New film review #11: Thor: The Dark World

What is it with sequels?  They seem so fickle about how good or bad they may be.  At the very least there is a common consensus amongst film fans that remakes usually suck rat-poison-pellets, historical dramas are sentimental and formulaic but still moving and that some reboots such as The Amazing Spider Man (2012) are made far too soon to have either any real success or ground-breaking impact on the world of film and cinema.  In contrast to these kinds of films and in much similarity to a former-child-star's moods and career prospects, sequels to films can either be improving on the first film in some way (E.g. Bad Boys II (2003) or Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982)) or (arguably in most cases) being nowhere near the greatness of the first film that the sequel was based off of (E.g. Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1999) or The Neverending Story III (1994)).  Yet sometimes, and by 'sometimes' I mean 'A-reality-show-off-of-MTV-being-good' rare, there pops up a sequel to its original film that is just about as good.  No doubt this should put some emphasis on how surprised I was that when I went to see the new Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe film, Thor: The Dark World I was surprised to find that it was neither better or worse than the first film but just about the same, I know right?

The first Thor film which was released in 2011, was good and a great box office hit for a number of reasons.  Firstly, it was a hit particularly with young kids because the little ones always enjoy a bit of action mixed with humour and represented by shining knights in armour representing things like freedom, justice and other noble traits.  Adults also made this film a success because they had kids like that or simply wanted to see it themselves for a simple bit of fun while teenagers pretty much went to see it on the same reasons.  On top of this, the film itself was great as it had loads of well-filmed and done action, colourful characters, even more colourful sets and costumes, an easy-to-explain but also deep mythos and universe and of course, great acting by Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as the Norse god of mischief and evil Loki and Anthony Hopkins as the regal but wise Norse all-father god Odin.

Now the story isn't a huge deal different from the film that it is a sequel to so there is no real need to go into too much depth of its description.  Thor must face an enemy attacking from the outside and within (this time its the murderous but wily dark elves) in order to prevent them from stealing some ancient maguffin of untold power (this time its a floating, reddish-black liquid called the aether) led by a foe unexpected by the Asgardian gods (Malekith the cursed played by an under-used Christopher Eccleston) and do this while having been cast out by his father Odin for a crime of disobedience (this time its disobeying his orders to wait for Malekith to return to Asgard after the first battle there).

There are a few differences in Dark World in terms of the story in particular though.  Firstly, something I was particularly interested by was the exact reason why Thor was cast out of Asgard in this film in the sense that this time round, the reason for him being forced into temporary exile is less selfish and more noble than in the first Thor.  In the first film, Thor was banished for going to the realm of the frost-giants and giving them a real good Mike Tyson-style beating despite the fact that Odin made it very clear that doing so was not needed and would only bring ruin to the doorstep of Asgard which indeed did happen.  This made Thor's struggle to better himself in the film more compelling as he had a very real character trait that he needed to get rid of while redeeming himself for a really damn stupid crime.  On the other hand Thor is thrown out of Asgard in Dark World for simply following an actually noble reason for vengeance and going against Asgardian tradition in order to save the lives of the men in the Asgardian army and his non-goddess-normal-nerdy-but-hot-human girlfriend Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).  See the reasons why Thor this time flees from Asgard are noble ones as SPOILER ALERT Thor's mother Frigga (Rene Russo) is murdered by Malekith and his right-hand man Algrim, aka Kurze (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a piece of the aforementioned aether is just under the skin of Jane Foster who is brought to Asgard which in turn attracts Malekith to the god-city in order to what was once his most powerful weapon.  These are noble reasons indeed and I just can't see why Thor is forced to flee from Asgard in order to achieve them, perhaps it is in part because he releases the already proven-untrustworthy and Disney-corporation-evil Loki from prison to help him achieve these goals.

This is probably the main gripe I had with Dark World apart from one, probably more important, factor that didn't bother me so much but did indeed niggle at the back of my mind like taking out a room-full of foes in Battlefield 3 (2011) and then realising you have plenty of ammo left but only one bullet left in your clip thus leaving you with the annoying choice of either shooting out a firing-slit in the wall or reloading. In the first film there was a definite reality and sense that we all as the viewers knew the mood of each scene and what to feel when watching each scene thereof.  In Dark World there are definitely palpable moods to most of the scenes such as grief, desperation, determined valour (particularly in the final battle in the third act) or swashbuckling excitement.  But one factor that definitely puts the first film above Dark World in terms of pacing and emotional setting is the fact that Dark World interchanges most of its big action-set-pieces or small skirmishes or even emotional scenes with moments of comedy.  Now admittedly, while these moments of comedy were well-executed, the frequency with which they were dropped in between the more important moments of plot and character development made for some slightly jarring feelings I had like when one important character dies and I'm supposed to laugh almost immediately afterwards.  It isn't really a big problem but it is quite irritating.

Despite this little rash on the film's otherwise good performance, it does one-up the first Thor on one very notable aspect of the story.  In Dark World Thor is clearly shown to be up against far greater odds against a far greater threat with far greater stakes.  In the first film, Loki was prepared to demolish a town in Texas to take over Asgard, but in Dark World Malekith clearly raises the stakes by not only forcing Thor to go on a forbidden crusade of vengeance but also threatens his Father, Brother, girlfriend, SPOILER ALERT AGAIN kills his mum, threatens to snuff out any semblance of light in the nine realms of Norse mythology, threatens the destruction of Asgard, threatens the destruction of Earth (or Midgard as the Norse gods refer to it) and threatens the literal existence of life as we know it throughout the nine realms altogether.  This adds a greater sense of tension and suspense to Dark World  than the first Thor had as Thor's sometimes desperate plans to defeat Malekith are truly justified as is his desperation, heroism and pseudo-reckless attitude towards battle.  All this is emphasised even more so as Malekith himself is extremely powerful nearer towards the end and is ever backed up by his powerful forces of foot soldiers and badass, knife-like magical space ships.  Yes that sounds dumb but MAN do they ever look cool.

As for the action, its pretty much the same quality as in the first film.  In my personal opinion, whereas the fight before the finale in the last Thor that was most memorable had to be Thor's battle against the destroyer, in this one it has to be the clash during the battle of Asgard where Heimdall (Idris 'badass' Elba) takes on one of the dark elves ships with daggers LIKE A BAWS and blows it THE FUCK UP.  In general the action is pretty much equal in both films with slight differences such as the action in the first film being driven more by Thor's strive for moral redemption while the action in Dark World is driven more by the character's frantic desperation to win the battle.

So while the action and plot is still as good as it was in the first film, I am glad to say that the rest of the film including acting, costumes and camera-work is still on par with the first film.  There isn't much to say about the acting in the Thor films in particular as they both feature well-talented actors who seem to be more acting out their favourite Saturday cartoon characters and simply having fun, and boy does it work well for them.  Unlike the other Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe films where the main character is either a slightly stereotypical characture of a country's patriotism (I.e. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)) or a confident but emotionally unstable embodiment of a common character trait (I.e. Iron Man (2008)) and this in turn reflects onto the other characters in those films, the main character in the Thor films seems to be somewhat aware of his own emotional, psychological and physical limitations which in turn radiates off onto the other characters.  This means that the characters in the Thor films are given a bit more freedom to simply have fun acting as the main character is a bit more of a stronger emotional anchor for them to behave off of more so than in the other Marvel films in general (with possible exception to the very underrated first two Punisher films (2004 and 2008)).

Camera-work still is excellent as well.  Particularly in the formulaic but nonetheless beautiful panning and far-landscape shots we are shown either the destruction being wrought by Malekith's dastardly schemes and evil forces or the majesty of the golden and shining city of Asgard.  Equally shining in this film to the same extent that it was so in the first Thor are the costumes.  In particular this time round, I very much myself liked the armour that Natalie Portman wears for a few scenes in the middle of the film (although it doesn't seem to serve a great deal of purpose) and the uniforms for Malekith's dark elf soldiers which definitely express their dark and evil nature and heritage.

One last compliment I must give to the film as well is the exposition it gives at the beginning of the film.  Now exposition at the beginning of a film with a daring or epic universe and/or premise is a very difficult thing to do at times and has certainly been done wrong an innumerable amount of times (E.g. for good examples of bad exposition at the beginning of a film see films like Howard the Duck (1986) or Alone In The Dark (2005)).  But Thor: The Dark World manages this very well by combining excellent narration at the beginning of the film by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, telling us how aeons ago the evil Malekith was defeated and forced into hiding by the fearsome and noble might of the Asgardians led by Odin's father Bor.  With this great exposition coupled with a great opening action scene and very good special effects I guarantee you will be drawn into the drama of the film very quickly.

In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World IS FUCKIN' AWESOME WITH A SIDE OF GARLIC MASHED POTATO AND COLESLAW.  The quality of action, acting, characters, plot, camera-work and direction is still the same as the first film which is always a plus if the first film in a franchise is as good as the first Thor.  Perhaps this might come across as a bit disappointing to some people who were hoping for an even greater improvement on the first Thor but really, I don't think it matters so much.  I would recommend watching the first Thor first if you're not familiar to the series but going into Dark World with an open mind wouldn't hurt to be honest.  The only real criticisms I would have for Thor: The Dark World would be the fact that sometimes the emotional pacing and balance in certain scenes is not up to the same par as in the first film while the deaths of some main characters are pushed aside insultingly quickly.  On top of this I wish the ending would've included a little more clarity than it did and also wish that Christopher Eccleston's turn as Malekith had gotten more screen-time.  Regardless of this however, I would still say that Thor: The Dark World is a must see and mead-kegs worth of fun for the youngest children to the most noble of Asgardian gods.

Plot: 8.35/10
Action: 9/10
Characters/acting: 8.25/10


OVERALL RATING: 25.6/30

Old film review #5: Fantastic Four (2005)

Ah tis good to be back!  Admittedly I wanted to do another few reviews while I was away volunteering in China and you guys are probably a bit exasperated with me by now seeing as how lax I can be with updating this blog but the Internet connection was so bad where I was staying that I could only mostly access my E-mails and some flash game websites.  On top of that, the Chinese government banned the use of IMDB.com years ago and I'm not even sure if Blogger is allowed in China either.

Either way, I apologise for the long period of wait that you guys have been put through since my top ten lists for best selling music albums.  So I thought that the best way to make up would be to rip on a terrifically bad superhero movie with a great cast, very little passionate acting, formulaic writing, even more formulaic storyline and plot and utterly forgettable action.  So without further ado ladies and gentlemen; the legendary 2005 flop Fantastic Four!

Now I've decided on a quick revision of reviewing old films so that now I can only review them if they are more than 5 years old just to make things a bit more balanced.  Now admittedly, the last 30 years or so have been a rough period for comic book heroes in films excluding four particular series namely; the Superman series starring Christopher Reeve (barring Superman IV), the Spider Man series starring Tobey Maguire, the Batman series starring Christian Bale (maybe barring the overrated Dark Night Rises) and the mega-giant marvel ultimate cinematic universe that came together last year with The Avengers.  Aside from these series's (and maybe the Punisher movies) the superhero movies of the last 30 or so years have sucked balls.  Particularly in the early 1990s-mid 2000s, the quality of this genre was at a low point as many if not most superhero films at the time had their original back-stories drowned in plot devices and basic-formula storytelling.  This was so that, particularly with more obscure comic book films such as Steel (1997) and The Phantom (1996), the original source material of the comic book character in question could be told more quickly and simply as is deserving of the silver screen.  This however made it so that many superhero films at the time had warped back-stories that straight up pissed off fans of the source material and overly-formulaic plots and characters that basically dissuaded anyone else from watching these dreadful shitfests.

Nowhere is this more apparent after 2000 than with the 2005 crash Fantastic Four which unlike many other superhero films in the 1990s and early-2000s, worked with source material based off of one of the most recognisable and popular superhero team franchises of the last several decades.  Despite the back-story of the FF comic book team being popularly simple and enjoyable, director Tim Story and basically anyone else who worked alongside him on this doomed endeavour made the back story of the Fantastic Four even more simple than it already was and then dropped a thousand tonnes of over-simplification of original comic book plot points in to boot.  This meant that what was supposed to be the milestone of comic book films to duet alongside the success of the excellent Spider Man and Spider Man 2 (2002 and 2004 respectively) and mark the true end of the 'dark ages' of superhero films instead became yet another overly-formulaic action romp with forgettable characters based on some of the most iconic comic book heroes ever.

Now naturally I can't really get into ripping into this pile of vile crap without laying out the storyline of the film which thankfully is very simple to outline.  As the technology of the modern world advances, failing but skilled scientist Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) (accompanied by his good friend and former NASA pilot Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis)) approach technology and media mogul Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) with plans for an experiment to capture the energy of an oncoming solar storm that could power earth's energy needs for centuries to come cleanly and efficiently.  However, even as Doom, Grimm, smoking hot scientist Susan Storm (Jessica Alba) and her hot-headed brother (Chris Evans) are assured by Richard's calculations that they are in no danger whatsoever.  The solar storm arrives earlier than expected and hits the space station that our heroes are on while the station's shields are down thus incapacitating the heroes but also giving them latent super powers.  As Richards, the Storm siblings and Grimm come to terms with the changes made to their lives by their powers, the already maniacal Von Doom realises that he can finally gain the unlimited power that he has always craved with the powers bestowed upon him by the freak accident.  Putting aside their differences and bickering, the 'Fantastic Four' then take on Doom as he attempts to become a god among men and, sing it with me now, 'take over the world'.

Now that sounds simple right?  Well it is, but that doesn't mean that the way the story is told has to be overly-simple and formulaic.  And that is Fantastic Four's problem, it was marketed as being a benchmark in the history of superhero films but ended up being just as any other blockbuster release in 2005 was in terms of deep plot and characters.  In fact allot more went wrong with this film.  To say that it over-simplified the back-story of the FF is just the tip of the metaphorical shit-coloured-iceberg that is this film.  To start with, the best superhero films have tended to be the ones that most closely followed the source material (i.e. see Spider Man (2002) and Iron Man (2008)) and while Fantastic Four does that to an extent, it takes out a few key features of the FF's back-story and also takes a notably long time (about 20-30 minutes if my memory serves me) to get to the point in the film when the super-powers manifest.

All the while we are waiting for said powers to manifest, we are bombarded with formulaic back-story to the individual characters that in truth had nothing to do with the original ones from the popular comic book series such as Susan and Reed already having been in a relationship before the film's plot-line begins.  This is actually pretty common with films such as Fantastic Four which have classical source material to base the film off of but go over the top with the well-meaning modern spin that aims to give the film itself punch and grip with a modern audience.  Unfortunately, with Fantastic Four and other films that go far too down the same road (i.e. see the live-action The Smurfs (2011)) end up just fluffing the storyline and plot so much so by doing this that by the time that we get to the iconic moments and the gripping action, we may have already lost interest in the deep meaning behind the plot and the individual characters

Unfortunately, once the action arrives, it is pretty freaking tame in terms of the level of action a super hero film should be aspiring to.  Films such as Iron Man (2008), The Punisher (2004) and X-Men: First Class (2011) had pretty gripping action scenes with iconic moments such as a guy getting boiling soup thrown in his face in The Punisher and a man getting a coin pushed through his skull by the force of super-powered magnetism in X-Men: First Class.  By this I mean that if you watch Fantastic Four solely on the basis of its action scenes, you'd likely think it was any old blockbuster based off of any old last-minute plot (see Lockout (2012)).  On top of that, the main villain in the film, Dr Victor Von Doom, is very easily beaten in the film's climax by what is, admittedly, a notably interesting display of knowledge of physics for a common summer blockbuster movie.  Furthermore, after the battle is won, there is this scene that straight out rips off the last scene from Raiders of The Lost Ark (1981) by showing that Doom is being shipped off to prison thus setting up the basis for the sequel (which later turned out to be worse than this festering pile of human torch poo).

As for the characters, I mentioned earlier that much of the film is smothered by generic plot-stuffing and modernising of the FF's original back-story and the characters themselves are no exception.  Despite the fact that all the four main characters have clearly individual flaws, they all seem to be reading from the same acting sheet on how to show emotion because THEY ALL ACT THE BLOODY SAME.  I wouldn't mind this so much if we were only working with a duet for our main characters (i.e. The Road (2009)) but I mean come on people!  That shit just won't fly with a quartet of characters who are vastly different in the film's source material, will it?

Mind you though, I didn't really mind the main characters, despite all their blandness and occasional monotony.  Chris Evans as Johnny Storm (aka The Human Torch) tries to show how much of a douchy, party-boy his character originally was, Jessica Alba is the most bland out of the main four but is still hot as hell, Michael Chiklis manages to show how tragic a situation his character (Ben Grimm aka The Thing) finds himself in socially after his transformation and Ioan Gruffudd manages to do at least a satisfactory job in the acting department with the less-than-noteworthy script he clearly had to deal with.

Yet while these guys are simply bland, the main bad guy Von Doom, played brilliantly over-the-top by Julian McMahon, is probably the sole factor with the most problems relating to it throughout the whole film.  Firstly, McMahon plays his part so overly dramatically that I kept thinking he was going to magically turn into Ming the Merciless during one of his many scenes where he's sitting in a leather chair in a half-darkened room, stroking his chiselled chin with a bejewelled finger while you look at his smug face contemplating whether to kill or torture his enemies, to exploit or crush his rivals and whether to have orange juice just before or just after brushing his teeth.  Furthermore, while the back-stories of the other characters were only changed a little bit, Von Doom's is almost wholly changed for a rather unnecessary reason.

In the original comics, Von Doom is portrayed as a tyrant in the fictional nation of Latveria who makes use of powerful technology mixed with even more powerful intellect and magic to make himself the FF's most dangerous adversary.  In the film however, he's your stereotypical poster boy for the evils of corporate capitalism in the western world by being even more smug, sardonically evil and leering than he is in the original comics.  On top of this, the powers that Doom has in the film pretty much just seem to extend to the absorption of energy and the firing of laser bolts which is about a hundredth of what the Doom from the comics can do in all his over-powered glory.  On top of this, Doom is shown to be powerful in the film, but (SPOILER WARNING) why does he manage to survive a force-field-contained supernova that he's at the centre of when there are clear gaps in his armour and when there's no clear explanation of his durability.

Now I would usually recommend that you'd watch a bad film just to see one or two iconically or obscure great bits in a bad film but I'm not playing that magic card here.  In all honesty, this film is all bad with an overly generic-modern take on the storyline of the original source material, good actors being wasted on a terrible script, tame action and a villain that might as well have been half of the blockbuster villains from action films in the 80s mixed together then mixed with crack cocaine.  Hell not even Alba's hotness can save this disaster from ever being remembered as one of the worst superhero films...still...at least its not as bad as the sequel.

Plot: 5 /10
Characters:  4/10
Camerawork:  5/10
Action: 3 /10

Overall: 17/40

New film review #9: The Wolverine

Remember what I said a couple of posts ago in my review of Man of Steel that the longer a film franchise goes on then the more likely it is to have as many stinkers as well as golden nuggets?  Well the X-men film franchise owned by Fox studios is an anomaly in this sense. When the X-men film franchise first started out way back in 2000 with X-Men (duh, what else?) the first few films of the franchise namely between X-Men and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) were generally a bit shit like Halle Berry's puns in the first film or the over-the-top twists and deaths in X-Men: The Last Stand (2006).  But oddly enough, much like the Resident Evil film franchise, the X-Men film franchise seems to be slowly learning from its mistakes and becoming slowly better beginning with that one helicopter scene in Origins through X-Men: First Class (2011) and onwards to the recent release of the second film centred around Hugh Jackman's trademark Marvel comics character.

Now in comparison to the other X-Men films, does this one show as much moving forwards and improvement of the franchise as much as X-Men: First Class?  Hell no.  Seriously, this might be the best film of the franchise yet but that is purely based off of how well the film was made and acted.  Unlike First Class, The Wolverine adds noticeably less new concepts in terms of character development to the film in regards to all of the characters.  Don't get me wrong now boys and girls, there are a huge few concepts thrown into this film which have really fleshed out the film version of the character Wolverine and one after the credits which may have considerable implications for the rest of the X-Men film universe characters.  But in sharp contrast, First Class fleshed out characters that covered a more diverse range of personalities than the characters in this flick with wider implications for the series in later instalments.

Fortunately in comparison to previous X-Men films though, this one has a plot that isn't unnecessarily long-winded or bogged down by too many token back-stories.  Therefore, not only is the plot allot simpler but also allows for an action/adventure flick that is far easier to follow than say X2 (2003).  As the film starts, we are introduced to Logan (AKA Wolverine or as I like to call him 'Mr Kebab stick hands') and a Japanese soldier named Yashida who is saved by our clawed, sweary and later-Batman-esque gruff Canadian soldier in the midst of the atomic explosion at Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War.  Years later, Wolverine is a social and emotional outcast in rural mid-America after the events of X-Men: The Last Stand while Yashida has become the most well-recognised technology manufacturer in all of Japan.  As Wolverine accepts one final request from his old comrade to say goodbye to Yashida before he dies Wolverine soon realises that Yashida is not resigned to death as he might expect but wants to do a two-way deal in which Yashida gets Wolverine's slowed-ageing while Wolverine will be able to live out the rest of his life at a normal pace.  This soon all goes to pot however as Yashida is seemingly murdered and Wolverine is forced to go on the run with his emotionally fragile granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto) all the while running from a shady organisation that employs a mixture of ninjas, yakuza clansmen and a rather pointless side villain named Viper played by the adept Svetlana Khodchenkova (yeah I can't pronounce her name properly either).  And from here on out we experience a set of events that bring our heroes to the action-packed climax with a surprising amount of formulaic plot-lining yet surprising amount of excitement as Wolverine once more pits himself against legions of overconfident foes albeit with a greater sense of vulnerability this time round.

Yes that is the one thing that surprised me about The Wolverine and that is like Pacific Rim, The Wolverine has a formulaic plot and set of events that lead to equally formulaic character development and an equally formulaic climax, yet is all surprisingly entertaining to watch when it all comes together in the end much like a fried breakfast that took you four hours to make yet tastes like it was made by the hands of Zeus, Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver combined.  Perhaps this in accordance to the fact that as I mentioned earlier, Hugh Jackman has become so associated with the role of Wolverine in the film industry over the last 13 years that he now is not only able to show us how good an actor he is by playing a character that can simultaneously be an emotional drawing board and powerhouse but also show us how much he understands the characteristics of this iconic Marvel comics character.  In turn, this is one of the film's main strengths in the sense that Jackman clearly knows how to play Wolverine so well and does so against the backdrop of a roster of characters that we have only just met and so have all the time in the world to get to know that creates a medley of character developments that go together like a grilled halloumi cheese salad and onion marmalade.

But whereas the storyline might not be as deliciously balanced between action and political/historical gravitas as X-Men: First Class, I personally think that the action has taken a notable improvement balancing between fast-paced, pitched battle and angry-Canadian-mutant VS giant-motherfucking-silver samurai-robot.  On one hand, the one-on-one fights throughout the film convey a sense of ultimatum, usually happening as is the case with other films like this one, when two characters of both or either emotional or plot-line importance face off against each other in a clash to the end.  This is interestingly smoothly contrasted against the clashes between Wolverine and legions of foes in fights where the now-vulnerable Wolverine must use wits and speed as well as his characteristic berserker rage to defeat the enemy whether it be at an old friend's funeral in the midst of hundreds of innocent people or atop a bullet train travelling at hundreds of miles an hour.  The one exception to this is the disappointing clash between Wolverine and a clan of Ninjas in an urban tundra town that just screams of similarities to the final set in 13 Assassins (2010) which was given considerable gravitas in the film's trailers yet divulges into a moment of savage clarity where Wolverine takes down a single squad of baddies then runs away like a total idiot thus exposing himself to massed poisoned-arrow fire.

And much like this scene, the flaws of the film really stuck out in my throat like when I first played the space-faring-ship-flying shoot 'em' up game Freelancer (2003) and came across that forsaken and blood-vein-popping race level.  For the most part, and thankfully unlike Man Of Steel, these flaws are not too striking and pretty much just apply to the continuity of the world of the X-Men film franchise.  For example, Wolverine is clearly able to remember the events at Nagasaki that brought him and Yashida together but this is overshadowed by exposition in X2 that explains that Wolverine had his memory entirely taken from him when he was shot many years after WW2 with a bullet encased in the metal Adamantium in the head thus making the flashbacks to WW2 in The Wolverine a little bit niggling to the conscience of X-Men fans.  As I also mentioned earlier, the side villain called Viper seems a little out of place and while she is played adeptly by Khodchenkova, proved to be a character that simply rubbed me up the wrong way as I never really enjoyed her presence on screen as I perhaps should have done.  Also as mentioned earlier, the scene between Wolverine and the ninja clan near the end is just about as disappointing as the entire Michael Bay Transformers movie franchise (at least albeit without horrible sexualisation of women and wholly awful special effects).

But discounting this, the film on the whole is actually pretty damn good.  It might not have the same level of maturity and historical reference in the plot as in X-Men: First Class or the same level of epic gravitas in the action as in X-Men: The Last Stand but at the very least, the action is most certainly the crowning glory of the film (especially the ball-grabingly awesome train fight scene) with its excellent juxtaposing while the plot is pleasantly easy to follow while including some twists at the end and after the credits (seriously, by now it should be a given that everyone stays after the credits at a Marvel comics film) that genuinely made me feel like doing a dramatic turn like I'm a character out of the American soap The Bold and the Beautiful (1987-present).

So in conclusion, I definitely think that this film, much like First Class before it, shows that the X-Men film franchise is most certainly heading in the right direction after the debacles of X-Men, X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (I know that many dislike X2 but bite me, I like it and I care less than I do about The Bold and the Beautiful).  The action is well-paced with great juxtaposition which also applies to the plot which is as pleasantly simple yet enjoyable as a foot-long meatball sub sandwich with cheese and the twists at the end just at chocolate frosting that is the indulgent crème caramel that The Wolverine is. I will say one perhaps dark and prophetic last point though, is there much room for the franchise left to go?  Because that seems increasingly the question on my mind.

Ratings:

Plot: 7/10
Characters: 8/10
Action: 9/10
Overall rating: 24/30

New film review #7: Man of Steel

The more a franchise has been around the more we grow nostalgically attached to it whatever medium format it may be in.  Personally, I am nostalgic towards game franchises like Battlefield and Jak & Daxter, book series' like The Horus Heresy and Alex Ryder, comic/manga series' like Spider Man or Love Hina and movie franchises such as Rush Hour and Mission Impossible.  The reason why I am bringing this up is that the movie that is the subject of today's film review is part of an undeniably long and popular franchise that stretches way back to the inter-war era between the end of World War 1 and the start of World War 2 (1918-1939).  If a franchise has been around for longer and therefore possibly rooted itself more strongly in popular media and culture then there is the very strong likelihood that it will be more recognisable to those who see works attributed to the source material and adaptations of such works.  Case in point, the recent (and hopefully strong in the far future) reboot of the superman movie franchise in the form of the reasonably well-acclaimed Man of Steel directed by Zack Snyder.

Now as with any franchise that has been around as long as it has, the superman franchise has faced its fair share of both damn fine moments (e.g. Superman (1978) and Superman 2 (1980) and the original comics from the 30's and 40's) and moments that have tarnished this franchise with a shit-covered paintbrush made out of odd and poor decisions and executions (e.g. Superman 4 the quest for peace (1987) and Superman Returns (2006)).  Some could argue that this recent reboot which sees the aptly named 'man of steel' face off against the legendary superman villain General Zod many decades after the death of his home-planet Krypton has given some much-needed boost to the image of not just the superman franchise but also the superman character himself after the debacle of the movies brought out in 1987 and 2006.  But do I think this film is as great and much-needed as others do?  On one hand I definitely think that this film is much-needed as the superman franchise was in desperate need of some boosting after the 2006 reboot but on the other hand I may not see it in as positive a light as others may do so.  This isn't to say that Man of Steel is a bad film however, oh no indeed, in fact its actually quite good particularly in regards to the action, the exposition by Russel Crowe  as Superman's real dad (Jor-El), the aforementioned directing by Zack Snyder and the portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent/Kal-El himself by Henry Cavill.

Anyway, enough with my own exposition, lets get down to the plot which coincidentally is really anything that you'd be forgiven for taking for granted from the source material.  When Superman is a little mite being born out into the world of Krypton it is revealed to us that while he is the first newborn in centuries of Kryptonian history, his monumental birth is marred by the fact that the planet is on the verge of collapse due to the fact that the natural resources are so depleted that the structural integrity of Krypton is wavering.  As Superman's father Jor-El tries and fails to persuade the typically-ridiculously-over-dressed high council of Krypton to find more economical methods of powering Kryprton's energy systems and technology, General Zod (played by Michael Shannon) of the Kryptonian military stages a coup to deal with the council's indecision and find a solution to Krypton's energy crisis pronto.  This coup fails and Zod is thrown in an awesome-looking cryo-tech jail for several decades along with his personal guard while Jor-El is killed by Zod but not before implanting the Codex of Krypton ( the genetic coding of the entire Kryptonian species) within lil' baby superman and shooting him off in a space pod towards earth days before Krypton explodes from sheer instability.  As Superman is discovered on earth by Johnothan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane respectively) he grows up into a world where he must use his rapidly developing super powers sparingly or else alienate (ba-dum-tish) himself from the population of earth but where he must use them increasingly as he goes on in life and crosses more and more dangerous situations like holding up a falling oil rig that's on fire (y'know, the kind of stuff we all help out with normally).  This in itself reaches its peak as General Zod finally discovers where Superman has been all these years and aims to track him and the codex down in order to rebuild Krypton regardless of the damage he causes along the way which brings him into conflict with Superman over the fate of the human race.

Now if that doesn't in itself raise some important questions about morality, what we should prioritise first and the importance of re-usable energy sources in a world where fossil fuels are running out fast then I don't know what does (except half of the major blockbusters of the last 13 years such as The Last Samurai (2003) or Avatar (2009)).  Regardless, the matter of re-usable energy is put across surprisingly effectively in the first 10 mins while the rest of the film is taken up by the conflict between Superman and Zod about what is a greater priority between the preservation of the population that already inhabits earth or the creation of a new Krypton through the destruction of humanity.   And much like the morals being explored in this film as well as the plot, the rest of the film is also relatively straightforward and simple allowing for the audience to be easily drawn in and subsequently understand what the film and its individual characters are trying to convey to us through action, speech and expression.  particularly relevant to this aspect is the central argument and conflict between Cavill's Superman and Shannon's Zod.

This is a bad thing in some films where the characters need an ample amount of character development but there is not enough of a complicated or complex plot to base this progress off of (e.g. see The Losers (2010) or Rambo III (1988)).  However, given the fact that Superman is a characteristically straightforward fellow this actually works not too bad in Man of Steel as Superman's aim is to simply stop Zod from killing everyone on planet earth.  Accompanying this simple expression of conflict and telling of Superman's back-story we also have fight scenes that are strikingly different in the sense that they cover a sprawling amount of destruction caused by the clashes between Zod's forces on one side and the combined might of Superman and the US national guard and air force on the other on both small and huge industrial and urban areas in which the hectic nature of Superman's struggle to preserve American lives while also fending off the equally strong attacks of Zod's lieutenants is shown.  Particularly this is shown as Superman begins to realise that while he is singularly outnumbered and out-trained by Zod's forces, he has a moral superiority over the bad guys and couples this with a greater capability to focus his powers and senses in order to gain advantages in one-on-one fights with Zod's troops.  This aspect of the action in itself is given considerable time throughout the film and is used as both an expression of Superman's connection with both his dead/real parents and his adopted ones and his right to power on account of being the only live Kryptonian who won't do evil with his powers unlike Zod and his troops.  Therefore, some aspects of the action not only serve to grip us to our seats and squeeze our cups of icy lemonade in anticipation but also serve to convey a limited albeit compelling sense of character development in Cavill's adeptly-played role. furthermore on top of all this good stuff, the comedy of Man of Steel is well-placed and not over-used throughout the film unlike in Superman IV: the quest for peace where comedy was the soup of the day and was done so disconnected and poorly that it made Superman IV feel like a drunken dane cook sketch which only made the film worse than it already was (not taking into account the awful special effects and the bizarre villain Nuclear man).  On top of the great action scenes and the well-placed humour, Zack Snyder also treats us to some truly beautiful cinematic scenes of destruction in the form of the death of Krypton at the beginning of the film and the destruction wrought on the fictional American city of metropolis near the end of the film by Zod's terraforming machine during his final gambit to turn Earth into Krypton.

However, taking this all into account and respecting the hard work of Snyder, Cavill and the marvellous exposition by Crowe not to mention the commendable visuals throughout the film, there are some aspects of Man of Steel  that just stuck out a little too uncomfortably for me like the spotty sun-rashes that I got on my feet during my holiday to Greece.  The highest point on this particular list is the fact that the film itself is so simple and straightforward that while the raising of the ethical points I mentioned earlier are done compellingly, they did not have the fullest impact on my views on the subjects of recyclable fuel and prioritisation of pressing issues according to either a conservative or ideological mindset.  Furthermore, despite the visual beauty of the destruction wrought throughout the film, the possibility of thousands of deaths isn't addressed after the battle is won and remained a niggling issue in the back of my head for a while afterwards, something that is particularly the case when metropolis gets the shit kicked out of it by Zod's terraforming machine.  Subsequently, the bad guys are not all that threatening despite their clearly superior numbers and training in comparison to Superman.  Shannon tries his best to make General Zod appear in a perpetual state of anger and misplaced hope throughout the film but instead makes Zod look and sound a little like he's eaten a dozen boiled eggs and half a dozen meatball subs with three bags of toffees and is now having constipation problems while the lieutenants of Zod's forces seem like they went to the Kristen Stewart school of acting.  Lastly, it doesn't take very much for the US military to ally itself with Superman near the climax of the film despite the fact that the US military feared him throughout the majority of the film for the possible destruction he could and does end up causing.

So all in all this film is good but flawed.  Like I said earlier, its good but has some technical flaws and some changes in certain characters just happen way too easily, not to mention the actors who play the main characters don't seem like they care much while Shannon seems like he took acting coaching from the legendarily over-the-top Jeremy Irons (see the first Dungeons and Dragons movie).  However, I would still recommend this film as it stands out from most other modern remakes as being quite good and has admittedly injected the superman movie franchise with some much-needed life after the wet farts that were Superman IV and Superman Returns.  

In conclusion: see this movie if you like superhero films (particularly Superman), good action scenes and Amy Adams dashing good-looks but beware of some hammy acting and lack of a real rounding-up to the 'moral of the story'.

P.S. I'm going away to Whales next week so I'm going to do another 3 posts over the weekend, hope to see you lot soon!

New film review #6: Iron Man 3

You know what I abseloutley despise with all my black heart about popular film franchises?   That's right...sequels that get gradually worse and worse as the series gets longer and its popularity becomes far bigger (turn that into a euthanism and I'll force you into a tag-team wrestling match against Hulk Hogan and The Rock with Justin Beiber as your partner).  Now this is apparent with many series's and has always been the case with movie series' that have a cult following and/or grand armee' of fans such as the Die Hard, Star Wars and Twilight series's (admittedly the Twilight series has always been as good-quality as a skyscraper made out of PVC glue and rotten, sodden garlic baguettes).  But if there is anything I hate more than this, it is a movie that has been hyped up for so long like a heavily-baked poo and then proves to be so disappointing because of one or two major features that the cons of said film largely overshadow those good factors that, by all rights, should be shining through.

Case in point, Iron Man 3.  Now I feel really bad giving this film a load of shtick but the thing is that it deserves it.  I feel really bad for doing it because there are allot of talented people involved in the making of this film such as the legendary Robert Downey JR playing the dual part of Iron Man and Tony Stark.  Furthermore, when I initially came out of the cinema after having watched this film  I thought it was really good, so good in fact that I initially believed it to be even better than Iron Man 2.  However, a week later and with notable hindsight knowledge and thought it is pretty clear to me now that this film is;  A - Not as good as Iron Man 2, B - really quite disappointing and C - So bad in particular regards that all the good things in this film are largely overshadowed.

Now before I get into this dissapointment-flavoured smoothie I must explain the plot.  Following off from the events of the much-acclaimed Avengers Assemble, we find that the much-loved business man Tony Stark (Robert Downey JR) who leads a public double life as the technology-enhanced super hero Iron Man is leading a relatively common life (as common as the life of an extremely eccentric multi-millionaire can be) but is constantly being plagued by anxiety attacks on account of the tremendous battering and alien attacks he had to take on in Avengers Assemble.  As if that isn't bad enough however, it seems that there are a wave of bomb attacks wrecking the USA and Tony is the only one who can tackle the problem but just as he is about to attempt this while at the same time trying to keep his relationship with his girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) on track his house is bombed to dust.  And as if to make matters worse, Tony is separated from the one person he loves and is hundreds of miles away with a prototype Iron Man suit that doesn't work and still has to conduct his investigation while at the same time being attacked by a force of super-soldier assassins that have been injected with a revolutionary serum called Extremis.  On top of this, he also has to hunt down a known-terrorist called the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who is supposedly carrying out these raids and is supported by a shady weapons company and also find out what the bad guy's plot is and how it involves the president of the United States of America. Thus begins Tony Stark's (aka Iron Man's) adventure of self-reliance, self-discovery and stupid plot holes.

Now taking that into account it could be said that this sounds like an action-packed plot but that is where Iron Man 3 stumbles greatly.  Even taking into account the 2 hours and 10 minutes running time of the film (probably half an hour more if you have to sit through all those forsaken adverts at the cinema), the plot and all the aforementioned action-packed events and sub-plots blasting around Downey's anxiety-riddled millionaire are oddly cramped and feel rushed despite the films' hefty running time.  Perhaps it isn't the running time however but rather the sheer Ribena-gargling, toilet-flushing, eye-bursting, brain-achingly large number of plots, side-plots and sub-plots that are chaotically mixing all together.  And this is the aforementioned area where Iron Man 3 lets itself down in such a substantial way that it overshadows all the good bits and bobs about the rest of the film.  I mean come the bloody hell on man!  How confusing do you have to make things look when your film is a comic book film about an eccentric American who flies around in robot suits fighting cartoony bad guys?  I mean come on!  The first two Iron Man films were pretty much about the same self-discovery Tony Stark has to take (albeit on increasingly dangerous and important levels) in his battle against anxiety, self-arrogance and said cartoonishly-whacky baddies, and they were so easy to follow!  This film makes the 1999 disastrously-bad Ukrainian war/history/adventure film With Fire and Sword look as simple as an episode of Thomas the Tank-engine.

Now that is the film's main weakness but there are others which are so jarring they make my piss turn solid with hatred and exasperation.  The most eye-rollingly, disappointingly obvious one is how the main villain besides the evil Mandarin is revealed...in the first 15 minutes just by his attitude.  HOLY SHIT.  That is pretty freaking bad.  But taking this into account, there was also another weakness in the film that jarred against me even more.  Now I'm just going to point this out as plainly as I can but for the rest of this paragraph I must issue A SPOILER WARNING!  Now as we reach the film's climax, Tony claims that he wants to live a normal life with his under-emphasised girlfriend Pepper and has the shrapnel that has been embedded in his chest since the first Iron Man by a rocket blast removed through surgery so that he does not  have to have the little blue power generator in his chest preventing the shrapnel entering his heart.  ....WHY...DIDN'T...HE...DO...THAT...IN...THE...FIRST...PLACE!!?!?!??!?.  I mean seriously?  That shrapnel could've killed the guy and the Iron Man suit works just fine in the Marvel comics without it!  Furthermore, in the second Iron Man, the generator in Tony's chest is killing him paradoxically slowly, thus, removing the shrapnel from his chest and the generator in turn so late in the series just makes all the emotional drama and gravitas of Tony having said generator in his chest in the past two films TOTALLY POINTLESS! And as if to add kick to the balls to punch in the teeth, the way in which you see the Extremis soldiers being killed is really incoherent as one minute you seem them taking petrol-station explosions and gunshots and being totally fine while the next minute they're being taken out by the same ordinary guns and Iron Man's puny repulsor rays.  Yeah look, I personally think the Silver Surfer is more powerful and he's infused with the power of the cosmos, not relying on a robot suit that is prone to malfunction.

Now as I said before, I think there are some good parts to this film and I feel bad therefore for having railed on the film as a whole in such a manner.  First off, the idea that Tony has to basically fight back against the Extremis-enhanced assassins by just making up stuff and highly rudimentary gadgets as he goes along for most of the film gives the self-discovery side of the film great gravitas and suspense.  Secondly, the models of Iron Man suits that appear in this film are so varied and glorious in all their splendour and kick-assery that you feel like a 5-year old let loose in the pic 'n' mix isle at Sainsbury's.  Furthermore, the action despite all the confused plots about Extremis, Tony's completely token and run-of-the-mill evil ex-girlfriend and the cons of Americanised versions of non-American cultures is very well filmed and is something that director and screenplay-writer Shane Black can truly be proud of.

In conclusion, I would maybe recommend this film if you are a big fan of the Marvel films, particularly the Iron Man ones, so far but otherwise...nah.  It feels like a really big let-down just like all the other third or fourth sequels to series's that need a little extra boost or have simply run their course and that is where the film really fails.  Lots of people and critics have been stating that Iron Man 3 is better than the notably-debated Iron Man 2 but I would disagree with them.  Iron Man 3 is the Iron Man series's weak point by far and it shows particularly in the film's confusing plot and other cons blot out the action and character development all the actors and the good Mr Black have so clearly worked hard upon.

Summary: see this film if you really feel motivated but don't expect a re-tread of Iron Man.

Stay tuned and keep happy.

New Film Review #5: Avengers Assemble

Right first things first; it.  is. FUCKIN A. To be back.  I know I haven't done a review of anything in a really long time but I thought that a brilliant film such as Avengers Assemble (which by the way is better than any of the previous Marvel films) would be a good place to start over.  Ah yes, with this gem in superhero films I shall rise up again in the world of critiques like a sweary, Jewish, short-sighted, Justin Beiber-hating, crazed phoenix (admittedly that analogy sounds a bit poncy but hey, it's me so what do you expect?).

Anyhow lets start off like we used to with the shit first then ice cream second...oh don't look at me like that I haven't done this in a long time.  As with any film based off of a long running series of any kind or a legendary book, Avengers Assembled mucks up on a couple of things the most jarring of which for me was the fact that the Avengers team in the film is not the original one from the comics which was made up of the Hulk, Iron-man, Thor, Ant-man and The Wasp.  the other main kick in the shin for me was how often the main villain Loki (who is Thor's half-brother and the Norse god of mischief for any of you who need to watch more superhero films) changes his appearance from the magnificently sparkly and fabulous (with a big emphasis on "fabulous") cloak and helmet that he wore in Thor to some black-as-pitch long-coat that makes Loki look like a slightly emo and rapey version of Rick Astley.

But putting all that to one side I have to say that this film is an abseloute cracker; it's far better than any of the previous films by Marvel studios (especially the disastrous Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer) and includes some of the best actors in the modern world of acting as some of my favourite heroes and even includes some surprisingly good knee-jerk comedy.  The acting in particular is very very good indeed, not necessarily because the actors themselves are any good (although Samuel Jackson is always acting LIKE A BOSS) but because they are acting in that cheesy I-am-going-to-state-the-obvious-then-act-all-serious-'n'-shit way that characters behave in the actual comics and not like a bunch of talentless look-alikes like in Blade 3 (not to diss Wesley Snipes because he too acts LIKE A BOSS).  In any sort of film that kind off approach to acting and playing out your character as an actor would make you look like you'd just sniffed a grand worth of PVC glue but in a superhero film with such ridiculous characters (such as the Norse god of thunder and a man with a shield who wears a hideous costume and yet is the most serious character in the cast), a bombastic end-battle between 6 superheroes and an entire bleedin' army and combine that with a deliciously simple plot then you my friends have one hell of a superhero movie.

As for the aforementioned simplistic plot itself what more do you want?: Loki the Norse god of mischief and trickery (played brilliantly by Tom Hiddleston after his début appearance in the mediocre War Horse) steals the glowy-cube-thing that appears in Thor and uses it to garner a deal with an alien race (the schittari, hey I couldn't find a proper pronunciation of it okay?) in order to gain revenge on Earth by helping said alien race invade and crush humanity.  In a desperate effort to stop Loki the main force of good in the Marvel universe SHIELD (Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division), led by director Nick Fury (played LIKE A BOSS of course by Samuel Jackson) gathers together a poorly-coordinated, all round bad-tempered, frayed group of superheroes to combat this threat to the continued existence of the planet.  Naturally, hearing about a film like that which has had not as much preparation as Avengers Assembled has would make me feel sceptical but with said preparation in the form of an entire series of films you can't help but anticipate a film like this so much that my nostrils excrete pure liquid joy.

As for the action scenes, there could be more variety instead of a procession of superhero VS main bad guy and./or faceless army of third-rate henchmen and/or other members of the main heroes team in a series of forests, cities, towns and an airborne aircraft carrier...wait...that actually sounds like a feckin great variety!  Oh who am I kidding there really is nothing wrong with this film is there? (apart from the couple of snags I mentioned in the intro of course).  The action of course is the best part of the film with the different heroes using a multitude of abilities and even the weapons of enemy henchmen against the baddies charging at them, of course those baddies mostly consist of henchmen who get messed up like a plate of lasagne in front of me but the film manages (in a surprisingly catch-you-unaware way) to convince you that the aforementioned henchmen are a serious threat.  This in turn is something that is embodied very well also by the main villain who we get to see is most definitely evil even with facing his half-brother in battle, this combined with how many henchmen Loki has at his command and the sheer ability and power he holds makes it very convincing that the main heroes are in for the fight of their lives.  Something that in turn I will guarantee make you root for them every step of the way.

The last thing I must touch upon before I get back to playing Medieval 2: Total War and crying over my lack of a love life is the acting.  Now I found many minor snags in this film in many areas (not like the ones mentioned in the intro which are for me, at least, major ones) but the factor of the film where I found the most number of minor problems was with the acting itself, yes I can hear you spitting at me already but just hear me out.  The acting is not necessarily all-round bad (especially with the likes of Robert Downey JR, Scarlett "DAT ass" Johansson and  Chris Hemsworth acting their handsome/beautiful asses off) but there are some incredibly generic close-up shots that make characters look like the most blank-slated bad-asses (occasionally) especially in the case of one particular face-shot in the final battle of Jeremy Renner (as the dude with the bow, Hawkeye) that makes him look like the biggeest douche bag this side of Jersey Shore.

Regardless of that it is very hard for me to fault this film;  the films leading up to this one have been good, the action is good, the directing and producing is marvellous, the acting is holed in areas but nonetheless highly admirable, the plot is simple and yet brilliant (like an ice cold can of Vimto on a sunny day) and the special effects in some places are truly breathtaking.  Chances are that many of you who read this will have already seen the film but for those of you who haven't seen it, even if you don't like action/hero movies and/or the Marvel comics themselves I would highly recommend this with one hand on my heart and another on a copy of the Secret Invasion anthology.  So yeah...go see it and again, it's actually kind of nice to be back.