IS motion control gaming the future? Yes. Does its arrival mark the death of controller gaming? Absolutely not. It is a fantastic and new option ready to breathe fresh ideas and money into the stagnant industry.
The new systems of the PSMove and the Kinect are expensive models with costs of the Kinect starting at the wallet-emptying figure of £140. This is a weighty figure for anyone, and excessive for an Eyetoy 2.0. Every gaming control/technology has an expensive starting cost with companies capitalising on fanboys’ desperation to get the latest technology – it’s not right but it’s business. However, prices do decline and soon the Kinect and PSMove will be available to the masses.
Furthermore, motion control is to the gaming industry as 3D to the movie industry. In 2009, the film industry bucked the recession achieving a record box office of £944m and a large factor in that was Avatar’s popularity and high-ticket prices. Granted motion control will not have such a large appeal but the increased costs of the Kinect will help boost the industry, as console and accessory sales have fallen 35% from 2003.
Why would people want it though? I recently saw a trailer for the XBOX Kinnect version of the latest Harry Potter game and went ‘wow!’. As a child, this is what I thought gaming would evolve to. I could now be the character, the ultimate suspension of reality. Indeed, this evolution of motion control gaming does open the door to brand new opportunities. The new Heavy Rain: Move Edition has received great early reviews as the motion control adds an extra layer to the game, as one flick of the controller can lead to a complete change in narrative. It mimics our real life mistakes adding to the experiences and immersing the player even further into the game. This highlights the advancement of motion control gaming and shows why this has a future. Money is an object but the greatest necessities are time and effort, and with the combination of all three things motion gaming will be a success in both gaming and financial terms.
One must realise that Sony and Microsoft have decided to cash in on this due to the success of the Wii. By 2009/2010, 70.93 million units had been sold, and one of its key selling points is its simplicity and accessibility for non-gamers. Indeed, professional reviewers malign shooters on the Wii so much for the same reason casual gamers enjoy them so much: point, shoot and that’s it. With the Kinect and PSMove, this is the advancement of this technology allowing the embrace of ‘die-hard’ gamers and casual gamers without the fear of alienation. Indeed the PS3’s fantastic graphics and 360′s variety of games will provide motion control gaming what it has been lacking, meaning motion control is now a better accessory as a whole and able to provide to what people want instead of only a small target market.
It’s time to ignore all the haters and embrace the simplicity and potential brilliance of this new wave of motion control games. This is no gimmick, it really is the next step to gaming and I can’t wait to get involved.
Friday, 17 December 2010
The American Review
With Oscar season beginning to heat up, the American has been pushed forward as a potential candidate to snag nominations for film and mainly gorgeous George Clooney. The American represents a new trend emerging in potential Oscar grabbing films; instead of taking the historical/true story approach, they take the road of redemption and lost souls. Although, an unfair criticism to some extent, The American does tick many of these boxes. However, The American is much more than simple award season fodder down to Clooney, Corbijn and Joffe.
Clooney plays Jack/Edward, an assassin hiding out in a small town in Italy for one last assignment after a job in Sweden goes wrong. Corbijn’s film is completely focused upon Clooney’s central performance with 90% of the film’s shots featuring him. Clooney used his Hollywood power to push through this film for production (as credited) and throughout the film, he seems almost affectionate for the scenes playing out around him. Furthermore, the studio’s release of this film indicates that Focus Features, the studio behind The American, smells awards. In one sense, they are correct. Clooney plays the part well utilising every line of dialogue, of which is there is little, effectively and using his very presence as another tool in his acting arsenal. The lack of back story does cause an atmosphere of mystery and suspicion around Clooney’s character, however, it leaves too much to the imagination. Indeed, Joffe’s script does not keep the audience fully interested throughout its full running time therefore meaning Clooney’s performance can never hit the heights of Up in the Air.
Nevertheless, this film is a two-pronged attack upon your senses with Clooney’s performance leading the charge with Corbijn’s achingly beautiful shots and sequences. The film is an overload of beauty upon the senses with Corbijn’s scouting agent finding the most iconic town in the all of Italy. The long drawn out shouts of beautiful Sweden in the beginning and the small Italian town are beyond beautiful with each shot seemingly descending from the heavens above and into Corbijn’s lens. As with Control, Corbijn uses his wealth of experience as a D.O.P to push as much as beauty onto the screen as possible. However, as with many D.O.P’s, the fear is that there will be no meat on the bones to their beautiful imagery. Corbijn proved sceptics wrong with Control, however, there are little niggles here with his second feature.
Whether this be due to Corbijn, Joffe or just other factors, this film does enjoy looking at its own beauty a tad too much. Don’t get me wrong, I could watch these shots all day as part of my screen saver, however, I was hoping for the plot to move along at slightly a faster pace. Indeed, outside of the film, this is one of the factors that caused bad reviews for The American. In the U.S. the film is advertised as an action film with high tension and multiple shootings and as shown in the film’s poor IMDB reviews, many feel aggrieved by the lack of die-hard action. This film is definitely a slow burner and one that requires patience and respect. That being said, it felt like the film was trying too hard and needed more content inside to make it a more well-rounded experience.
The supporting characters do well and provide good support for the solo show that is Clooney. Indeed the sexual intensity between Clara (Violante Placido) and Jack is hot and passionate and Corbijn truly brings that across and provides a great depth to both characters. This scene does in fact actually provide on of the high points of this beautiful if ever so slow film. The end is horrendously clichéd but all in all, it is a slow, respectful and well acted film if guilty for trying too hard.
3/5
FlashForward Season 1 DVD Review
The now cancelled FlashForward began with such great ambition and hope, aiming to fill the void left by Lost. A brilliant high-concept premise that caused everyone on the planet to blackout for 137 seconds simultaneously. Furthermore, supported by David S. Goyer, it genuinely seemed to have a huge future ahead of it. However, ABC pulled the plug as figures nosedived throughout the series, descending from a strong 12.47 million viewers in its first episode to a series low of 4.75 million.
FlashForward is such an enigma of a show. It started so brightly with all those involved infusing the project with masses of effort, money and talent. Indeed, it pays off from the first episode, which acts as a real hook for the rest of the season. We are brought into the worlds of Mark (Joseph Fiennes) and Demetri (John Cho) – FBI agents tracking a terrorist group. Furthermore, we meet Mark’s wife Olivia (Sonya Walger) and fellow nurse Bryce Varley (Zachary Knighton) beginning at work. The basic set-up is that at 9am, everyone in the world becomes unconscious for 137 seconds, and when they wake chaos ensues – and FlashForward begins.
The opening episode is good, with nice graphics and a tight script which reveals enough to keep us interested, but reserving some of its stronger moments for later. The writers ask a lot from the audience: to swallow their qualms with the idea of the entire world fainting, and just allowing the writers the benefit of the doubt. Although not spectacular, FlashForward delivers everything it promises early on, and its initial ambition should be admired.
However, the problems become apparent from episode two, as very little is actually revealed, with the pace seemingly slowing to a crawl. This may seem a harsh judgement only one episode in, but I expected more from it. This is a recurring theme throughout the series, with few episodes raising the pulse-rate. The problem is that the writers had a great initial concept but few ideas/subplots to keep the audience interested. The sub-strand of Cho/Fiennes is good, along with the continuing idea of predestined fate and whether these visions would be true or not. Nevertheless, in some episodes it seems that the writers drag out plot reveals endlessly, after fearing they might run out of material later in the series.
FlashForward’s sudden cancellation is consequently no shock, and in all honesty, it seems unlikely that the cast and crew were shocked either. With a strange mid-season break for no apparent reason, it interrupted the audience’s interest-level, leaving behind only the dedicated. The average TV series takes alot of dedication, and so, a series that declines in quality and often bores at times is never going to be a ratings success. Furthermore, Guggenheim and Goyer departed the series after episode 10, and from this point on, the series’ fell into even steeper decline.
In terms of acting, everything is adequate. Personally, it’s good to see Jack Davenport getting more screen time, and he does a good job playing the wise academic. The best of the cast are Cho and Monaghan, who provide extra depth, and are interesting throughout. However, Fiennes never truly shines. and it is hard to connect truly with our protagonist, since he doesn’t have the requisite humour or depth to engage us. The large cast and ambitious plot seem to suggest that ABC were looking for a Lost replacement; Despite this, most of the cast are never given enough to really shine.
As the series reaches its finale, those who have remained would have hoped for a much better pay-off. The final reveal is frustrating, and the producers were clearly yearning for another season, meaning that we will never get closure for this one. Furthermore, the big budget spent on the first episode had clearly evaporated by the finale. The desperate hope for a next series fell on deaf ears, and perhaps deservedly so. FlashForward introduced a brilliant premise, but in the end proved a disappointment, and one that should have concentrated on securing a solid character-base and setting up irresistible intrigues for future seasons instead of shifting ground in the fading hope of season renewal.
Extras
Architects of Destiny
This focuses on the premiere day of FlashForward, with all the cast fully pumped and excited, but it’s surreal to see them act like there is a second season coming. Nevertheless, hearing the actors and crew talk of the dilemma of “free will vs. pre-determination” makes for interesting viewing.
FlashForward on set
The usual look behind the scenes. Nice, if nothing special.
Interviews from the Mosaic Collective
Enjoyable little vignettes, but it doesn’t last very long and would have been better-used if integrated into the overall series.
Meet Yuko
A worthwhile insight into the actress’s first American role. But again nothing more. She does seem lovely though.
Kangaroo?
Rather pointless, and doesn’t explain the purpose of the Kangaroo.
Creating Catastrophe: The Effects Of A Global Blackout
This little extra – coming in at 7 minutes – shows how the pilot episode’s massive beginning happened, and it is impressive to see how visual effects and real footage combine to create what you see in the final result. It made me slightly sad, as the effort put into this faded away notably in the final episodes.
Indeed, there’s a lot of talk time from all involved, and their enthusiasm makes you feel sympathetic for the FlashForward case. However, the extras don’t answer any of the lingering questions that remain, and continue the tone of the TV show itself: bewildering and frustrating.
Why Games To Films Don't Work
As a fan of both worlds of video games and film, the torrid and painful relationship angers and annoys myself and millions of others. It just does not work. It is not due to one media being inferior to the other; it is just the fact that they are different and do not belong together. It’s like turning marmite into jam.
One only has to look at the backlog of diabolical video game to film adaptations – Lara Croft 1 and 2, Mortal Kombat, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Super Mario Bros *shudder*. All of them were poorly acted, poorly scripted, dull, unimaginative and just an unpleasant waste of 90-100 minutes of my life. One problem arrives at the lack of effort put into these films, as shown with the recent adaptation of Prince of Persia, it seems the current trend is to throw money and hope for the best. Furthermore, taking into account the current state of these adaptations, no big name director or writer would be willing to stick their neck on the line due to the horrible task of channelling the video game experience into a suitable film experience.
Videogames just do not suit the big screen as they focus upon interaction from the audience whereas with films, the emphasis upon the auteur controlling the audience. Therefore, this transfer of power is unnatural and comes across as awkward on celluloid. Is it due to the inferiority of videogames? No. Games such as Legends of Zelda, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy and Call of Duty have great plots, fun experiences, and brilliant dialogue. Granted videogames use cinematic styles and thematic to provide greater atmosphere but there is no reason for this to be replicated onto the big screen. However, they need to remain separate to keep their own identity and credibility and to maintain their brilliance. Indeed, Max Payne and Resident Evil have lost some of their stature within the gaming world due to their respective god-awful films.
There has been financial success with some adaptations such as the recent Resident Evil series but many who saw the most recent entry into the series were not the original fans of the gaming series. Therefore, the target market is not interested anymore and renders these films almost obsolete. Many hopefuls of future videogame adaptations use the argument of coolness stating how cool it would be; however, it is similar to the idea of starting a band. It’s a great premise but a bitterly disappointing reality.
Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps
Oliver Stone’s 1987 Wall Street was a scathing satire on the greed of corporate America fuelled by Reagan’s Free Market initiative. Therefore, with the banking crisis in the last few years, Stone has found the perfect time to release Wall Street 2. Stone, renowned for tackling difficult subjects his ballsy direction and biting scripts, has sadly fallen flat here.
A film about one of the most talked about issues right now in the world, the economic crash, should be exciting, revealing and easy for a director to capitalise on. It’s got twists and secrets that are just begging to be exaggerated and revealed on the big screen. Plus with Gordon Gekko in tow, the greasiest stockbroker of all time, this should be an enthralling watch. However, Wall Street 2 is just a tepid and boring affair.
The main blame must be pointed at the actors and Stone’s script. Douglas, reprieving his best remembered role, seems out of touch with who Gekko is and it’s only due to his natural charisma that our interest remains in him. He underplays it to the extreme and at times looks plain bored. However, I fear that Stone’s script has a hand in Gekko’s weaker portrayal in this film than its predecessor. Stone over emphasises the fact that Gekko was away for a long time and develops the character no further than that.
Instead, Stone seems to rely upon previous memories/ideas surrounding Gekko and places all his effort into boosting Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf). LaBeouf does not exude the same charisma as Charlie Sheen in the first Wall Street thus meaning it is harder to care and rout for our protagonist through his moral turmoil and hardship. Again, he is crippled by Stone’s script which does not allow LaBeouf to play around much with his role. Brolin, Wallach and especially Langella provide good support with Langella standing out by adding a much needed passion and personality to his role. Sadly, the rest of the film could not follow Langella’s lead.
Although Stone’s script is stoic at times, his ability to handle boardroom drama increase tension and interest levels making the film a much more enjoyable watch. Indeed, the scene involving discussions over the future of Langella’s company is by far the best scene in the film. Well-acted, well-shot and interesting. The problem with Wall Street 2 is that there is no excitement and there are no stick-out moments, and scenes turn into a procession of economic jargon and boredom. In fairness, the script allows new comers to come enjoy the bright lights and extensive economic terms.
Nevertheless, the ending is horrifically clichéd and makes one cringe at how saccharine it is and sums up the pointlessness of the film. As shown by Alex Gibney’s documentary, Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room, tales of deception, lies and economic failure can be astounding and shocking; however, with Wall Street 2 the plot takes us nowhere and with such a brilliant ensemble in his hands, it’s bewildering how he missed this golden opportunity.
2/5
Where Have All The Laughs Gone?
Having recently become a second year student at university, I have been overcome by sense of nostalgia. On my trip of nostalgia, I’ve been thinking back to the funnier moments and most of these have been linked to films. Films such as Blazing Saddles, Airplane! and the Naked Gun trilogy all formed a key part of my travels through puberty and indeed, most of my everyday humour derives from these films. However, as Screen Editor of Exepose, we were recently informed of the upcoming release of Vampires Suck. I’m not angry with the trailer, simply disappointed. Why is this being labeled as comedy? Where have all the laughs gone?
It is very easy to sit upon a high horse and simply sneer at new films trying to be funny and claim how “they were much funnier in my day”. However, to a great extent, I would be right. Comedy is a cornerstone of film with the likes of the great Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin entertaining audience from the early 1910s, 1920s and 1930s. Their comedy was not simply Norman Wisdom without sound; it was delicate, caring and heart felt. Whilst full of great slapstick, The Great Dictator dared to poke fun at the unpokeable. The Nazi regime was an extremely taboo subject but Chaplin with subtlety and outrageous hilarity, making one of the best comedy films of all time. Today, a recurring trend of simple slapstick with gross jokes cuts off any possible connection with its audience. As shown by the early works of the silent film kings, a character we can care for is a character we can laugh with and characters placed upon celluloid for us simply to take the piss out of, it simply removes the fun out of it.
Today, society is a miserable and complex system. Therefore, the cinematic audience has greater demands than ever from their comedies looking for laughs by barrelful. With this in mind, filmmakers must now present us with a main protagonist who we can laugh with but others who we can laugh at. As shown with films such as Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Pirates of the Carribean, however, the filmmakers and the audience are all in on the joke.
However, the problem with these films is that they cannot define the difference between characters and objects. Having capitalized on the current popularity of pop culture, Michael Jackson became target number one prior to his death in 2009. Indeed, I watched Scary Movie 4 the other day where it featured a joke about Michael Jackson stealing children and it was an extremely awkward experience. They used Michael Jackson as an object, not as a character meaning they used minimal effort to put this “joke” on celluloid. They were looking for the laugh instead of telling us a joke.
So, have all the laughs gone? No. Indeed, many leap to this shortsighted conclusion based solely upon the Scary Movie and Vampires Suck franchises. I found these films terrible and just not hugely entertaining. However, my declaration of these films being completely unfunny is simply my opinion. I’m a 19-year-old student studying History at Exeter University but what if I was a 12 year old, buzzed on iPhone’s and Facebook groups, would I not find this film hilarious? Hopefully not. Indeed, as shown by their returning dwindling box office returns, it seems this franchise could be soon be gone for good.
I’ll admit it is easy to look through rose tinted glasses at the past but there is still comedy gold within the film industry at the moment, it’s just harder to find them. In 2009, over 550 films were released meaning over 10 new films a week hit our screens meaning that comedy gold is going to be harder to find. In the last 18 months, we have laughed along to Zombieland, I Love You, Philip Morris, A Serious Man and many more.
Nevertheless, it is noticeable that filmmakers are releasing more bad and lazy films than ever before and more effort is needed to put into these films and provide better laughs. Vampires Suck may be sucking some comedy’s soul out but there are plenty of others out there willing to keep it alive.
The Hole 3D Review
In Dante’s first film since the catastrophe that was Looney Toons: Back In Action in ’03; in The Hole, he returns to his roots with this child aimed horror with hints of his Gremlins best. The film’s basic plot surrounds the story of 2 boys (Chris Massoglia and Nathan Gamble) who, upon moving into their new house, discover a mysterious hole in their basement. With their next door neighbour (Haley Bennet), the hole begins to bring all their worst fears to life.
Within the movie world, there has been considerable amount of hype surrounding this film – acting almost as either the saviour or final damning of Dante’s past and future career. So, what is the verdict? Dante’s is back on track if with a bit of rust in his wheels. Dante’s strengths were/are his use of the camera, his ability to create believable characters and the ability to provide maximum shock for the very minimum. Dante’s camerawork, helped by D.O.P Theo van der Sande, is great. Instead of providing us with patronising shots from up above, he brings us down to the kids level. He makes us relive what made us scared when we were young. The best moments shone with Gremlins brilliance and really brought back the vitality that has been long absent from Dante’s other films – in particular, the moment with Lucas (Nathan Gamble) and the unstoppable clown; incredibly well-shot and genuinely scary. However, unlike many other reviews, I must take of my rose tinted Dante sunglasses and look at it as a normal film and indeed, there are problems.
Firstly, the 3D is clunky and unneccesary and is simply pandering to the younger audience in an attempt to hold their attention for the whole 90 minutes. E.G when Lucas throws the ball in the air and catches it…yes we get it, it’s 3D. *yawn*. In normal 2D, I can imagine the film being a rather dull spectacle at times with some scenes simply washing over you. However, the 3D is merely a filming/marketing technique and not a great defect of the film; however one defect comes in the form of some pretty poor dialogue.
In this modern era, it’s really hard to write dialogue for children without coming out at extremes whether it be Nick Jonas/Miley Cyrus spiel or too-cool-for-school Juno. In attempting to hit the middle ground of just describing normal kids, some of his 80s style dialogue doesn’t ring true. The opening and closing scenes involving their mother are damn cringe worthy. It’s just awkward. Furthermore, with a 12A certificate clearly in mind, “goodness” and “gosh” ring out constantly with the odd “dickhead” to seem really edgey.
However, this is all a bit harsh. The film is meant for children hitting their pre-teen stride and in that sense it’s great. Until the end, the suspense of what does the hole mean excites and intrigues with each character experiencing different things highlighting the fact that not every child is the same. It’s a story about morales without being too patronising; although Dante does allow himself some preaching time towards the end. Indeed, the pay-off of The Hole is not well executed with the grand reveal not being half as scary as the previous 80 minutes build up.
Nevertheless, as a film directed at kids, starring kids and focused on kids – it’s a refreshing little film falling alongside The Spiderwick Chronicles and Bridge to Terabithia nicely. For us bigger kids, it’s a rather effective little film that anyone could happily sit through again. The greatest point of all is that it finally heralds the return of Joe Dante with strong glimpses in this film of his previous best. One should not jump the gun here and state he is back to his best as there is much more in the tank from the great man but boy, it’s good to see a him back in the game. However, next time, go right back to the start – bring us a proper horror for the big kids.
3/5
Ten Actors/Actresses Who Deserve Better
N.B Written a while ago.
Timothy Olyphant
Having started his career in crappy bit parts such as Scream 2 and Gone in Sixty Seconds, he hit the big time with the dream role of Seth Bullock in the excellent TV series of Deadwood. Although, it was kind of the Ian McShane show; it would be nothing without Mr. Olyphant. He acted superbly; a seeming calm fury amongst the chaos. However, after the epic series ended in 2006 – what’s happened? Nothing. Well I mean he has done the poor Catch and Release, the horrendous Hitman and recently, the disappointing The Crazies but this bunch of bargain basement films is nothing to write home about.
I think the problem is people don’t know what to do with him. His attempt at a Statham-esque killing machine was mismatched and tonal-wise, it left a rather bitter taste. On the other hand, his touchy feely romantic lead seemed to jar. However, I feel Olyphant was not to blame; the parts were not right for him, and Hitman’s script was terrible meaning he was stuck spurting out this dirge with no room to exude his typical rough charisma. I mean in The Crazies, he was one of the shining lights out of that film, because he made us care for his cause and was highly believable in the role. The main problem I think here is the old TV to film transition; great on the small box, underused on the big screen.
SOLUTION: I think he needs a Hans Gruber role. Yes I know he did Die Hard 4.0 (I was there man! Just let Willis say his god damn catchphrase!) but the problem is Len Wiseman can do a pretty shop window but cannot get to grips with meaty roles for his actors. As a result, Olyphant was a limp dicked jumped up accountant. What this man needs is a John McTiernan or Jon Favreau. Bear with me on that one; Favreau reignites careers as seen with RDJ; indeed Downey Jr is a much better actor but that’s not the point. Favreau frantic energy could breathe some life into Olyphant’s dowdy career and just let him run free. No more cheap shock films; give the man some meat (hey you read it to that what you will).
Nathan Fillion
Ok I will admit that Mr. Fillion is a personal fave of mine. As a man comfortable with my heterosexuality, I’ll glad admit that if the offer was available, I would accept a romantic date with Nathan Fillion in a second. Just saying; he’s a good looking guy. If you’re out there Nathan, call me. Anyway, back to the point, as Mal, he captured nerds/geeks alike in pure awe of his charm and effortlessness. You wanted to date Mal (call me; oh give over…); you wanted him to be your best friend; you just wanted him in your life. Joss Whedon and Fillion are pure gold – Whedon writes it, Fillion effortlessly utters it. Fillion exudes an enormously charming persona; your eyes are glued to him at all times. Furthermore, Fillion is one of the few actors who could have pulled off Captain Hammer in Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog delivering lines such as “the Hammer is my penis”. Dear God, no one else could get away with stuff like that without sounding either patronising or just stupid.
Like Olyphant, he suffers from TV syndrome. On TV, he’s fantastic, charismatic and highly watchable; however, the Hollywood producers seem to struggle in finding a role for him. In Waitress, he did great but that film got rubbish distribution. Hollywood seems to want to pigeon hole him as a handsome hunk but he’s not that simple.
SOLUTION: GIVE JOSS WHEDON A DAMN BUDGET!!! Hollywood, for God’s sake, I mean you give Doug Liman and the Wayans brothers budgets, are you just anti-good dialogue? Imagine – a new sci-fi film (Whedon can sort out details) with a $40 million plus budget and Nathan Fillion as the lead; hopefully not too much like Firefly/Serenity though- don’t want him to be typecast- but you see what I’m getting at. Also, you may have seen the rather brilliant fan made trailer with him as the lead in the Green Lantern; just saying that would have been pretty epic. Nevertheless, give him a Marvel/DC lead role for him to stretch his legs in- with Justice League and Avengers movies shaping up rather nicely, there must be one spare part floating around…
Jennifer Anniston
No come back! Please? Give me a couple of seconds to explain – go on (puppy dug eyes so cute your steely heart just melts). Ok you’re in! Woop! Seriously, think about this- she doesn’t need more of those crappy rom-com roles; her recent work in the travesty that was the Bounty Hunter. Ever since the end of friends, she’s either been a control freak looking for love or… no that’s it actually (ok, Derailed is an exception to this rule but its crap). Anniston and her agent need to stop looking for the pay cheque and start looking for the role.
She has indeed been the most successful of the Friends cast in the 6 years following the show’s finale but look down the CV and what is there? Balls, balls and more balls. It’s just hot air. However, if we look towards TV, she did a great cameo in 30 Rock and teamed up with Courtney Cox in Dirt which worked amazingly well. So you maybe shouting “She belongs on the TV! Nowhere else!” Hold your horses’ big guy. I have a solution…
SOLUTION: Anniston can act, as a die hard Friends fan; I will stick up for her a bit here. So as a suggestion, call in the Coen brothers. Oh yes, I said the Coen brothers. Just think they love to do kooky, adventurous and most importantly different films. Square peg in a round hole? Perhaps, but she deserves a chance. Imagine a suburbia drama or just a punchy eccentric magical story with her as the lead spouting GOOD dialogue and revelling in a three dimensional character. If anyone could do it, it’s the Coen Brothers. I mean look at Jennifer Jason Leigh in Hudsucker Proxy – full of life and excitement and Frances McDormand in Fargo – rightly Oscar awarded and a brilliant calm in the madness – the audience laps up every second they’re on the screen so the pair do have a proven track record with women. It could work. Have some faith. It’ll never happen but I think it’d fix her right up.
P.S I’ll admit my solution for this one is a tad farfetched, however, I do think Ms Anniston could do it. However, she deserves a big slap first – Marley and Me – dear god woman…
John C Reilly
This man is funny. Genuinely funny; and he’s genuinely talented as well -just look at Chicago. His portrayal of Amos Hart shows a deft skill at presenting a man downtrodden by life and love. A man dedicated to what he beliefs in but doesn’t have the willpower, the brains, the money or the looks to achieve anything. Sorry John, you’re not quite a Fillion. It’s an excellent performance and it’s sadly overshadowed by the glitz and glamour of Richard Gere; slightly ironic in all honesty. Nevertheless it proves he can hold his own; I dare you to watch it again (it’s not that bad…ok maybe it is but still, I’m making a point here!) and not be slightly teary at his beautiful rendition of Mister Cellophane. He has not only cracked musical roles but has managed to bring us performances of epic proportions with the Hours and Magnolia getting exceptional mentions.
Furthermore, personally, I felt he was funnier than Will Ferrell in Talladega Nights; Ferrell does the same routine whereas as Reilly actually has range. I’ll admit as freely as anyone that Walk Hard was pretty terrible but Reilly does his best to keep it together. So he can sing, do comedy and do drama all very competently YET he gets sod all. Never headlining a major blockbuster or in any Oscar poking indie drama? Indeed, he gets dumped in the shit pile that was Vampire’s Assistant; it’s a credit to him that he left the whole affair with his head held high (high five also to Willem Dafoe). This man is so criminally underrated it’s ridiculous. He is Mister Cellophane in real life; he’s been in so many films and I bet you didn’t even notice him. Look at him; I mean I know he isn’t a looker but this man is a seriously good actor.
SOLUTION: Well, this one is hard. It’s like the opposite of Jennifer Anniston who has looks but limited talent: but still give her a chance (high five for undermining your own argument…). However, I think this man needs a King of Comedy role. He has enough wit and cynicism to pull it off yet his pure humanity and ability to blur the line between sympathy and pity would make him the perfect choice. Furthermore, it would finally give him a chance to be centre stage and show off all of his acting abilities.
Eva Green
Ok, admit it, you watched Casino Royale and went “wow!” The revamp of Bond was great, but I’m sure the male readers out there noticed a certain Eva Green. She sizzles with her effervescent sexuality and it surrounds and absorbs you completely enthralling you. The problem is Joe Public; many friends of mine thought this was her film debut; indeed, Joe Public was mistaken. Her debut had arrived at the hands of Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Dreamers. She commits herself completely (pretty graphic sex scenes; the stuff puberty hitting 13 year olds dream about) providing her role with emotional depth and vivacity. She avoids stereotypes and clichés surprisingly well which is a credit to Green.
However, in her attempt to make it big, she became involved in the Golden Compass (sounds like some sort of 70s drug lord…). Although, she shines brightest; her career seems to have been dragged down by it. A greater problem is Hollywood has no idea what to do with her (a recurring theme here…). The mad French woman who is so sophisticated yet so sexy your pants are already off as you read this. So what to do?
SOLUTION: She got dropped from her role in Antichrist due to a complicated contract. Hmmm. Anyway, Lars Von Trier – the Greatest Director on Earth according to…himself – needs to get on the phone and call her up. Ms Green is perfect for any role Mr von Trier has in mind (don’t get too many dirty thoughts kids). Furthermore, another possible shining knight comes in the form of King Quiff David Lynch. Nuff said.
Billy Bob Thornton
This is another guilty pleasure of mine this one. However, I feel this man can act. A proven track record in Primary Colours, Monster’s Ball and Friday Night Lights; Billy Bob is the king of the under-rated. His Western charm and hint of mischief warms you to him. Furthermore, Bad Santa is only watchable due to him. Oh hell, I love him in Armageddon too; the only character who has depth and those who suffered Trannies 2 (thank the Razzie awards for that) will know it is not down to Michael Bay delicate touch.
There are two problems here – 1) Hollywood doesn’t have enough faith in him- he can play the supporting role in the films aforementioned but give him his own film?! Are you MAD?! He’s not sophisticated enough; he’s not delicate enough. Bollocks. Indeed, they seem to compensate him with tacky and weak roles such as Mr. Woodcock and School for Scoundrels. Hollywood seems more interested in his accent than his talent. Bad times.
SOLUTION: Ok, so a Texan man with an accent as thick as your mother (ok, apologies, I love your mum really, please don’t hit me…) – what to do? Well, he needs a character study set in his natural environment. Something more delicate; a role that would allow him to drop the facade of roughness for a bit. A film focussing on him; it would be a box office risk but I think it could work. A possible reunite with Peter Berg, director of Thornton’s career highlight Friday Night Lights, a man who needs to go back to basics after the hit-and-miss Hancock.
Christina Ricci
Christina Ricci came to the big time at the young old age of 11 bringing to the fore one of the best and creepiest child performances of all time in the Addams family. At this very early age, she was able to not be annoying but simply eerily cool. Ricci had created for herself her own niche. Creepy, freaky and utterly captivating; that’s Christina Ricci. Indeed, even in Casper, you can kinda tell she was on to something good with this acting malarkey.
In Buffalo ’66 and Sleepy Hollow, she’s understated and unique conveying a real honest beauty in these roles. However in recent years, her “kookiness” has been misused or completely avoided. Her role in the let down that was Speed Racer was disappointing; they felt her” kookiness “could be simplified but in the end, it resulted in just leaves a patronising and bitter tone. at the other extreme, Black Snake Moan was too kooky and the addition of the jarring Justin Timberlake didn’t help. Oh what to do…
SOLUTION: Ricci is a tough one. She’s no Angelina Jolie and to be honest, she probably couldn’t pull off a major blockbuster on her own. However, I think it’s time for Tim Burton to find her a new pet project. Little side note, I’ve always felt that Burton has struggled in presenting strong lead females as shown in the recent Alice in Wonderland. However, if Burton was trying to do something different and more low key, she should give Ricci a call.
Matthew Broderick
Don’t sigh at me! Ok, think back to the 80s with me. John Hughes and Matthew Broderick produced a film that encapsulated everything about teendom and gave teenagers a voice and hope they had sorely desired. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is the perfect 80s film. Broderick was fearless in the role. He was funny, energetic and was actively engaged with the audience. The scene where the city goes to a standstill for Ferris’ rendition of Twist and Shout fills you with utter joy. Your attention is focused on one man. He has to be all that (I think that’s what the kids say these day); he is and so much more.
Broderick exudes brilliance. He’s just exciting and absorbing. But. And in his case, it is a big one; he got old. Now I’m not angered at the inevitable course of nature but Broderick seemed to grow up completely and lost all of what Beuller was. In Election and Glory, he was excellent. There were glints of the never say die in him still. But following his recent run of Deck the Halls and Inspector Gadget, the question that rises is what happened Matthew? I can’t tell if it’s him or Hollywood.
SOLUTION: If only the late great John Hughes were still around. He would put Broderick straight. Broderick has talent and he’s been a smash on Broadway; he just needs a director to shake him up, give him a role with energy and excitement again. Would a sequel be too far? Maybe. But I think you can see where I’m going with this. He needs a wise director with a key eye for Broderick’s age and his past. I think Alexander Payne, having previously directed him in Election, could inject some life and comedy into his failing career.
Alan Rickman
One word, legend. Mr. Rickman is one of the best things about Britain. His voice is heavenly as his deep dulcet tones take you away into a dream world of perfection. One of the main reasons I watch the Harry Potter franchise is due to Rickman’s Severus Snape. His excellent deadpan delivery and effortless put down of the students is brilliant. In fact, the rather soulless and boring child actors just make you long for Snape every second he’s not on screen. Why can’t the films just be Severus Snape and the magic boring people? I like the sound of that.
Not only is this man Severus Snape, he is Hans Gruber. The Hans Gruber; the greatest baddy of the 80s. Charming, cold and calculated and you don’t hate him at all; a brilliant foil to Bruce Willis‘ all American hero. Anyone else would have simplified the role, Rickman gives it his all effortlessly. However, his not a two role man but the problem is, the little amount of great roles available to him. For example, he was heartbreaking in Snow Cake opposite Sigourney Weaver but have people seen it? It grossed just over $26,000 dollars in America; not good.
SOLUTION: In all honesty, Hans Gruber was a dream role and in return, he gave us a dream performance. Michael Winterbottom is the most varied and adventurous director working in British cinema. I don’t think at 24 hour party people would suit Rickman; however, after noticing how his latest, The Killer Inside Me, is shaping up I think a dark biography in the style of A Single Man would be outstanding for Rickman.
Greg Kinnear
The man that Hollywood forgot. Ok maybe not that far; however, this man deserves more. I do recognize he starred in the recent Green Zone with Matt Damon but his screen time was no longer than 10 minutes. He plays a ruthless and corrupt politician and does so brilliantly. Hoewver, this is not outside his comfort zone. Poor Mr. Kinnear has been typecast to this role; just see Robots. However, this man is the indie king in my eye. He lifted Little Miss Sunshine, shined in Mystery Men and was the bright light in Ghost Town.
Indeed, often confused with William H Macy – another man that deserves more work – Kinnear deserves some better recognition. He deserves a lead role. The problem is a William H Macy showed in Edmond; they’re too middle America and don’t have the looks necessary for studios to have any faith in them. Kinnear is a talented, well rounded and powerful actor, however, he gets few roles that allow him to show off his va va voom.
SOLUTION: The king of indie needs his time in the spotlight. After his performance in recent box office botherer Green Zone, he should stick himself out there and nose dive into a lovely indie role. Linklater’s recent Me and Orson Welles got the best out of Zac Efron; no small feat at all. With a bigger budget – one he really deserves- Linklater’s calm and composed direction matched with a snappy script would be perfict for Kinnear. Make it happen, Hollywood.
The Crazies Review
The Crazies is revamped version of George A Romero’s 1973 long forgotten film which filled the void between Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead. The Crazies starts with an interesting premise about a small old town in Iowa with several citizens being struck down with spontaneous bouts of insanity and soon a military crackdown ensues. Before sitting down to this film, I predicted this film would be rated at about 2 to 4 out of 5, sadly my prediction was proved right at the lesser end of the scale.
The film begins with great promise. It sets the scene quickly- idyllic little town, agrarian community, simple folk time – and respects the audience’s previous knowledge of zombie films understanding that a long melodramatic sepia-toned beginning is unnecessary. Furthermore, within the first 10 minutes, the first shocking incident happens and the audience is hooked. So far so good. But oh dear, the early tightness completely unravels as the story continues. For example, this is how each “encounter” plays out in rather sarcastic style. Woman – oh there’s a noise. Man/Woman- I will investigate. Phew, there’s nobody here. Oh wait, there still here! This would result in either- escape or death. Sad to say, this is extremely accurate.
To say that every zombie film is like this, maybe true, but it does not excuse this film. However, Eisner does try to create some original ideas such as the entrapment of citizens, and it is a credit to Eisner that the military’s response is probably an accurate representation if this were to actually to occur. However, this movie is not completely terrible and the main reason for this is Timothy Olyphant. Ever since the end of the TV series Deadwood, Olyphant has never been rewarded the good roles that he deserves. Instead of simply presenting a flawed magnolia flavoured sheriff, he represents someone who has a brain and a heart. Indeed, he gets support from Radha Mitchell, especially in latter half of the film once she stops attempting her Fay Wray impersonation.
There are much better films than this. Indeed Zack Snyder has shown that it is possible to update a Romero classic with verve and frantic energy as shown in his version of Dawn of the Dead. However, the main flaw is that it does not capitalise on its flashes of genuine promise. It has dark moments with the cold blooded murder of a woman and a child through their house being torched by someone suffering from the insanity. However, the finale is a cop out with it verging on the pure ridiculousness stealing a scene straight from Indiana Jones 4. It is sadly a rather depressing affair.
2/5
8 Reasons Why The Riddler Should Be The Villain In Batman 3?
N.B. Hindsight has been proven this to be wrong but hey, I still think Riddler would have been awesome.
On Monday 10 2010, fellow Shadowlocked author Gabriel Ruzin published a rather brilliant article on why the Riddler would be a bad idea for Christopher Nolan’s third entry in the Batman franchise. It’s fabulously well-written and the points are made very well. However, I am sorry to admit that I slightly disagree with his conclusions. Indeed, Batman 3 is set for release on July 20 2012 (mark it in your calendars now!) and with fan boys already salivating at what grand master Nolan can produce; here’s my case for the defendant, Mr. Riddler, and why Mr. Nolan should take a closer look at the fiendish maniac.
1) It’s already been done badly…so Nolan can only do good.
Firstly, without Jonathan Nolan’s brilliant script and Christopher Nolan’s clever re-imagination, there would be no Batman franchise today. Shoved in the rubble by Joel Schumacher and rained on from high above by any poor soul who went to see the film. Clunky, cliché-ridden and just damn awful. Should we dismiss the Riddler due to Joel Schumacher’s mistakes? No. However, the white knights appeared and here we are talking about a third film for this franchise; a feat thought impossible less than 6 years ago. So, my point, if anyone can shake off the shackles of a bad past, it’s the Nolan brothers. Imagine dialogue with bite and pure mania exploding from his mouth at his every word. Imagine being genuinely scared by something as simple as logic again. It seems just too enticing a thing to overlook. So, 2012 seems the perfect year for the re-emergence of the Riddler. In Batman Forever, the Riddler was simply a vehicle for Jim Carrey’s exuberance and was matched with the weird side partner of a demented Tommy Lee Jones. But, I ask you, film fan: do you really think Nolan would make a film to act as a vehicle for someone? You think Heath Ledger or Christian Bale or even Morgan Freeman had easy rides? Hell no. So step forward Mr. E. Nygma; there’s someone I’d like you to meet.
2) The Riddler is The Riddler
What? Bear with me a sec. The Riddler is not the Joker and this definition needs to be made clear. Indeed, I can see the point of view that he’s not a strong enough character and if based upon Batman Forever, I would wholeheartedly agree. However, The Riddler is a man burnt by the Wayne enterprise. He cracks under it all. He enters a level of mania not feasible to everyday folk. He hasn’t simply had one too many or just had one too many sugar-infested drinks. Mr. E. Nygma is bad. Dreams shattered and with nothing to live for, he wants revenge. Now the Joker, he wanted no revenge and had no motive; as Alfred said “some men simply want to watch the world burn”. So how about the prospect of a direct one-on-one? Yes, Batman Begins saw Henri Ducard/Ra’s Al Ghul representative take Wayne on as man and symbol. Therefore, in Batman 3, the Riddler acts an evolution of these two characters. I think audiences would be able to distinguish between the two as there would be a clear story line and with Nolan’s dark and moody take upon Gotham, you can bet your bottom dollar he’ll make the Riddler the best the Riddler could ever be. Furthermore, I mean how much “fun” could the Nolan’s have with that? At an extreme, they might even get to kill Batman…?
3) Stop War, Start Psychopathic Warfare…
Again this may need explanation; I believe this is one of the harder points to defend about the Riddler: that he lacks that physical presence of Bane. Bane would be a brilliant villain, but I don’t think he’d fit in with Nolan’s style. Indeed, Catwoman would be more suited, but more on that later. Nolan has created a realistic comic-book world; it’s dark, merciless and horrible – therefore, violence would seem logical? No. Why bring violence into this? I’m no peace loving eco-friendly anything (no offence), I’m just worried that the disease of Spiderman 3 may afflict this great franchise. A psychopathic lunatic or a big brute –the choice is logical (heh). Big is not better. Within this thumping atmosphere, maybe a reversal is needed. A small damaged nerd reeking revenge on the Wayne industry using his tricks of the trade and wreaking havoc. Yum. However, I’m not saying get rid of the action scenes. The action scenes within The Dark Knight were sensational; achieving the unachievable in stunt work. Therefore, do I think the Riddler would be too brains over brawn? I think not. I think in the Riddler’s desire to destroy everything around Mr. Wayne; mass chaos would ensue without intoxicating the audience with dull explosions etc. Here’s looking at you Michael Bay.
4) Back Story – easy peasy
The Riddler is there to destroy Batman AND Mr. Wayne; not just Batman. Indeed, I think that is the key element here that seals the deal. Wayne will indeed be a mess inside, facing identity-crisis and distraught after the loss of Rachel; however, he can escape occasionally. With the Riddler, there would be no escape. The Riddler would know who he is and what he truly was. He would get inside Wayne’s and Batman’s psyche and the audience be enthralled by the blurring of the lines of where Bruce Wayne ends and where Batman begins. So, imagine, Batman on the run – he lies low and tries to operate covertly as Batman, therefore pushing Wayne to the fore, and in steps Mr. E. Nygma. Take your minds back to The Dark Knight and remind yourself of Coleman Reese: a snotty-nose man wishing to sell out Bruce Wayne for a quick million and publicity boom; in return, he got burned by the public and shunned. Imagine now if that were the central story – Nolan’s had a test run with it, so why not give it a free run? I think that with Bruce Wayne/Batman finding troubles inside and out it would be amazing to see how dark Nolan would take it. Indeed, the prospect of one losing one’s identity and being nullified on all sides by the people he tried to protect would go that one step further from the Joker. Would Warner Bros allow it? Considering he got them $1 billion dollars worldwide with his last film, I highly doubt they’ll object too much.
5) He’s the only option.
Ok this is the most controversial of my opinions. Firstly, the Penguin is out. Why? Well, this is not my choice, but Christopher Nolan’s decision. He decided long ago, even before The Dark Knight, that he never wanted to do the Penguin. So whatever he wants, he gets, I suppose. Secondly, as aforementioned, I don’t think Bane would really fit in too well. Batman 4 for sure, but for Batman 3, I’d personally prefer the Riddler. Goons could be hired for muscle, but with the upcoming Inception looking like one hell of a head fuck, I think it would help continue Nolan’s current run of good form on these sorts of characters. The last rejection is difficult. Catwoman would bring much needed oestrogen to this vast sausage-fest. Indeed, a woman’s delicate touch would bring sex and spice to the show. Furthermore, with Hollywood actresses seemingly getting sexier and sexier, there’d be people queuing around the block to take this role. However, visit eBay or any bargain bucket of DVD’s and down at the bottom, you will find a copy of the Pitof’s 2004 atrociousCatwoman. This is not Nolan’s fault, but sadly there’s not much he can do about it. I have a feeling that if Catwoman appeared in this film, the audience would have a nasty feeling of déjà vu. The wounds are only just about healed, it’s not the right time to open them up again, no matter who’s directing.
“Why not lesser known villains?” you shout. Well, I would argue that the Batman franchise still needs that big name to draw in the crowds. Everyone loved The Dark Knight. It’s rated 10th on IMDB’s top 250 films of all time and I believe one of the main draws was the prospect of the Joker. Everybody knew the Joker and even before Heath Ledger was cast, fan boys were wetting themselves with excitement at the prospect of the Joker at the end of Batman Begins. With two big names out for the count for Batman 3, and rumours aplenty saying this may be the last Batman film by Nolan, why not go out with a bang? The Riddler vs Batman. Sounds good? I’m not trying to devalue lesser-known characters; I’m simply trying to suggest that maybe a big character is needed.
6) So many could play him.
The main point I disagreed with is the casting issue. When Heath Ledger was announced as the Joker, I personally balked at the suggestion. The guy from A Knight’s Tale? Really? I was wrong, and thank God I was. However, Heath’s performance was not due to luck – it was down to talent. The sadly departed Mr. Ledger was an extremely talented actor who grasped the role with two hands and gave it a big fat sloppy kiss. The suggestion that no one could fill the void left by Mr. Ledger, let alone fill the eponymous shoes of the Riddler is not fair. One name you forget to mention was Casey Affleck. Mr. Affleck has come to the fore of the acting world with a glowing CV of challenging and difficult roles; each one he nailed expertly. For example, re-watch The Assassination Of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and just marvel in his subtle jealousy, his desire to be the man he cannot be, his coldness to the world, his obsession; it’s brilliant. Furthermore, with the upcoming The Killer Inside Me, word on the street is Mr. Affleck has done it again. Affleck is not well known enough yet to pull off this role in terms of publicity. The mistake made by previous Batman films was to bring in the biggest and most popular names for the baddies. That’s not the right thing to do for our 21st century Batman. Send in a relative unknown and let the sparks fly.
7) Riddler is not too camp.
An excellent point made in the aforementioned article notes that the gangsters need more time and that another cliché villain would detract from the main feel of the film franchise so far. To an extent, I agree. However, in all fairness, the gangster did get a fair amount of screen time in their last outing. Indeed, if Nolan were to focus too much on the gangster, the element of comic book would be diminished, and we’d simply be left with Heat 2. I love Heat, but I don’t want Batman to become that. Therefore, my point is Batman is a comic book film and the Nolans have done a phenomenal job keeping it real, but still not too distant from its comic book routes. I acknowledge that this franchise does not take the Iron Manview of self-promoting itself at every turn; however, it must remember what it is. The audience deserve a villain with integrity, but the fan-boys deserve a villain that we know and want to see. In the 9/11 world we live in, the Riddler would be able to fit in that slot easily. We depend on technology so much so that without it the world could seemingly end for us all. Imagine a villain able to tap into that and manipulate that and torment the lives of Gotham City citizens. Avoiding the nasty computer geek storylines of the past, instead we’re talking about a villain with menace, knowing what he’s doing and not afraid to do it.
It is tempting to think back to Batman Forever and even further to the original Adam West series, but I urge you not to. An actor with good dialogue bouncing off the best cast for years with the most accomplished director is bound to be a success.
The females –agreed
My last point is that I agree that there needs to be woman involved in the next film. As I’ve already said, there’s too much testosterone in the air, and it could suffocate a large majority of the audience. Going back to Iron Man 2, this film used Scarlett Johansson as a walking vehicle for the Avengers movie. Personally she had no real role at all, but, if you asked any average Joe whether they cared or not – I’m guessing they’d say no. She’s ridiculously hot and makes for interesting eye candy for the male market. However, female readers out there, I’m not that misogynistic or simple. Men prefer a woman with brains over looks. One name springs to mind – Emily Blunt. Sophisticated, smart and downright sexy.
Where would she fit in? Well, she could possibly act as a walking advert for a possibleBatman 4 in preparation for her to take the role of Catwoman. However, I believe a possible love interest to Bruce Wayne spicing things up a bit more. A flirtatious new secretary perhaps? Someone who would challenge Wayne’s deep down feelings adding even more emotional turmoil to the whole affair. Furthermore, she’d put up a good fight up against the Riddler.
In conclusion, I do not mean to undermine Gabriel Ruzin’s brilliant article. It’s a damn fine one, and the reason I wrote this piece. However, I’m providing another side to the coin. The Riddler is part of the fabric of Batman’s comic book history. His character is well known throughout the world and would instantly attract audiences in droves. Bane or Catwoman could work, but, personally it’s Mr. E. Nygma all the way. You could choose another villain but how about letting the Riddler run riot once more? Go on, you know you want it…
Iron Man 2 Review
When the original Iron Man came out in 2008, I will admit I was a very happy individual. Indeed I saw that film 4 times at least in the cinema. Why? It was fresh, funny, exciting, charismatic, enjoyable, nonsense, cool, interesting, light. A great Blockbuster film. Indeed, the world’s population agreed with me as it turned into a roaring success cashing in just under $600 million worldwide. Therefore, the prospect of a second Iron Man excited me at the mere mention of it. However, as I write this review, a great feeling of disappointment and frustration fills me; sorry Favreau something’s not quite right with this one.
Many of you may balk at the suggestion that your beloved Iron Man has done bad, however, to make clear from the start; it is not Iron Man/Tony Stark/ Robert Downey Jr’s fault. Indeed, he is the main man as per expected. So breathe a sigh of relief there. However, the main problem is that Iron Man is not Iron Man. Sadly boys and girls; this film is not truly an independent Iron Man film as it has its eyes directly linked at the Avengers movie scheduled for 2012.
To stereotype, I’m guessing many of you have seen the first Iron Man and bought it on DVD (if not, buy it). You will have seen the references to SHIELD throughout the film and the appearance of Nick Fury after the credits. Indeed, this wetted our appetites for the aforementioned Avengers film acting as a very small teaser trailer of sorts; a nice little in joke for all us brilliant nerds and geeks. However, Favreau seems to have been watching his Michael Bay box set whilst reading his Iron Man comic books as the in joke becomes an open theme throughout the whole film. From a gentle and subtle wink at the audience, it now becomes a continual loud shout. I’m not the brightest match in the box but I got the joke pretty early on and I don’t need continual blatant references to the film to come. Case in point: Scarlett Johansson. She plays the Black Widow and…. No really, have no idea what she does. She seems to be hired by Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson) to spy on him and judge him on whether he’s good enough to join the Avengers. (This may be a spoiler; however, if read comics or blogs it probably isn’t). That’s it. She’s apparently his new assistant as her cover but pfft, she does jack shit and it’s up to Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) again to look after him. However, for the record, Scarlett Johansson can kick my ass any day. Back to the point, Iron Man 2 sometimes feels like the Truman Show; shamelessly advertising products with no care how disjointed it may be. Indeed, the off the cuff references to Captain America and Thor (yes, there is a clip after the credits) began to slightly grate. There is a fine line between building the excitement and shamelessly selling out; one that Iron Man 2 walks very precariously.
This may sound very harsh so far; however, average Joe must be considered in the grand scheme of things. For example, as a recent English newspaper’s (The Daily Mirror) critic pointed out, they were entirely lost and did not have a clue as to what was going on. This critic targeted the style rather than the substance; something I must critique of this critic. However, they make a fair point. To the uninformed, they may ask “what is SHIELD?”; “what’s a black widow?” and “what’s with the big hammer at the end?” I acknowledge it’s a comic book film and I understand these in jokes but I’m guessing many will not. I guess you can argue that this will entice them further to watch the Avengers movie and that the first one set up the story perfectly fine, so it’s more a personal matter rather than the film’s fault.
Again to clarify, I LOVE IRON MAN. It’s just I’m trying to shed light on other possible opinions, you may not agree but that’s not the point. To continue, the great thing about Iron Man 1 was that it had the great introduction and one clear bad guy. It was quite simple in all honesty but I believe that’s what made it so strong. The problem here is that none of it is actually wrong; it’s just there’s too much of it. The main point here is that this is Iron Man 2. I understand it is part of the upcoming Avengers film and that Iron Man is a key component of that film; however, I’d rather this film be Iron Man 2 than an Avengers prequel. I’m not directly saying it is; just the line is strangely blurred.
With all this going on, someone had to pick up the tab for all of this; sadly it was the characters. I like Jon Favreau a lot and I don’t think he would simply hire names to boost the poster and interest; however, the fact that Iron Man 2 made me even think this, saddens me. Firstly, Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer is great as Rockwell continues his great run of form following the excellent Moon. His desire to topple Stark is clear and well presented; however, the problem is with all the aforementioned traffic continually cramped into the film, he gets little room to breathe. His appearance at the Stark EXPO makes him look like a great charisma foil to Stark but he gets no time to shine. In fact, Hammer seems to be slightly neutered and turns more into pathetic geek as he gets easily emasculated in seconds by Pepper Potts. As Moon showed, Rockwell can hold a film and in his every scene in Iron Man 2, he does dazzle; sadly he just doesn’t get enough time to razzle dazzle completely.
An even greater injustice gets served to Mickey Rourke who plays pissed off Russian Ivan Vanko. This character has a great potential: my gut reaction seemed like an angrier, more Russian, steroid filled Jeff Bridges and to be honest, that’s exactly what this film needed. However, Rourke gets absolutely nothing to work with. Few lines of dialogue, only one action scene (in the following scenes, you only see the repercussions of his actions) and very very little screen time with his counterparts. The scene in the prison where he confronts Tony Stark features great tension as both men stare at each other, both as products of disgruntled pasts. It’s great but it lasts for no more than 3 minutes. Give him more! Indeed, in Rourke’s scene it is entirely in iron and we never hear him speak at all and only see his face for approximately 20 seconds. I know Rourke’s accent is dodgy but this just seems damn unfair. With the final scene of Iron Man 1, you constantly hear Obadiah speaking of his pain and desire to take over; we hear his motivation and realise there is a man underneath the metal. In Iron Man 2, I knew he was under there just I didn’t feel it. This is probably a tad picky and involves a high level of personal preference but I think if you do watch it (and I actively encourage you to do so), you may feel the same.
Some of you may have picked up on my subtle point here that there appears to be a bit of Spiderman 3 syndrome. There is too much going on, even excluding the Avengers bit. There’s a struggle between Rhodey and Stark, Stark’s personal battles, the relationship between Potts and Stark, Stark and his dad, Stark and Hammer, Hammer and Vanko, Vanko and Stark and of course, the interspersing SHIELD reminders. I’m not shouting at his ambition; in fact, Favreau is brilliant at this kind of stuff. The problem is in Iron Man 2 he doesn’t control it at all. It’s all over the place. However, I wish to point the finger away from Favreau and towards writer Justin Theroux. Theroux tries to pull too many tricks in his script but simply ends up throwing everything up in the air and catching very few as they fall. The original Iron Man was scripted by a crack team for 4 writers (Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby and Art Marcum & Matt Holloway) and they managed to provide us with an exciting and fresh origins story whilst keeping it light and fun moving away from the darker elements of Batman. Indeed, origin stories are easier than the dreaded second film but there are basics which are simply Theroux and Favreau’s fault. The tone is all over the place and actions scenes actively involving Iron Man are few and far between. Furthermore, Favreau boosts his character from forgettable cameo to irrelevant supporting role; Hitchcock had it right: directors direct and cameo, actors act. Very few are able to do both; Mr. Favreau, you can get away with this in smaller films but not Iron Man 2. I mean he has more lines that Rourke, the apparent baddy of the whole piece- just why?!
However, my main problem (sorry to moan) is that it’s too smooth. Everything runs perfectly. Action scenes go as planned. Dialogue is snappy when needed. Ok you may be thinking “that’s just a good film running its course” but that’s not my point. Indeed, the action scenes are rather brilliant; the final one is well executed and brings a much needed increase in pulse to the film. Furthermore, the Monaco scene is also good. However, there’s a rather weird absence of tension. I would wish for reader feedback on this but I felt a severe lack of tension in many of the scenes. I was not worried for Stark’s life.The bad guys and their weapons were not that threatening, maybe it was their lack of screen time or maybe it’s just me; nevertheless I just wasn’t feeling it. To put it this way, Terminator 2 has great CGI but it has another rough edges and scary characters to get you genuinely scared and become enthralled by the whole film. You can’t take your eyes off Iron Man 2 (a credit to Favreau) but I just felt it needed that extra kick; an extra flair of tobacco if you will.
However, by now you’ve probably thought I’m nonsensical and a complete cynic or going against the prospect of watching Iron Man 2 on the big screen. For the record, I insist you watch this film on the big screen. On DVD or online stream, it won’t be the same. The action scenes really work on the screen and do have the wow factor expected of a Blockbuster. Indeed, Iron Man 2 is a good way to kick off a good summer of cinema. To prove I am a balanced writer, I am accept that many of you will disagree with the first part of my review. One of my best friends stated it was a clear 4, bridging on 5, out of 5 stating it was the most fun you’ll have in the cinema this year. My friend is right to a certain extent; this film is fun popcorn fodder and the main reason, you knew it was coming, Mr. Robert Downey Jr.
The following appraisal of the brilliant Robert Downey Jr. is not plagiarism from other such reviews; it’s fact. He’s the main attraction for this spectacular. Oozing charm, wit and fun; it’s hard to take your eyes off him. Downey Jr. seems to be having the time of his life in this role and it clearly rubs off on the audience too as most praise for this film is being directed squarely at Downey Jr. I just wish he had more one to one scene with character that could fight back with snappier dialogue. However, good support does arrive in the form of Don Cheadle slipping effortlessly into the role Terence Howard quickly vacated after Iron Man 1. Furthermore, he has good scenes with Downey Jr. and with Rockwell provides the best entertainment minus RDJ.
The critique that this is not a superhero film is not a real critique. Iron Man 2 tries to examine personal strifes without delving into the depths of darkness of other comic book franchises. Therefore, in Favreau’s attempts to keep things light he leaves himself open for attack for this criticism. However, I would say the action scenes are all there and the basic frame of this film is very good. But, and it’s a very big but, there is too much going on. No matter how good the cast are, no matter how pretty the action scenes are, when the dust settles there is just too much to comprehend. Many may criticise my over reference to Iron Man 1, however, it is the clearest example of how it should be done in the way that Spiderman 2 acts at the perfect example for Spiderman 3. I am an Iron Man fan and I really wanted to say this is much better than the original etc. However, as my review states I cannot. I cannot rate this film higher than 3. So, next time, please just be an Iron Man film focusing on Iron Man.
3/5
Robin Hood Review
Oh the dilemma of being a history student and a film lover. Robin Hood is the latest historical epic by Ridley Scott and if this review was based upon historical accuracy, it’s bloody awful. Seemingly skipping back and forth in history like an AWOL Delorean, as King John seemingly burns the Magna Carta. However, this film is not a documentary and it doesn’t want to be. So examining the film on its own merits, the main question one must raise is: has Ridley Scott delivered us with a Gladiator 2? No. Sadly not.
The story focuses upon Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) travelling to Nottingham to fulfil a dying knight’s wish and soon becomes entangled in a twisted tale of politics and social unrest. The plot is pretty much what you’d expect from Robin Hood. In fairness, Ridley Scott does bring Robin Hood into the 21st century and does give it its own clear identity separating itself from the 1980s Kevin Costner version. Furthermore, Scott does provide nice visuals as per expected and some scenes are done very well.
However, there are problems. Indeed, Russell Crowe’s accent is so varying it verges on the ridiculous and you watch to see what accent happens next – Scouse, Irish, Midlands or mystery accent? Oh the suspense… His overall performance provides neither the emotional heft nor compassion as seen from him in previous roles such as Master and Commander and Gladiator. Cate Blanchett is good as usual and his band of “merry” man are actually really good but are type casted to do one of four things – eating, fighting, washing and drinking; it just seems a waste. Characters are just undeveloped and never given enough screen time. Case in point – Mark Strong’s Godfrey – highly watchable but never fully explained and it all becomes a bit frustrating.
Indeed, with a rating of 12A, the gore is in short supply and without it, the action seems dull and pointless. The action scenes are done well, excluding the last big battle taken straight from Saving Private Ryan; the lack of connection between audience and action left me feeling cold. The need to plug the gaps with a frankly bizarre shift into outright comedy turns it simply into an updated version of A Knight’s Tale. The pandering for a sequel is a tad shameful and slightly self-indulgent but one must not descend into unfair hyperbole. It’s a solid film but just disappointing. Overall, it is not Gladiator 2 and it’s all the worse for it.
3/5
Dreamworks 2.0
Shrek Forever After vs. Toy Story 3. It’s Pixar vs. Dreamworks. The two big studios do battle again as each brings out their most trusted franchise to win over the recession hit audiences. Therefore raising the overall debate of who is best? For many years, critics and fans alike have admitted Pixar’s supremacy over all, however, as we enter summer 2010, their supremacy is not as strong as previously thought.
In 1995, the world was amazed by the achievement that was Toy Story and from there, Pixar dominated. However in 2001, with Shrek, a fast paced, fast talking, pop culture infested bonanza of noise and sound, Dreamworks had seemingly captured the alternate audience to Pixar. Shrek was phenomenally successful grossing over $450 million dollars worldwide almost doubling that for the sequel in 2004.
However, a running criticism of Dreamworks is that the films have no soul. A marketer’s wet dream but a film-goer’s worst nightmare. Madagascar, Shark Tale and especially Shrek the Third – all seemingly vapid star vehicles with poor plots and clichés abound. Therefore, having broken the Disney monopoly, Dreamworks was seemingly lost. Meanwhile, Pixar hired nobody’s and their films continued to grow in quality and it became a cliché to give a Pixar film a great review.
However, in 2008, Dreamworks began their comeback into the fight. Kung Fu Panda was outrageously fun, fuelled by big name talent and exciting action to boot. A clear breath of fresh air. Followed by “kooky” Monsters vs Aliens; another weird yet funny tale. Dreamworks had seemingly forgotten the green ogre and they were all the better for it. However, to say that it was a two horse race would be greatly unfair – as studios such as Blue Sky Studios (Ice Age), Studio Ghibli (Ponyo) and Sony Animation (Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs) have all produced great films all doing well at the box office. Thankfully, the studios realised they had to change. However, those who didn’t want to change could always rely on 3D.
Although many criticise the development of 3D in cinema, one field which has actually benefited is animation. 3D within an animated film fits perfectly when it is not the main narrative. How To Train Your Dragon was the film that brought Dreamworks into touching distance of Pixar. 90 minutes of fun packed entertainment with the 3D intensifying all the fights and flights. Indeed, on the other extreme, one must not forget the re-emergence of hand drawn Disney with the Princess and the Frog receiving good reviews, and hopes for Tangled (previously Rapunzel) are high upon its release in November 2010.
Therefore, who is the winner? Pixar continue to excel at everything, Dreamworks have finally re-discovered their true identity and the other small studios are growing in success and gathering pace on the main two. At the moment, Pixar still lead but the gap is closing. Therefore, all eyes look towards Summer 2010 to decide how big the gap actually is.
The Expendables Review
It’s an 80’s fanboys dream cast but not quite the film they’d be hoping for. All those with memories of Rambo and Predator will be thrilled by the mental finale but the first two thirds of this film fall flat. The attempt to garner a larger audience has meant the film has been censored to a 15 certificate therefore neutering the unadulterated madness we all came to see. Indeed, the cast do everything required of them – say their lines and beat the shit out of bad guys. Lundgren earns a lot of credit for his brilliant dead pan madness and Roberts does well as the stereotypical agent-gone-bad.
However, it is hilarious how gun size/usage acting used as the method of character development. Obviously you do not watch The Expendables for subtle nuances but the all balls and no brains approach grates. The movie is buoyed by the sense of enjoyment by all involved clearly enjoying the banal dialogue and clunky direction at times. Statham, Stallone and Li’s chemistry bonds the audience and the leads but it’s just a shame that The Expendables doesn’t go all the away to 11 on the insanity scale.
3/5
Salt Review
Following the shelving of Bourne 4 for the immediate future, Philip Noyce’s feature has been earmarked as its temporary replacement; however, for better or worse, it is not at all. Entering the film sceptical about Jolie as the main action lead and the plot itself, my spider sense seemed to tingle average film syndrome. I was right. However, upon my exit from the cinema, a strange sense of bewilderment and disappointment filled me.
Noyce’s has dabbled in spy films before with the strangely camp The Saint, but provides proficient spills and thrills for the 100 minute running time. The opening chase scene grabs the audience and identifies Salt as the perfect Hollywood superspy bouncing off lorries and cars like child’s play. Indeed, the action scenes come thick and fast but the lack of humour throughout is strange. Liev Schreiber, efficient and very watchable, is given little to entertain the audience. It’s hard for the audience to care as there is no connection between the audience and the characters as they just seem to be robots on a mission. With a greater focus upon the overall plot and Salt herself, the other characters are given very little to go on from Kurt Wimmer’s script and leaves the audience wanting.
So does Wimmer and Noyce’s sacrifice of other character’s development help the overall picture? Err..no. Focusing all their attention upon Salt does provide the depth of character needed for the plot surrounding her. Indeed, it does seem they had the “Bourne with a vagina” idea in mind providing us with flashbacks and desperate attempts to humanise our lead character. However, the ever changing allegiances and ever twisting plot, it makes us hard to work out how we feel towards Salt. In the hands of a less experienced actress, the character of Salt could be overwhelmed by the plot and the pressure of being handed a lead role. Therefore, the casting of Jolie is perfect. She brings her outside celebrity status and her own acting skills to the role providing a real presence to the screen.
In a summer sausage-fest at the big screen, it’s nice to see a female get her own film to shine in. The ease of transition from an apparent Tom Cruise starrer to an Angelina Jolie starrer shows that it is possible for more films to have lead female roles. Jolie is very strong and she needs to be as the film does depend entirely on her. Jolie’s experience in previous action roles puts her in good stead for the stunts. However, her relationship with her husband acts as clear motivation but as the M Night Shymalan level of implausibility of twists kick in, the audience becomes disillusioned into what motivates Salt on her onslaught of seemingly everyone.
So onto the plot; without revealing too much about the story, there are a series of unexpected turns within the film that basically derails the audience unexpectedly and unwontedly. From the trailer, it seemed our main protagonist was on the run from the C.I.A. after being framed for being a Russian spy. However, the film is rather different, suffocated by its own attempt to be clever and different. It starts off speedily and the opening premise is pretty standard action movie fare.
Adding a little spice to the occasion, Noyce adds the element of the unknown as Salt tries to stay one step ahead of the C.I.A, with Noyce trying to stay one step ahead of the audience. However, it doesn’t completely work. To name but a few, the blur of allegiances, Jolie dressed as a man (face and all) and the ridiculous finale all smack you clean in the face with implausibility. Furthermore, the film seems strangely dated relying upon a twist of the old Cold War rivalry. If made in the early 90s, it would have been a fantastic film but in this day and age, the film lacks bite and fails to be the Bourne with a vagina that was needed. It’s a start for a new breed of female action films but it is still not quite there yet. Good enough for a wet Tuesday evening on DVD but hardly going to bring the house down.
3/5
Going the Distance Review
With Hollywood searching for new and exciting twists on the traditional romcom, Nanette Burstein’s Going The Distance looks at the ins and outs of long-distance relationships. To the film’s credit, it is accurate in its depictions of this type of relationship – as a man in one, I can vouch for the hardship of long distance love. However, the film itself is disappointingly run-of-the-mill and occasionally bores with its bog-standard presentation.
The main draw of Going The Distance is the two leads, Justin Long and Drew Barrymore. Their off-screen on/off relationship pays dividends here, helping portray a very realistic couple with real conviction – their chemistry sparks and helps cover up some of the story’s internal cracks. They are, at least, a believable couple, which is a seemingly simple facet that many romantic comedies cannot get right.
Long and Barrymore need to be on form, as their respective characters are fairly one-dimensional. Garrett (Long) is a man apparently enthralled by music, yet despite it being his one true love, it’s only referenced to once, in passing. That’s it as far as characterisation goes. It’s the same deal with Erin (Barrymore), a journalist desperate for a career writing front page stories, only she never talks about it. It often seems like the film hinges on the personalities of the actors, not their characters. Nevertheless, they receive decent support from the pre-requisite best friends, with Jason Sudekis, a regular SNL-er and 30 Rock-er, gaining most credit for his awesome facial hair.
The problem is that, in attempting something different, Going The Distance is guilty of trying a little too hard. The indie-kid music (The Cure, The Boxer Rebellion etc.), the kooky obsessions and glossy cities of New York and San Francisco – it feels like it’s trying to be something it’s not. In this case, that’s (500) Days of Summer, but it lacks the imagination, the feel and the excess of personality which Marc Webb’s meet-cute had in spades.
The trailers lured us in with the prospect of something different, and it looked to be a fun prospect. However, all the best bits were in the trailer and the film provides little entertainment in the gaps between these moments. Going The Distance needed to define itself more clearly: is it an outright comedy, or a drama with hints of humour? Its lack of identity does niggle, but doesn’t detract too badly from the film’s overall sheen of quality.
Overall, Going The Distance is not a bad film, just one that never quite fulfils its ambition. It’s adequately shot and provides a glossy vantage point to affairs. If only it had dared to delve a little deeper, to present more raw emotion, use more imagination and use the talent a lot better… There’s definite potential to carve a romcom niche. Instead, it’s an entirely average film that will pass 100 minutes of anyone’s life nicely, whether they’re male or female.
3/5
Originally posted here – http://www.theshiznit.co.uk/review/going-the-distance.php
Classic #2 Batman: The Killing Joke
Alan Moore is praised and well renowned for his brilliant works of Watchmen, V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentleman. However, the gem that is Batman: The Killing Joke is in fact one of his greatest works. It’s a brutal masterpiece with Moore not pulling any punches in showing the extremeness of the Joker’s madness. It blurs the line on sanity/insanity, right/wrong and heroes and villains.
The original Joker is a fantastic literary creation and although Ledger’s version of the Joker is a perfect contemporary version; the original outright insane Joker always holds a soft spot for me. The pure evil he puts upon Gordon’s daughter and his excessive lunacy is gut-wrenching and makes the reader actively encourage some form of deep punishment to fall upon the Joker. Nevertheless Moore’s novel is not two-dimensional as he attempts to provide to show the psychosis of the Joker whilst balancing in the humanity.
Within this particular novel, it is one of the first times the Joker’s back story is touched upon. A failing comedian with a baby on the way, he wants to be a good father, a good husband and a good man. However, he’s desperate and become corrupted leading to his downward spiral. The Joker simply became the next step of evil and corruption after the guys who corrupted him. Indeed, life as a good man never worked for him; therefore, it is only when he goes insane can he finally become who he wants to be. Moore’s vivid and brutal realisation of the Joker’s life does help provide depth and necessary dimension to Batman’s greatest foe. Nevertheless, like in Moore’s previous works, he is not trying to portray a sob story. He wants us to sympathise and understand the Joker but the distance must remain between him and us. The polar to this comes from Batman himself; indeed, the purpose of The Killing Joke is to show to the consequences of our choices and no matter what we do we can never out run them.
This novel is a classic and the illustrations are vividly realised Brian Bolland providing even greater effect for Moore’s words. If one had any qualms is that it is too short and it would have been great if extended further. Nevertheless it is a great graphic novel and highly recommended.
Kick-Ass Review
Kick-Ass kicks ass…oh the cliché. This reviewer shall not be as lazy as that. However, one can assure you that this film is fantastic beyond all conceptions and has set the bar for comic book films for the next decade incredibly high. Even simpler, this is cinema for the 21st century. Avatar gave us the technology; however, Kick-Ass delivered the film. With a director reaching the peak of his career, a young cast bursting with talent and script so well written it’s scary; it’s a reawakening to what cinema can do when people try.
Mark Millar, who originally wrote the original comic, is the flavour of the month within Hollywood and it’s not hard to see why. His story is one of genius and it was only a matter of time before it hit the big screen. Nonetheless, it can be seen as a poison chalice. To ensure the film’s success, you have to create a believable set up where a 12 year old girl is a mass murdering uber assassin, a teenager would actively dress up in a scuba diving suit to save people, and that someone who dresses like Batman is an actual badass. Therefore, a director with skill, vivacity and understanding is needed. Come to the stage, Matthew Vaughn
His previous works has shown a steady increase of quality and improvement throughout his career. Layer Cake, although single minded, was well made, efficient and brought an excellent performance from Daniel Craig. Indeed, Stardust can be accredited to being one of the few successes of the revitalised fairytale genre as it avoided patronising the audience whist providing an enjoyable fancy free experience. However, Kick-Ass is the pinnacle of his career. As will later be discussed, everything about this film absolutely rocks; and the credit seems to lie mainly at the feet of Vaughn.
Kick-Ass is a bursting with energy; at times it seems to struggle to fit itself all in the screen. It’s like a 4 year old buzzing after downing a bottle of Sunny D (or whatever the kids drink nowadays) and just wants to run around and show off. Kick-Ass does this in spades. Vaughn is unafraid of tackling the big issues head on and balances them each out perfectly. For example, The Dark Knight is brilliant and the action scenes are sublime; however, laughs are pretty low throughout the 160 minutes spectacle. On the other extreme, Mr & Mrs Smith tries to go for action and laughs emphasising the laughs part (Look, they’re married in real life! Oh my god they’re married in this life and fighting! I wonder if that’s what really happens…oh mercy) failing on both parts. However, Hit Girl’s extreme language, the awkwardness of Dave’s (Kick-Ass/Aaron Johnson) general day-to-day life and Nic Cage’s (Big Daddy) amazing non-laugh just keep the laugh rolling. Every little scene has a glint of humour and the fact that it doesn’t overwhelm the audience shows how great Vaughn’s direction is.
Vaughn’s brilliance is every present in the film with Kick-Ass holding some of the most skilled shots and scenes in the past decade. Take a look at the Razuul scene involving Hit-Girl and tell me whether or not you think this film is energetic and brilliant. It’s unashamed of what it is. It’s violent, bloody, bloody funny and a film about comic books. Vaughn ignores the old clichés of heroes with responsibility because as Kick-Ass says “with no powers comes no responsibility”. Vaughn enjoys this liberation and thrives in showing off his young cast with Aaron Johnson and Chloe Moretz shining through.
However, in contrast with early metaphor of the hyper 4 year old; Vaughn also highlights a calmer and considered side within this film. Yes, Vaughn deals with the action scenes and ass kickings (sorry…) amazingly well; but it’s the manner in which he deals with the delicate scenes is the factor that moves this film into 5 star territories. Every great film needs a conscience. The audience needs to know there is a why and how otherwise they may feel short changed. However, they must not overwhelm the audience which Peter Parker’s and Bruce Wayne’s conscience on occasion had the ability to do. Vaughn shows skill by presenting us with each character’s motive without the need of in depth psychological analysis therefore holding the audience’s eyes and brain fully attached and focused upon his film. Indeed, when these moments arise, you don’t feel awkward or impatient; you simply listen.
Furthemore, there are scenes within this film that truly shock the audience; the scene in which a Kick Ass lookalike is shot in cold blood knocks the wind out of the audience’s laughing machine, which in turn, grounds the film in a much needed reality. Vaughn understands that this is no ordinary subject material and Vaughn has shown a very subtle awareness of the audience and of teenage boy everywhere. One could argue that his treatment of high school and horny boys almost harks back to the ideas of the late great John Hughes. However, no matter how great Vaughn’s direction is, he needed an amazing cast to pull this off. He got all that and more in the form of the one the freshest, funniest and best casts I’ve ever seen.
All critics are unanimous about the brilliance of Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) and Kick-Ass (Aaron Johnson). Page after page has been dedicated to them and rightly so; however, within this piece I will be short and sharp. They’re brilliant. Both handle the dialogue and action scenes like seasoned pros. Firstly, Chloe Moretz is destined for great things as she simply bedazzles the audience with her outrageous swearing and amazing knife skills. It’s testament to Moretz that in such a different and difficult role for child actor to play, she pulls it off and steals the show. Johnson, capitalising from his success in Nowhere Boy, is excellent. We understand why he does what he does. Johnson present a much more realistic high school teenager than Tobey Maguire ever did. Furthermore, he’s not Superman and he’s unease at facing up to criminals and girls alike can’t help but make you laugh. Nevertheless to say this is the Moretz and Johnson show delivers an injustice to the rest of the cast. Mark Strong is excellent; although his wavering American accent is sometimes rather noticeable, he presents a colder harder edge upon his RocknRolla persona and is truly scary at times. Also, Christopher Mintz-Plasse shakes free from the McLovin shackles to presents us with a nerd desperate to please his mobster dad yet hopelessly out of tune with the world; although this sounds remarkably similar, witness the film for yourself and you’ll see the evolution of another actor hopefully moving onto great things. Finally, there’s Nic Cage. Ok, Nic Cage dressed like Batman kicking serious ass. Seriously. What more do you need?
The cast in its entirety is on top form. Another noticeable mention must go to the soundtrack. It’s punchy, exciting and has the best songs I’ve heard all year. If you’re not tempted to at least download (or torrent, but I wouldn’t advocate it because this film deserves every single one of your pennies, let alone 79p) one of the tracks, I urge you to watch it again and re-evaluate this film masterpiece.
I understand this film will not be to everyone’s taste. The excessive gore and bad language may offend many and how it got a 15 certificate, I will never know. However, this is THE film for our generation. It has tons of violence, clever direction, subtle character understandings, hilarious dialogue, the best shots/scenes I’ve seen in a very long time and Nic Cage. Basically, why are you still reading this? Go watch this film, NOW! So the lasting question from this film arises from a quote from Hit Girl, “Ok you c****, let’s see what you can do now?” So Hollywood, what is up next? We’re waiting.
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)