping deplete by the minute.
It's strange watching Night... now because like many older horror movies, it's difficult to watch due to it's age and the fact its in black and white. With time however, the film's horror has been replaced with a retrospective bleakness which does, in a strange sense, seem fresh and new.
On the whole however, it's an OK film. It does have some cheesy moments and a few bad editing choices but it's worth seeing, just to see where the modern day zombie shambled from.
...and just to show how fantastic of a sequel Dawn of the Dead is, which is thankfully coming up next.
Social commentary:
The Vietnam war for the ongoing broadcasts and updates against the antagonists.
Film historian Robin Wood believed the zombies represented a look at capitalism (with devouring other people being the obvious evolution of that, I guess).
The main protagonist (and easily the best character) Ben is black which was strange for the late sixties (even when you take into account Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were prominent during the sixties). He doesn't run into any direct racism but the ending of the film is sadly ironic.
By the end of the film, it shows the army and several rednecks seemingly gaining control of the situation by shooting everything on site. Remember folks, at the end of the world, grab your gun and your best hat!
Zombie Evolution:
Foundations are set folks; the recently deceased are somewhat slow (although the very first zombie gives off a pretty good chase to Barbra), can crudely use tools and eat living people (although one strangely eats maggots).
A bite from one to a living person will turn that person into a zombie. They have apparently no comprehension or memories of their previous lives and will attack anyone, family included.
Only severe trauma to the brain can stop a zombie or completely incapacitating it (in this case, lots of fire).
On face level, Night... is a throwback to the fifties Saturday matineé horror movies; you have several damsels in distress, a level headed antagonist surrounded by people who should have died long ago from a severe lack of functioning brain cells and bizarre monsters.
On that same face level however, the film is notoriously gory and horrifying for something from the sixties. Radio broadcasts constantly update the group of characters (and us for that matter) on what exactly is going on beyond the farmhouse with each becoming more horrible than the last (with each update being recreated soon after).
There's a huge amount of tension and dread throughout the film. Our heroes (if you can call them that) are trapped in a somewhat haunted house, the ongoing threat outside is amassing and as time goes by, any chances of escaping deplete by the minute.
It's strange watching Night... now because like many older horror movies, it's difficult to watch due to it's age and the fact its in black and white. With time however, the film's horror has been replaced with a retrospective bleakness which does, in a strange sense, seem fresh and new.
On the whole however, it's an OK film. It does have some cheesy moments and a few bad editing choices but it's worth seeing, just to see where the modern day zombie shambled from.
...and just to show how fantastic of a sequel Dawn of the Dead is, which is thankfully coming up next.
Social commentary:
The Vietnam war for the ongoing broadcasts and updates against the antagonists.
Film historian Robin Wood believed the zombies represented a look at capitalism (with devouring other people being the obvious evolution of that, I guess).
The main protagonist (and easily the best character) Ben is black which was strange for the late sixties (even when you take into account Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were prominent during the sixties). He doesn't run into any direct racism but the ending of the film is sadly ironic.
By the end of the film, it shows the army and several rednecks seemingly gaining control of the situation by shooting everything on site. Remember folks, at the end of the world, grab your gun and your best hat!
Zombie Evolution:
Foundations are set folks; the recently deceased are somewhat slow (although the very first zombie gives off a pretty good chase to Barbra), can crudely use tools and eat living people (although one strangely eats maggots).
A bite from one to a living person will turn that person into a zombie. They have apparently no comprehension or memories of their previous lives and will attack anyone, family included.
Only severe trauma to the brain can stop a zombie or completely incapacitating it (in this case, lots of fire).
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Zombiethon '10
In a break from discussing Nintendo games and Doctor Who, Halloween is almost upon us and this year, your dynamic duo at Retcon-Nation have taken it upon ourselves to scare/laugh ourselves stupid with a monstrous undertaking.
This year, we'll be watching all six of George A. Romero's Dead films, it's spoof Shaun of the Dead and British collumist Charlie Brooker's take on the zombie mythos Dead Set.
Seven films, one mini series, a thousand corpses and more social commentary than Wikipedia, join us all over the weekend for sporadic updates, reviews, thoughts and more in Retcon-Nation's Zombiethon!
This year, we'll be watching all six of George A. Romero's Dead films, it's spoof Shaun of the Dead and British collumist Charlie Brooker's take on the zombie mythos Dead Set.
Seven films, one mini series, a thousand corpses and more social commentary than Wikipedia, join us all over the weekend for sporadic updates, reviews, thoughts and more in Retcon-Nation's Zombiethon!
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Film review)
OK folks, confession time; I had never heard of Scott Pilgrim until earlier this year. Now I know a lot of you will be shocked and appalled by this development and realise that I have no journalistic integrity to review a movie based on a hugely successful comic franchise built upon decades of development with no knowledge of the source material but alas, work with me, I'm only human!
Translated from sarcasm:
Like you, I had never heard of Scott Pilgrim until Michael Cera and Edgar Wright's names appeared in the original teaser trailers several months ago but I was intrigued by the prospect and wanted to know more. Afterall, I'm one of only say, eight people who can still tolerate Cera playing the same character for the past five years and like many of you, I think Edgar Wright is an underrated genius for his previous definitions of cult classics Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.
So when I discovered the film was an adaptation on an American faux-manga which was pretty much a love letter to video-games (mainly from Nintendo and Sega's first two home consoles), well, I was engulfed in the hype. It looked and sounded amazing from the trailers and further advertisements of a faux-8bit console game based on the manga for the PS3 and Xbox 360 (with hopefully a review on that soonish).
So August has shown it's sunny face on the calendar year, the film tanked at the American box-office for having the balls to face off against The Expendables but I remained hyped as hell for this thing. Surely something has to give, only The Dark Knight has ever lived up to it's level of anticipation and that was The Godfather of comic book movies.
So, is it good? In a nutshell, yes.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is at it's core a rom-com. The story from which is six volumes long and has taken as many years to complete is the story of it's titular character, a twenty-two year old inhabitant of Toronto who is the very definition of no-hoper.
Scott (played by Michael Cera) has no real ambitions, no real job (minus being the bass player in garage band Sex Bob-omb) and lives with in a one bedroom apartment with his absolutely fantastic roommate Wallace Wells (played by Kieran Culkin).
After being brutally dumped by his girlfriend, he finds himself in a surreal relationship with seventeen year-old high schooler Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong) which his friends and bandmates object to. One day while dreaming, a purple hair girl catches his eye who eventually turns out to be a real person called Ramona Flowers (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstrad) an Amazon delivery girl who ends up being the figurative girl of his dreams.
However, Ramona comes with baggage in the form of seven evil ex's who Scott must defeat in video-game style fashion to stay alive long enough to keep dating her.
That's the film; there's twists, there's turns, there's small pop up boxes for extra character notes/lulz but again, in it's purest form, it's a boy meets girl story.
What makes Scott Pilgrim vs. The World a far more entertaining rom-com then say, anything Jennifer Aniston has starred in for the past decade is that the film is pure fun from start to finish. Despite the absolute insanity of guy having to physically destroy seven people in order to get to third base (or possibly 2nd & 1/2 base as Wallace advises), the film's universe and characters are a fantastic, memorable bunch and are all well developed.
You can mostly thank Bryan Lee O'Malley's original story for this but credit has to go to Wright and screenwriter Michael Bacall for condensing a six volume story into a two hour film. Yes for purists of the original story, things are obviously trimmed or omitted completely, but the main story remains.
One of my only gripes of the film is that the latter half of evil ex's seemed rushed compared to the first three but I put that down Wright and Bacall having more time to work on them as they were the older volumes but to be honest, Brandon Routh peaks as the best evil ex with Jason Schwartzman and Chris Evans behind, but minus the twins, they're all memorable villains.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World also holds the accolade of being the most quotable film of the year by far. A pre-warning, you might wanna get on IMDB after seeing this one, a few of the phrases are going to be popping up in conversations for years to come.
So, it sounds like a treat, but what about the look. Simply put I have never seen a picture like this. Sure, it's neon bright for the action sequences and picturesque for the more quieter scenes (like Scott and Ramona's first "date") and yes, after three television series and two films, everyone is used to Wright's frantic pace of cuts and cues but, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a close as any comic book based property will ever get to looking like a live action comic (without it being completely animated).
Visual puns, contradictory text boxes, narrations, exaggerations, the whole works is up on the big screen and it works a treat. Compared to our modern day fad of media being real and gritty, Scott Pilgrim's universe is the complete antithesis and it's an absolute gem because of it.
If you've ever listened to Beck or any form of garage rock regardless of how terrible it is, you'll be wanting to get the soundtrack afterwards too. Whereas the film looks colourful and vibrant, the music is stereotypically messy and at times, hilariously simplistic.
Beck's take of Ramona, Scott's song he wrote for...Ramona sounds like a b-side off of Sea Change for anyone who likes Beck but the rest of the music is slow acoustics for drama, chiptunes for battles and garage rock for band battles, which is fine for me.
So afterall all this, where does this leave Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? Earlier this year, it looked different, but in a good way. After being sucked into the hype and seeing the adventures of this twenty-two year old Canadian slacker and his crazy cast of friends and enemies, I can safely say;
If you grew up with video-games of the early ninities or want a zanny rom-com, it's the most fun you'll have in the cinema all year and I'm in lesbians with it.
9/10
H
Translated from sarcasm:
Like you, I had never heard of Scott Pilgrim until Michael Cera and Edgar Wright's names appeared in the original teaser trailers several months ago but I was intrigued by the prospect and wanted to know more. Afterall, I'm one of only say, eight people who can still tolerate Cera playing the same character for the past five years and like many of you, I think Edgar Wright is an underrated genius for his previous definitions of cult classics Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.
So when I discovered the film was an adaptation on an American faux-manga which was pretty much a love letter to video-games (mainly from Nintendo and Sega's first two home consoles), well, I was engulfed in the hype. It looked and sounded amazing from the trailers and further advertisements of a faux-8bit console game based on the manga for the PS3 and Xbox 360 (with hopefully a review on that soonish).
So August has shown it's sunny face on the calendar year, the film tanked at the American box-office for having the balls to face off against The Expendables but I remained hyped as hell for this thing. Surely something has to give, only The Dark Knight has ever lived up to it's level of anticipation and that was The Godfather of comic book movies.
So, is it good? In a nutshell, yes.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is at it's core a rom-com. The story from which is six volumes long and has taken as many years to complete is the story of it's titular character, a twenty-two year old inhabitant of Toronto who is the very definition of no-hoper.
Scott (played by Michael Cera) has no real ambitions, no real job (minus being the bass player in garage band Sex Bob-omb) and lives with in a one bedroom apartment with his absolutely fantastic roommate Wallace Wells (played by Kieran Culkin).
After being brutally dumped by his girlfriend, he finds himself in a surreal relationship with seventeen year-old high schooler Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong) which his friends and bandmates object to. One day while dreaming, a purple hair girl catches his eye who eventually turns out to be a real person called Ramona Flowers (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstrad) an Amazon delivery girl who ends up being the figurative girl of his dreams.
However, Ramona comes with baggage in the form of seven evil ex's who Scott must defeat in video-game style fashion to stay alive long enough to keep dating her.
That's the film; there's twists, there's turns, there's small pop up boxes for extra character notes/lulz but again, in it's purest form, it's a boy meets girl story.
What makes Scott Pilgrim vs. The World a far more entertaining rom-com then say, anything Jennifer Aniston has starred in for the past decade is that the film is pure fun from start to finish. Despite the absolute insanity of guy having to physically destroy seven people in order to get to third base (or possibly 2nd & 1/2 base as Wallace advises), the film's universe and characters are a fantastic, memorable bunch and are all well developed.
You can mostly thank Bryan Lee O'Malley's original story for this but credit has to go to Wright and screenwriter Michael Bacall for condensing a six volume story into a two hour film. Yes for purists of the original story, things are obviously trimmed or omitted completely, but the main story remains.
One of my only gripes of the film is that the latter half of evil ex's seemed rushed compared to the first three but I put that down Wright and Bacall having more time to work on them as they were the older volumes but to be honest, Brandon Routh peaks as the best evil ex with Jason Schwartzman and Chris Evans behind, but minus the twins, they're all memorable villains.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World also holds the accolade of being the most quotable film of the year by far. A pre-warning, you might wanna get on IMDB after seeing this one, a few of the phrases are going to be popping up in conversations for years to come.
So, it sounds like a treat, but what about the look. Simply put I have never seen a picture like this. Sure, it's neon bright for the action sequences and picturesque for the more quieter scenes (like Scott and Ramona's first "date") and yes, after three television series and two films, everyone is used to Wright's frantic pace of cuts and cues but, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a close as any comic book based property will ever get to looking like a live action comic (without it being completely animated).
Visual puns, contradictory text boxes, narrations, exaggerations, the whole works is up on the big screen and it works a treat. Compared to our modern day fad of media being real and gritty, Scott Pilgrim's universe is the complete antithesis and it's an absolute gem because of it.
If you've ever listened to Beck or any form of garage rock regardless of how terrible it is, you'll be wanting to get the soundtrack afterwards too. Whereas the film looks colourful and vibrant, the music is stereotypically messy and at times, hilariously simplistic.
Beck's take of Ramona, Scott's song he wrote for...Ramona sounds like a b-side off of Sea Change for anyone who likes Beck but the rest of the music is slow acoustics for drama, chiptunes for battles and garage rock for band battles, which is fine for me.
So afterall all this, where does this leave Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? Earlier this year, it looked different, but in a good way. After being sucked into the hype and seeing the adventures of this twenty-two year old Canadian slacker and his crazy cast of friends and enemies, I can safely say;
If you grew up with video-games of the early ninities or want a zanny rom-com, it's the most fun you'll have in the cinema all year and I'm in lesbians with it.
9/10
H
Monday, 26 July 2010
Inception Review
The Mindfuck. It's a common phrase on the internet (so much so that it spawned it's own picture meme) but for the mainstream audience, there first encounter of this phenomenon would probably have been mentioned from Puff Diddy Daddy in Get Him to the Greek, where Puffy explains a certain version of it, although it's more of a combination of mindrape and reverse psychology.
For an acutual quick definition, it's a term of phrase to describe an event either part confusing, part awesome, part surreal or at least two of the above combined.
Why am I explaining this, because we're looking at Christopher Nolan's mindfuck of a summer blockbuster; Inception.
Yep, it seems Warner Brothers really wanted another Matrix (not my words, apparently Nolan's first job by Warner Bros. was to make something like The Matrix as it was the flavour of the month) and while a decade late to the party, it's a rather refreshing and intriguing little gem of a movie.
The plot is an absolute nightmare to describe in detail but the main point is this. Leonardo DiCaprio (famous for his roles in Titanic and Critters 3) and a small group have the ability to get into people's dreams to steal valuable information. A Japanese businessman (played by Ken Wantabe) wants the group to infiltrate a business rival's mind (Cillian Murphy) and implant an idea in the form of a dream so he can sell his business before it becomes a monopoly.
Now that is the main plot, however like any good story, Nolan craft's his characters and the universe they inhabit and despite being way over two hours in length, the time will fly by (anyone (ok, everyone) who saw The Dark Knight should be confident that Nolan can carry a long story without the boredom fairy ruining it (...boredom fairy?)).
So, in a nutshell, Inception is basically a strange mix of The Matrix meets Insomnia meets The Cell. Within the first hour, the film expositions all the details about entering the minds, the risks, the lulz etc and we get a healthy dose of character build-up.
DiCaprio's character Dom (dubbed the Extractor because he's the main idea thief) has the largest amount of character background. Although Dom is confident and seems fully in control of the worlds he inhabits, he hides a very dark secret which could destroy everything the group strives to work for.
Rounding up the team of Inceptors is the intensely likable Arthur (played by potential future Riddler Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Arthur is the Point Man (responsible for research into clients) and sadly spends the last half of the movie in a long battle for survival full of gravity defying stunts and snogging Ellen Page (who plays the Architect, someone who builds the world the Inceptors inhabit). Page is thankfully not in Juno mode but plays the viewpoint character (as she's just as new as this as we are).
Tom Hardy plays Eames, a character who can manifest himself as different characters to get the dreamer the reveal more information and Michael Caine plays Dom's father in law.
So enough about plot, there's roll on the with rest. First of all, the set-pieces, camerawork and editing are fantastic. For the first time in a Nolan film, there are large amounts of CGI but rather than use it as a basis for the story, the added effects give more depth to the dream world setting of the film and that's all. Your focus is entirely on the predicament of the characters and trying to absorb the knowledge given to you.
Slow-motion is prominent but actually has a purpose other than looking good. Location's are surprisingly vast and always changing (due to the erratic nature of dreaming) and by the end, you'll notice there's four events leading to the climax, each never losing it's interest and everything plays an important roll.
Hans Zimmer returns to score and while nothing is as memorable as Why So Serious? from The Dark Knight, the music has a very Ennio Morricone feel; guitars are prominent but not distracting and make a welcome change to the usual string and drum affair to soundtracks for big budget thrillers.
By the end of this two and half hour roller coaster, Inception will leave you head scratching. Not from the overly confusing plot, but rather, why does Hollywood not go for more features like this? It's an incredibly engrossing, smart movie with plenty of action, twists and turns, but never once does it sacrifice a drop of substance or intelligence for a cheap thrill.
If The Dark Knight hasn't cemented Christopher Nolan and his close team of producers, writers, composers and actors as one of the most powerful forces in Hollywood, Inception will. It's by far this summer's most intelligent and outright best action thriller, but also easily one of the films of 2010 and possibly, this entire decade.
Well, what are you waiting for you? Get to the cinema now!
9/10
H
For an acutual quick definition, it's a term of phrase to describe an event either part confusing, part awesome, part surreal or at least two of the above combined.
Why am I explaining this, because we're looking at Christopher Nolan's mindfuck of a summer blockbuster; Inception.
Yep, it seems Warner Brothers really wanted another Matrix (not my words, apparently Nolan's first job by Warner Bros. was to make something like The Matrix as it was the flavour of the month) and while a decade late to the party, it's a rather refreshing and intriguing little gem of a movie.
The plot is an absolute nightmare to describe in detail but the main point is this. Leonardo DiCaprio (famous for his roles in Titanic and Critters 3) and a small group have the ability to get into people's dreams to steal valuable information. A Japanese businessman (played by Ken Wantabe) wants the group to infiltrate a business rival's mind (Cillian Murphy) and implant an idea in the form of a dream so he can sell his business before it becomes a monopoly.
Now that is the main plot, however like any good story, Nolan craft's his characters and the universe they inhabit and despite being way over two hours in length, the time will fly by (anyone (ok, everyone) who saw The Dark Knight should be confident that Nolan can carry a long story without the boredom fairy ruining it (...boredom fairy?)).
So, in a nutshell, Inception is basically a strange mix of The Matrix meets Insomnia meets The Cell. Within the first hour, the film expositions all the details about entering the minds, the risks, the lulz etc and we get a healthy dose of character build-up.
DiCaprio's character Dom (dubbed the Extractor because he's the main idea thief) has the largest amount of character background. Although Dom is confident and seems fully in control of the worlds he inhabits, he hides a very dark secret which could destroy everything the group strives to work for.
Rounding up the team of Inceptors is the intensely likable Arthur (played by potential future Riddler Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Arthur is the Point Man (responsible for research into clients) and sadly spends the last half of the movie in a long battle for survival full of gravity defying stunts and snogging Ellen Page (who plays the Architect, someone who builds the world the Inceptors inhabit). Page is thankfully not in Juno mode but plays the viewpoint character (as she's just as new as this as we are).
Tom Hardy plays Eames, a character who can manifest himself as different characters to get the dreamer the reveal more information and Michael Caine plays Dom's father in law.
So enough about plot, there's roll on the with rest. First of all, the set-pieces, camerawork and editing are fantastic. For the first time in a Nolan film, there are large amounts of CGI but rather than use it as a basis for the story, the added effects give more depth to the dream world setting of the film and that's all. Your focus is entirely on the predicament of the characters and trying to absorb the knowledge given to you.
Slow-motion is prominent but actually has a purpose other than looking good. Location's are surprisingly vast and always changing (due to the erratic nature of dreaming) and by the end, you'll notice there's four events leading to the climax, each never losing it's interest and everything plays an important roll.
Hans Zimmer returns to score and while nothing is as memorable as Why So Serious? from The Dark Knight, the music has a very Ennio Morricone feel; guitars are prominent but not distracting and make a welcome change to the usual string and drum affair to soundtracks for big budget thrillers.
By the end of this two and half hour roller coaster, Inception will leave you head scratching. Not from the overly confusing plot, but rather, why does Hollywood not go for more features like this? It's an incredibly engrossing, smart movie with plenty of action, twists and turns, but never once does it sacrifice a drop of substance or intelligence for a cheap thrill.
If The Dark Knight hasn't cemented Christopher Nolan and his close team of producers, writers, composers and actors as one of the most powerful forces in Hollywood, Inception will. It's by far this summer's most intelligent and outright best action thriller, but also easily one of the films of 2010 and possibly, this entire decade.
Well, what are you waiting for you? Get to the cinema now!
9/10
H
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Toy Story 3 Review
Film trilogy's never work. There, I said it. You know it's true. Let's move on with our lives and try to forget why we always think that there will be three (count 'em, three!) great films of the same series, in a row.
I mean, let's think about, The Godfather trilogy is ruined by the third part being the runt of the litter (while by no means outright bad, it just happens to be tagged on to the near perfect first and second parts). The original Star Wars trilogy fell apart by having elite Stormtroopers defeated by an army of Teddy Bears in ROtJ and The Matrix...well I like it, everyone else seems to think it should have ended with number one.
So yes, trilogies always end in error usually by the third part. Whether its plot's are too outlandish (or a rehash on the first movie aka The Karate Kid), the character's can no longer be developed in coherent ways or we simply get bored of them, there has never been a consistently good film trilogy.
So, where does this leave Toy Story? You remember Toy Story right? It was that film released in the mid-nineties where toys apparently come to life when their owners aren't around? Is pretty much the Big Bang event to the CGI explosion of kid's films which happened after?
Of course you remember.
Toy Story was a masterpiece not just for little kids who were taken a back that their cartoons now look like their Playstation cutscenes but was filled with a child-like wonder, memorable characters and a concept that anyone who had ever felt an emotional attachment to a toy could relate to (including, SHOCK!Fully-Grown-Adults!!)
The story sees Andy (the owner of all the toys) receiving a Buzz Lightyear action figure (voiced by Tim Allen) who thinks he's a real space ranger. Eventually Buzz usurps Tom Hank's cowboy doll Woody as his favourite toy which leads to Woody growing mad with jealously but thanks to a sequence of events, leads the two teaming up to survive the terrors of the great outdoors.
A sequel arrived four years later (which is pretty early for Disney considering they finally answered that lost winter question for Bambi II, sixty-four years after the original) in Toy Story 2, which did the rare thing of somehow being equal/better than the original.
All the toys returned for a rip-roaring tale of the prospect of growing old. Woody is suddenly a rare commodity who gets Toy-Napped by an evil Dennis Knight (who reprises his role from Jurassic Park with a goatee) who wants to sell him to a Japanese Toy museum. So Buzz and the gang have to save Woody who realises his time is slowly coming to an end and wonder's about a life after Andy.
Like all sequels, it's bigger, has more characters but never loses the heart of the original. There's a particular song which could melt any stone heart but despite the looming doom, the character's remain optimistic at the end and we do too, even though for anyone who's owned a toy, where do they all end up in the end?
So over a decade later and after much behind the scenes fuck-ups, Toy Story 3 hits the big screen:
IN ADEQUATE AND ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE MAKING 3D.
In an unusual step, the film takes place an considerable amount of time after the second with Andy heading to college and the toys seemingly left abandoned in a toy chest. After a complicated series of events, the toys decide they're not wanted anymore and take a gamble on a trip to a daycare centre and I'll leave it at that.
So, how is Toy Story 3 without revealing spoilers I hear you ask?
Amazing, simply put.
Some of the wonderful characters from the previous two return (with others logically already gone) and again, the film ups the ante. It's a real sombre feel compared to the other two as you can't help but think throughout the entire film the toys are doomed to their fate due to father time.
You desperately want to see them through just like all the hard-ships beforehand, but the odds have never been higher and despite Woody and Buzz's optimism about a life in the attic in case Andy ever needs them, there's a sense of dread with all glimmers of hope being just that, glimmers.
The new characters are all pretty fantastic but none more so than Michael Keaton's Ken, whose feminine behaviour provides quite a few chuckles. The rest of the gang are still the same old, just a lot older and scared of the prospect of being thrown away.
Set pieces have expanded and are a tad more frequent but never lose they're unpredictability. The final one in particular will pound your heart into dust, mainly due to the emotional investment made with the characters over the past fifteen years. The animation and character models are all easy on the eye which makes it very easy to immerse yourself in the film's intriguing universe.
There's not a whole bunch to write about, so I'll leave it here. For those of us you grew up with these movies and want to see a satisfying and emotionally draining ending, it's perfect. For parents who want a popcorn flick to keep the kids semi-quiet for under two hours, it's perfect and for anyone who has ever owned and loved a toy, this is one for you too.
...and try to spot a certain antagonist from the first movie who makes a nice lil cameo. At least the writers decided not to make him a potential psychological train wreck after what happened and instead a tras...oops.
10/10
H
I mean, let's think about, The Godfather trilogy is ruined by the third part being the runt of the litter (while by no means outright bad, it just happens to be tagged on to the near perfect first and second parts). The original Star Wars trilogy fell apart by having elite Stormtroopers defeated by an army of Teddy Bears in ROtJ and The Matrix...well I like it, everyone else seems to think it should have ended with number one.
So yes, trilogies always end in error usually by the third part. Whether its plot's are too outlandish (or a rehash on the first movie aka The Karate Kid), the character's can no longer be developed in coherent ways or we simply get bored of them, there has never been a consistently good film trilogy.
So, where does this leave Toy Story? You remember Toy Story right? It was that film released in the mid-nineties where toys apparently come to life when their owners aren't around? Is pretty much the Big Bang event to the CGI explosion of kid's films which happened after?
Of course you remember.
Toy Story was a masterpiece not just for little kids who were taken a back that their cartoons now look like their Playstation cutscenes but was filled with a child-like wonder, memorable characters and a concept that anyone who had ever felt an emotional attachment to a toy could relate to (including, SHOCK!Fully-Grown-Adults!!)
The story sees Andy (the owner of all the toys) receiving a Buzz Lightyear action figure (voiced by Tim Allen) who thinks he's a real space ranger. Eventually Buzz usurps Tom Hank's cowboy doll Woody as his favourite toy which leads to Woody growing mad with jealously but thanks to a sequence of events, leads the two teaming up to survive the terrors of the great outdoors.
A sequel arrived four years later (which is pretty early for Disney considering they finally answered that lost winter question for Bambi II, sixty-four years after the original) in Toy Story 2, which did the rare thing of somehow being equal/better than the original.
All the toys returned for a rip-roaring tale of the prospect of growing old. Woody is suddenly a rare commodity who gets Toy-Napped by an evil Dennis Knight (who reprises his role from Jurassic Park with a goatee) who wants to sell him to a Japanese Toy museum. So Buzz and the gang have to save Woody who realises his time is slowly coming to an end and wonder's about a life after Andy.
Like all sequels, it's bigger, has more characters but never loses the heart of the original. There's a particular song which could melt any stone heart but despite the looming doom, the character's remain optimistic at the end and we do too, even though for anyone who's owned a toy, where do they all end up in the end?
So over a decade later and after much behind the scenes fuck-ups, Toy Story 3 hits the big screen:
IN ADEQUATE AND ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE MAKING 3D.
In an unusual step, the film takes place an considerable amount of time after the second with Andy heading to college and the toys seemingly left abandoned in a toy chest. After a complicated series of events, the toys decide they're not wanted anymore and take a gamble on a trip to a daycare centre and I'll leave it at that.
So, how is Toy Story 3 without revealing spoilers I hear you ask?
Amazing, simply put.
Some of the wonderful characters from the previous two return (with others logically already gone) and again, the film ups the ante. It's a real sombre feel compared to the other two as you can't help but think throughout the entire film the toys are doomed to their fate due to father time.
You desperately want to see them through just like all the hard-ships beforehand, but the odds have never been higher and despite Woody and Buzz's optimism about a life in the attic in case Andy ever needs them, there's a sense of dread with all glimmers of hope being just that, glimmers.
The new characters are all pretty fantastic but none more so than Michael Keaton's Ken, whose feminine behaviour provides quite a few chuckles. The rest of the gang are still the same old, just a lot older and scared of the prospect of being thrown away.
Set pieces have expanded and are a tad more frequent but never lose they're unpredictability. The final one in particular will pound your heart into dust, mainly due to the emotional investment made with the characters over the past fifteen years. The animation and character models are all easy on the eye which makes it very easy to immerse yourself in the film's intriguing universe.
There's not a whole bunch to write about, so I'll leave it here. For those of us you grew up with these movies and want to see a satisfying and emotionally draining ending, it's perfect. For parents who want a popcorn flick to keep the kids semi-quiet for under two hours, it's perfect and for anyone who has ever owned and loved a toy, this is one for you too.
...and try to spot a certain antagonist from the first movie who makes a nice lil cameo. At least the writers decided not to make him a potential psychological train wreck after what happened and instead a tras...oops.
10/10
H
Saturday, 15 May 2010
RIP Heroes 2006-2010
Some might say it was inevitable, others will speak joyously about it's demise, but for the small and somewhat annoyed, we'll wonder what if it just got one last poxy season?
But alas, NBC has cancelled Heroes. It appears that even Season Four's pretty damn good comeback (in my eyes anyway, check teh interwebs for the other side of the spectrum) wasn't enough to stop the show's ratings free falling and now NBC has pulled the plug to make room for more shows.
Of course this hasn't stopped the talk of their being a mini-series or a movie for wrapping things up but, seriously, Stargate has kept it's bloated corpse running on spin-offs for nigh on five years now, I'd like to think even Kring has some dignity to wrap it up quickly if given the chance.
Check back soon for the review to end all reviews on Volume Five's Redemption (lulz, irony). As for me, I best get saving for that Blu-Ray boxset that I've been putting off for two years.
I mean, who else is going to pay for Hayden Panettiere to save the dolphins?
H
But alas, NBC has cancelled Heroes. It appears that even Season Four's pretty damn good comeback (in my eyes anyway, check teh interwebs for the other side of the spectrum) wasn't enough to stop the show's ratings free falling and now NBC has pulled the plug to make room for more shows.
Of course this hasn't stopped the talk of their being a mini-series or a movie for wrapping things up but, seriously, Stargate has kept it's bloated corpse running on spin-offs for nigh on five years now, I'd like to think even Kring has some dignity to wrap it up quickly if given the chance.
Check back soon for the review to end all reviews on Volume Five's Redemption (lulz, irony). As for me, I best get saving for that Blu-Ray boxset that I've been putting off for two years.
I mean, who else is going to pay for Hayden Panettiere to save the dolphins?
H
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
Four Lions Review
TERRORISM! JIHAD! SUICIDE BOMBERS!
Not exactly something you'd associate with a comedy. Especially in this day and age where NYC finds itself checking suspiciously parked cars and anyone who dares draw a picture of the Muslim prophet Muhammad will be beheaded and/or stoned.
So step forward comedic genius Chris Morris; famous for satirical television shows such as Brass Eye, Nathan Barley and the absolutely deranged Jam. For years he's hinted at something bigger, something more explosive and akin to Dad's Army, for terrorists.
Well it's finally here, the potential day of reckoning is upon us, but at least it'll leave you smiling ear to ear.
Four Lions is the tale of four Islamic extremists who have decided to become suicide bombers. Leading the gang is Omar (played by Riz Ahmed) who is ultimately the brains behind the operation. Surprisingly he has a brother who believes that conflict is not the way forward and even more surprisingly, his own wife and son back his ambitions to cause murder and mayhem.
Up next is the lovably stupid Waj (played to perfection by Fone and Facejacker Kayvan Novak). Waj is the closest the audience gets to a sympathetic character. He's usually confused about which path to take and finds utterly random western ideals and products to be evil (ranging from how much it is for a McDonalds meal to Mini Babybells).
At the start of the movie, the duo go to a training camp in Pakistan, leaving behind Faisal (played by Adeel Akhtar) who's collecting explosives but doesn't want to blow himself up and Barry (played by Nigel Lindsay)...who deserves an entire paragraph dedicated to him.
Barry is a convert and easily the best comedic creation since Brick Tamland. Although he's 100% behind the cause, he's so utterly ridiculous he fails to see the severe flaws in his mindset (from claiming Faisal's dad is a Jew for buying Jaffa oranges) to his ultimate plan: To blow up a Mosque and fast track all moderates into extremists which is promptly rejected by Omar several times throughout the film.
With Omar and Waj gone, Barry appears at a council meeting making a fool of himself before a young and angry Hassan impresses him with a "...jihad of the mind". Hassan (played by Arsher Ali) is another sympathetic character who wants to make a difference but is obviously conflicted by the levels of which Omar and his team want to go.
He's eventually convinced by Barry to join the group and when Omar and Waj return from their disastrous trip abroad, the four become a fivesome and the film shows the planning and eventual execution of their plan; to attack the London Marathon.
So that it in a nutshell. We have five characters, some of which we can feel some attachment for but otherwise, we want them to fail miserably for the sake of the unnamed people who might be killed in the conflict.
Obviously centring an entire comedy around this seems impossible to build humour around and yet Morris and Peep Show duo Jesse Armstrong and Sam Bain somehow do it. The film's comedy is built around fantastic one liners and utterly stupid scenarios. Whether is Waj's outbursts or the group squat thrusting with explosives, fans of Morris' previous work or those with an eye for subtle satire will find something that can amass a giggle (or in my case, belly laughing).
Again, as with a lot of Morris' satirical work, the film pokes around the obvious holes in opinion. A good example of this is Barry's plan to blow up a Mosque. You can see why he's suggesting it, but he fails to see that he's attacking Muslims themselves and ends up having his plan picked apart by Omar using a metaphor almost as brilliant as one seen in The Wire involving Chess.
The same applies for Omar's brother who disapproves of his brother's planning but is viewed as sexist for his relationship to Omar's wife and locking his own in a cupboard. It shows the two sides of extremism; Omar, who wears western clothes and listens to Dancing in the Moonlight whilst planning to blow himself up is the antithesis to his brother who wears traditionalist clothes, is generally peaceful but treats women as second class citizens.
And that's just tipping the iceberg. There's plenty more but rather than reading this and losing the humour through writing, do yourself a favour and see it for yourself.
For laugh out loud one liners to brilliant satire on the same level as Brass Eye and South Park, Four Lions is the film for you. Check it out whilst you can, before it gets banned by The Daily Mail or something.
9/10
H
Not exactly something you'd associate with a comedy. Especially in this day and age where NYC finds itself checking suspiciously parked cars and anyone who dares draw a picture of the Muslim prophet Muhammad will be beheaded and/or stoned.
So step forward comedic genius Chris Morris; famous for satirical television shows such as Brass Eye, Nathan Barley and the absolutely deranged Jam. For years he's hinted at something bigger, something more explosive and akin to Dad's Army, for terrorists.
Well it's finally here, the potential day of reckoning is upon us, but at least it'll leave you smiling ear to ear.
Four Lions is the tale of four Islamic extremists who have decided to become suicide bombers. Leading the gang is Omar (played by Riz Ahmed) who is ultimately the brains behind the operation. Surprisingly he has a brother who believes that conflict is not the way forward and even more surprisingly, his own wife and son back his ambitions to cause murder and mayhem.
Up next is the lovably stupid Waj (played to perfection by Fone and Facejacker Kayvan Novak). Waj is the closest the audience gets to a sympathetic character. He's usually confused about which path to take and finds utterly random western ideals and products to be evil (ranging from how much it is for a McDonalds meal to Mini Babybells).
At the start of the movie, the duo go to a training camp in Pakistan, leaving behind Faisal (played by Adeel Akhtar) who's collecting explosives but doesn't want to blow himself up and Barry (played by Nigel Lindsay)...who deserves an entire paragraph dedicated to him.
Barry is a convert and easily the best comedic creation since Brick Tamland. Although he's 100% behind the cause, he's so utterly ridiculous he fails to see the severe flaws in his mindset (from claiming Faisal's dad is a Jew for buying Jaffa oranges) to his ultimate plan: To blow up a Mosque and fast track all moderates into extremists which is promptly rejected by Omar several times throughout the film.
With Omar and Waj gone, Barry appears at a council meeting making a fool of himself before a young and angry Hassan impresses him with a "...jihad of the mind". Hassan (played by Arsher Ali) is another sympathetic character who wants to make a difference but is obviously conflicted by the levels of which Omar and his team want to go.
He's eventually convinced by Barry to join the group and when Omar and Waj return from their disastrous trip abroad, the four become a fivesome and the film shows the planning and eventual execution of their plan; to attack the London Marathon.
So that it in a nutshell. We have five characters, some of which we can feel some attachment for but otherwise, we want them to fail miserably for the sake of the unnamed people who might be killed in the conflict.
Obviously centring an entire comedy around this seems impossible to build humour around and yet Morris and Peep Show duo Jesse Armstrong and Sam Bain somehow do it. The film's comedy is built around fantastic one liners and utterly stupid scenarios. Whether is Waj's outbursts or the group squat thrusting with explosives, fans of Morris' previous work or those with an eye for subtle satire will find something that can amass a giggle (or in my case, belly laughing).
Again, as with a lot of Morris' satirical work, the film pokes around the obvious holes in opinion. A good example of this is Barry's plan to blow up a Mosque. You can see why he's suggesting it, but he fails to see that he's attacking Muslims themselves and ends up having his plan picked apart by Omar using a metaphor almost as brilliant as one seen in The Wire involving Chess.
The same applies for Omar's brother who disapproves of his brother's planning but is viewed as sexist for his relationship to Omar's wife and locking his own in a cupboard. It shows the two sides of extremism; Omar, who wears western clothes and listens to Dancing in the Moonlight whilst planning to blow himself up is the antithesis to his brother who wears traditionalist clothes, is generally peaceful but treats women as second class citizens.
And that's just tipping the iceberg. There's plenty more but rather than reading this and losing the humour through writing, do yourself a favour and see it for yourself.
For laugh out loud one liners to brilliant satire on the same level as Brass Eye and South Park, Four Lions is the film for you. Check it out whilst you can, before it gets banned by The Daily Mail or something.
9/10
H
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Iron Man 2 Review
Jon Favreau's Iron Man was somewhat of a surprise hit. In a year where the entire universe and it's nan eagerly awaited The Dark Knight eventual arrival, it was pretty clear that anything other would pale in comparison in terms of story, direction, box office intake and the rest.
And yet when Iron Man hit screens in May 2008, an almost surprising amount of acclaim and satisfaction came soon after. The movie was easily the best adaptation of a Marvel superhero since the Sam Rami's first Spider-Man and had the movie not appeared in the midst's of Bat-Mania '08, it would have easily been the best superhero movie of 2008.
A sequel was inevitable and luckily for us, our main key players were returning. I mean, this is it right? This was going to be fantastic! Favreau had done the origin story in one highly entertaining swoop but now it's time to bring in new stuff with far more freedom.
Would he introduce the now legendary "Demon in a Bottle" storyline? It seemed all too perfect with how Robert Downey Jr (who if you've lived under a rock on Mars for the last two years plays Tony Stark aka Iron Man) had triumphed over his own demons before becoming a box office juggernaut.
Although Favreau had ruled out The Mandarin, there was plenty of other villains to make into household names. Would he build upon the Avengers initiative that was hinted at to patient viewers at the end credits of the first movie? Could Don Cheadle surpass Terrence Howard?
Well it's here and well, yes, to a certain extent, but in the worst possible way imaginable.
So the story, in short (and boy this is going to be fun) is set almost immediately after Stark's revelation to the media that he is Iron Man at the end of the first movie. The U.S. government in stereotypical fashion is full of slimey arseholes who want the Iron Man weapon for their own purposes before America's enemies develop their own Iron Men suits. Stark argues the world is safe because of his presence and that he doesn't need to.
With the aid of hacking skills the likes of which Hollywood hasn't seen since Independence Day, he reveals that America's government backed weapon's developer has been selling his own protype suits to above enemies and walks away, because, well, plot.
In Russia, Ivan Yanko (played by Mickey Rourke with a Russian accent) watches his father die and decides it's time to take revenge on Stark. In short, Yanko's father half created the first arc reactor but was deported by Tony's dad and thus wasn't rich and famous. So Yanko using his own intelligence creates a weapon from the same technology and heads to America to kill Stark.
Stark leads a playboy lifestyle as usual, gets a new assistant in the shape of Scarlet Johansson, discovers his own artificial heart is slowly poisoning him and, yeah, I'll leave it as that. Things happen, things have to change, character's develop, but I'll leave you to find out who, what and why.
So first things first, no the story isn't "Demon in a Bottle". Yes we briefly see Stark drunk and destructive, but there's no major character arc revolving around it. Instead this, along with several other smaller plot points are just crumbs to the main underlining threat of the movie and that is: Who will get a military contract?
You know guys, this didn't work in Lord of War and that was a movie that centred on Arms Dealers, why on earth would it work in a Superhero movie?
So yeah, Iron Man 2's main villain (to a certain extent) is Tony Stark's rival Justin Hammer, who if he hadn't been played by the ever brilliant Sam Rockwell, this movie would have been far, far worse.
Hammer is ruthless as he is pathetic; he's the PC to Stark's Apple. Thankfully Rockwell is given more than enough time for the audience to become adjusted to his bad jokes, awkward demeanour and two-faced tactics.
The same can't be said for Mickey Rourke's Ivan Yanko/Whiplash who is in the film for about twenty minutes, which is ridiculous when he's the supposed major threat to our hero. Although you'd think Whiplash should give Iron Man a right good beating, he ends up first defeated by Jon Favearu's driving and later in the inevitable conclusion in about two minutes.
It's a shame as I liked Rourke here. He's a calculating madman who doesn't want money but simply to make Stark pay in blood (as chillingly referenced in his eventual interrogation). If anything, we should support him as he's the character who has lost everything to Stark's rich empire but by the end, he plays second fiddle to Hammer's plans to get a military contract and it's just one of the many disappointments the film presents.
Iron Man 2 must be the only superhero movie on earth where's there's too much plot but nothing to show for it. It's like what would happen if Superman Returns' sleep-inducing boringness collided with Spider-Man 3's bloatedness which then finally smashed into Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer absolute direness.
...ness.
I was watching it knowing things were happening but I honestly couldn't care less. The film's main threat is who gets more money from selling weapons? I mean, you have a bloodthirsty Russian terrorist who wants to kill Stark for the sins of his father, you have Stark dying from his artificial heart which brings about the birth of War Machine and the temporary fall of Stark and you have Nick Fury talking about eating "doughnuts" and "Avengers" or something (on a side note; Jackson man, what happened? I know your Sixty-one but Jesus, did Nick Fury declare war on diets or something?).
And these play in the background and have nothing to show for it. I know the last movie's main flaw was the lack of a decent major villain, but Stark's journey as Iron Man and Downey Jr's electric performance as said character was more than enough to make up for it. He was complex and at times borderline insane but intensely likable. Here he is simply a text book megalomaniac with very little redeeming qualities other than being friendly to some and annoying to many. Even his free-flowing almost human-like dialogue with Pepper Potts (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) doesn't help matters and when his eventual fall comes, I was hoping he'd change but in the end, it's the same old Tony, just with less chance of dying.
This film is awful. The main plot is an absolute joke, an overbloated, stupidly long and mind numbingly awful joke. I know people complain how Superhero movies can be stupid for the sake of action but it's like the complete opposite here. You get over two hours of build up and a trailer's worth of action to show for it.
Even when the action comes it's third rate. CGI men in robot suits fight against CGI robot drones is your main event of the evening. It's like a kid cartoon with the violence watered-down and even Whiplash battling Iron Man is so short you barely have enough time to contemplate the consequenes of the outcome and when the rematch eventually rolls in at the end, it's over even faster.
As for War Machine. Well, he's ok and full credit to Cheadle for having to deal with what he had because he was good but he should have had more of the plot. Like everything in the movie, he has an running plot with Tony which is given up in the end to simply have our trailer clip of the two fighting together against drones and considering how much plot the movie tries to devour, his ongoing rivalry with Stark and eventual team up is just so ham-handed that it should have just been cut or rewritten altogether.
But yeah, this is getting long so I'm gonna wrap this up. Iron Man 2 is an atrocious sequel to a fantastic first film. The movie's main plot is padded out with far too many other plots to make up for it, the action is minimal and not satisfactory in the slightest and by the end, you feel like something has happened but nothing has happened (if that makes any sense).
I hope that the third movie will take a step in the right direction by at the very least, make something engaging and entertaining. I mean, the first film got away with adding an antagonist at the end because of making the origin and rise of Iron Man so great but now is the time to test our character's will and determination with a major threat.
It's just a shame it may take until the third film to do this when it should have been covered here and now. Still, live in hope guys, maybe Thor and Captain America will make up for it?
3/10
H
And yet when Iron Man hit screens in May 2008, an almost surprising amount of acclaim and satisfaction came soon after. The movie was easily the best adaptation of a Marvel superhero since the Sam Rami's first Spider-Man and had the movie not appeared in the midst's of Bat-Mania '08, it would have easily been the best superhero movie of 2008.
A sequel was inevitable and luckily for us, our main key players were returning. I mean, this is it right? This was going to be fantastic! Favreau had done the origin story in one highly entertaining swoop but now it's time to bring in new stuff with far more freedom.
Would he introduce the now legendary "Demon in a Bottle" storyline? It seemed all too perfect with how Robert Downey Jr (who if you've lived under a rock on Mars for the last two years plays Tony Stark aka Iron Man) had triumphed over his own demons before becoming a box office juggernaut.
Although Favreau had ruled out The Mandarin, there was plenty of other villains to make into household names. Would he build upon the Avengers initiative that was hinted at to patient viewers at the end credits of the first movie? Could Don Cheadle surpass Terrence Howard?
Well it's here and well, yes, to a certain extent, but in the worst possible way imaginable.
So the story, in short (and boy this is going to be fun) is set almost immediately after Stark's revelation to the media that he is Iron Man at the end of the first movie. The U.S. government in stereotypical fashion is full of slimey arseholes who want the Iron Man weapon for their own purposes before America's enemies develop their own Iron Men suits. Stark argues the world is safe because of his presence and that he doesn't need to.
With the aid of hacking skills the likes of which Hollywood hasn't seen since Independence Day, he reveals that America's government backed weapon's developer has been selling his own protype suits to above enemies and walks away, because, well, plot.
In Russia, Ivan Yanko (played by Mickey Rourke with a Russian accent) watches his father die and decides it's time to take revenge on Stark. In short, Yanko's father half created the first arc reactor but was deported by Tony's dad and thus wasn't rich and famous. So Yanko using his own intelligence creates a weapon from the same technology and heads to America to kill Stark.
Stark leads a playboy lifestyle as usual, gets a new assistant in the shape of Scarlet Johansson, discovers his own artificial heart is slowly poisoning him and, yeah, I'll leave it as that. Things happen, things have to change, character's develop, but I'll leave you to find out who, what and why.
So first things first, no the story isn't "Demon in a Bottle". Yes we briefly see Stark drunk and destructive, but there's no major character arc revolving around it. Instead this, along with several other smaller plot points are just crumbs to the main underlining threat of the movie and that is: Who will get a military contract?
You know guys, this didn't work in Lord of War and that was a movie that centred on Arms Dealers, why on earth would it work in a Superhero movie?
So yeah, Iron Man 2's main villain (to a certain extent) is Tony Stark's rival Justin Hammer, who if he hadn't been played by the ever brilliant Sam Rockwell, this movie would have been far, far worse.
Hammer is ruthless as he is pathetic; he's the PC to Stark's Apple. Thankfully Rockwell is given more than enough time for the audience to become adjusted to his bad jokes, awkward demeanour and two-faced tactics.
The same can't be said for Mickey Rourke's Ivan Yanko/Whiplash who is in the film for about twenty minutes, which is ridiculous when he's the supposed major threat to our hero. Although you'd think Whiplash should give Iron Man a right good beating, he ends up first defeated by Jon Favearu's driving and later in the inevitable conclusion in about two minutes.
It's a shame as I liked Rourke here. He's a calculating madman who doesn't want money but simply to make Stark pay in blood (as chillingly referenced in his eventual interrogation). If anything, we should support him as he's the character who has lost everything to Stark's rich empire but by the end, he plays second fiddle to Hammer's plans to get a military contract and it's just one of the many disappointments the film presents.
Iron Man 2 must be the only superhero movie on earth where's there's too much plot but nothing to show for it. It's like what would happen if Superman Returns' sleep-inducing boringness collided with Spider-Man 3's bloatedness which then finally smashed into Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer absolute direness.
...ness.
I was watching it knowing things were happening but I honestly couldn't care less. The film's main threat is who gets more money from selling weapons? I mean, you have a bloodthirsty Russian terrorist who wants to kill Stark for the sins of his father, you have Stark dying from his artificial heart which brings about the birth of War Machine and the temporary fall of Stark and you have Nick Fury talking about eating "doughnuts" and "Avengers" or something (on a side note; Jackson man, what happened? I know your Sixty-one but Jesus, did Nick Fury declare war on diets or something?).
And these play in the background and have nothing to show for it. I know the last movie's main flaw was the lack of a decent major villain, but Stark's journey as Iron Man and Downey Jr's electric performance as said character was more than enough to make up for it. He was complex and at times borderline insane but intensely likable. Here he is simply a text book megalomaniac with very little redeeming qualities other than being friendly to some and annoying to many. Even his free-flowing almost human-like dialogue with Pepper Potts (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) doesn't help matters and when his eventual fall comes, I was hoping he'd change but in the end, it's the same old Tony, just with less chance of dying.
This film is awful. The main plot is an absolute joke, an overbloated, stupidly long and mind numbingly awful joke. I know people complain how Superhero movies can be stupid for the sake of action but it's like the complete opposite here. You get over two hours of build up and a trailer's worth of action to show for it.
Even when the action comes it's third rate. CGI men in robot suits fight against CGI robot drones is your main event of the evening. It's like a kid cartoon with the violence watered-down and even Whiplash battling Iron Man is so short you barely have enough time to contemplate the consequenes of the outcome and when the rematch eventually rolls in at the end, it's over even faster.
As for War Machine. Well, he's ok and full credit to Cheadle for having to deal with what he had because he was good but he should have had more of the plot. Like everything in the movie, he has an running plot with Tony which is given up in the end to simply have our trailer clip of the two fighting together against drones and considering how much plot the movie tries to devour, his ongoing rivalry with Stark and eventual team up is just so ham-handed that it should have just been cut or rewritten altogether.
But yeah, this is getting long so I'm gonna wrap this up. Iron Man 2 is an atrocious sequel to a fantastic first film. The movie's main plot is padded out with far too many other plots to make up for it, the action is minimal and not satisfactory in the slightest and by the end, you feel like something has happened but nothing has happened (if that makes any sense).
I hope that the third movie will take a step in the right direction by at the very least, make something engaging and entertaining. I mean, the first film got away with adding an antagonist at the end because of making the origin and rise of Iron Man so great but now is the time to test our character's will and determination with a major threat.
It's just a shame it may take until the third film to do this when it should have been covered here and now. Still, live in hope guys, maybe Thor and Captain America will make up for it?
3/10
H
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
