Month: April 2013

Starring: Robert Downey Jr (Tropic Thunder), Gwyneth Paltrow (Se7en), Guy Pearce (Memento), Don Cheadle (The Guard), Rebecca Hall (The Town), Ben Kingsley (Gandhi)

Director: Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang)

Writer: Drew Pearce & Shane Black

Runtime: 2 hours 10 minutes

Release Date: 25 April (UK), 3 May (US)

 

It’s hard to imagine that only a few mere years ago, Iron Man was considered just a B-list superhero and Robert Downey Jr was a washed-up actor. Now, one stands amongst the most famous and popular of them all, and the other is one of Hollywood’s most desirable and well-paid actors. After the game-changing first film, the good-but-not-great sequel and the mega-smash that was The Avengers, where could the adventures of Tony Stark possibly go next? Well, Iron Man 3 is upon us and it answers that question in the most satisfying way anyone could possibly imagine.

By now, the superhero movie formula is pretty well-established, and is one that even the best of its genre follows to a T. Iron Man 3 eschews all of that and goes in a completely different direction, veering more into the territory of an espionage thriller than a sci-fi blockbuster. Whilst the grand stakes are smaller than those found in The Avengers, the emotional stakes are much higher and equal out to a payoff that is just as emotionally satisfying. Whilst The Avengers was mostly an excuse to smash a bunch of superheroes together (and it did so in perfect fashion), Iron Man 3 is much more of a character piece, delving much deeper into the character of Tony Stark and focusing more on his emotional journey than him trying to save the world again. Despite spending a fair majority of the film out of the suit, the film remains an absolute joy to watch; a testament to how endearing the character of Stark is that we can enjoy him taking out bad guys using his smarts rather than just his gadgets. The main aspect we have to thank for all of this is the fantastic script; anyone who knows Shane Black knows that he has a knack for witty dialogue, a skill that is perfectly tailored to Downey’s portrayal of Ol’ Shellhead. He and Drew Pearce have crafted a story that full of great character moments and witty banter, but have also managed to provide something that the first two films seriously lacked: a truly kick-ass climactic showdown full of all the thrills you want out of a summer blockbuster. Top it all off with pacing that never lets up, a satisfying wrap-up on both a story and character level and a brilliant post-credits scene (c’mon, you knew one was coming), and you’ve got everything you could possibly want from an Iron Man movie. If this is the last solo Iron Man movie ever made, it is a great place for them to call it quits. They’ll probably keep making more of them, but I would not be sad if this is the last we ever see of Mr. Anthony Stark.

The role of Iron Man is one that Downey has to credit for resurrecting his career, and he continues to bring his A-game as always. Everything that comes out of his mouth is pure gold and you can never take your eyes off him. But his performance has been greatly improved by some sense of subtlety. Many, including myself, found the way Stark was portrayed in Iron Man 2 as so OTT that he started to become obnoxious. That has thankfully been “ironed out” (get it?) and we have a protagonist that we can attach ourselves to emotionally as well as laugh with. Returning players Paltrow and Cheadle get their moments to shine too, providing solid chemistry with Downey and getting to kick some ass as well. The new blood to the franchise is also very welcome. Pearce’s villain is genuinely threatening and an equal match for Stark in more ways than one, and much closer to how Hector Hammond should have been played in Green Lantern. Rebecca Hall, whilst not getting the most screen time, does well with what little she has. But the stand-out here has to be Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin. His portrayal of Iron Man’s comic book nemesis is one of the most surprising and inspired characters to grace the superhero movie in years and steals every scene he is in. Whilst some nerds may call it disrespectful to the source material, I’d call it absolute genius. Seriously, not even the most fanatic of comic book fans will see this coming.

On a technical level, Iron Man 3 also knocks it out of the park. The action scenes on display here are very creative and a joy to watch, most notably the much-publicized freefall sequence. The cinematography here is also near-flawless and the editing compliments it well to make a cohesively enjoyable visual experience. All of that and a cracking score that evokes classic spy films, and you’ve got the technical perfection to enhance an already great film.

Some may find the following statement to be hyperbolic and overenthusiastic, but f*** it: Iron Man 3 could quite possibly be not only the best Iron Man film, not only the best film Marvel has put out so far, but may even be the greatest superhero film ever constructed. After The Avengers increased all expectations of the genre, this film somehow managed to top the spectacle of seeing all these heroes fighting together by focusing on what is truly important: just telling a good story with interesting characters. Iron Man 3 accomplishes on many levels what The Dark Knight Rises tried to do and ultimately fell short of; it tops its predecessors by not actively trying to, and focuses on what actually makes these movies so great in the first place and lets all the spectacle flow out of that instead. Shane Black has finally proven himself as a big budget director, and I expect him to be suddenly getting a lot of work after this. If Iron Man 3 does not end up being in my top ten films of the year, it will have been a bloody amazing year for cinema.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 10/10!

Starring: Jane Levy (Fun Size), Shiloh Fernandez (Red Riding Hood), Jessica Lucas (Cloverfield), Lou Taylor Pucci (Carriers), Elizabeth Blackmore

Director: Fede Alvarez

Writer: Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues

Runtime: 1 hour 31 minutes

Release Date: 5 April (US), 18 April (UK)

 

I have to start this review by stating that I am a huge fan of the original Evil Dead trilogy. The Evil Dead was one of the defining horror movies of its era, jumpstarting the career of the legendary Sam Raimi. Evil Dead II is the film that all horror-comedies should be compared to (and is one of my all-time favourite movies). Army of Darkness, whilst losing its focus on the horror and becoming more of a fantasy film, is still immensely enjoyable and is easily one of the most quotable movies in existence. The idea of remaking such a horror classic is a worrying thing, especially given the track record of horror remakes in recent years. Does Evil Dead (no The this time) break the mould, or should you just watch the original instead?

On the most basic levels, this follows the premise of the original film in several key areas. However, the details have all been changed. Whilst some would call this sacrilegious, I’m glad the film isn’t just a retread of what we’ve already seen. The idea that they are there to help one of them get over a drug problem is an interesting aspect of the story, at first calling into question whether this is all just in Mia (Levy)’s head whilst also giving another reason why they don’t leave at the first sign of trouble. The problems really set in with the execution of it. After a gorily fun but ultimately pretty pointless prologue (that I can only guess is here so something horrifying happens at the beginning), the film takes a long time getting to the meat of the movie. This would be more acceptable if this time was spent getting to know the characters, but we don’t. With the exception of Mia, we get about five minutes to get to know the characters, and then most of them don’t really develop beyond that. I get that the characters in the original were hardly the most developed and interesting group of people, but times have changed; you can’t get away with having just basic cardboard-cut-out stereotypes and then expect me to care. This could have been saved if the dialogue was at least witty and memorable, but most of it just seems a bit stiff. The film seems so afraid of falling into camp that it just sucks all the humour out of the story and we are left with something that lacks a fully functional heart. The movie moves slowly at first in attempt to build tension, but spends so long doing so that it just becomes tedious. Once s*** starts to hit the fan, things peak up considerably but again it takes itself so seriously and tries to convince me to care when the film hasn’t earned it. Despite some great moments spread across the film, it doesn’t keep up the momentum enough to stay constantly enjoyable once the gore starts literally flowing. For all us Evil Dead aficionados out there, there are many references to all three films, and thankfully they never feel too forced. Oh, and there is something for the fans after the credits but it so short and unsatisfying you might as well not bother.

The acting in the original The Evil Dead was hardly anything to rave about; even the great Bruce Campbell had yet to truly develop his shtick at that point. The cast here is similarly serviceable for the most part, but Jane Levy is the standout here. She was the only one who actually seems to having some fun whilst also putting her all into every aspect of a character that is only who actually has any dimension. Whether she’s a stressed-out drug addict, a possessed b**** with serious schizo tendencies or a demon-fighting badass, she wades through the material and truly stands out. No one else even comes close to delivering a performance as good as Levy, and for the most part are just there to be attacked by demons or become them. Fernandez does the best he can with the material, but the character of David (who constantly, even in the most bizarre and dire of situations, always says “There’s got to be a logical explanation to all this!”) makes so many questionable decisions that you know it can’t end well for him. Pucci’s Eric is similarly afflicted with dumbass syndrome, not bothering to tell anyone that what is happening is detailed in The Book of the Dead until it is far too late to be of use. Lucas and Blackmore are pretty much pointless to the plot, but do get some standout gore moments that make their presence worth it in the end.

The main selling point Evil Dead has been touting has been the gore, and it does not disappoint at all on this front. This isn’t some pussyfied PG-13 nonsense; this is the real deal. It’s bloody, it’s disgusting and, best of all, it’s all done practically. This is how horror movies used to be done and should be done on a spectacle level, and several moments (even ones similar to scenes from the originals) had me wincing. Scenes from the originals, such as the possessed hand and the infamous tree scene, have received new touch-ups that are suitably gut wrenching. All of this gore, combined with some killer sound design, makes for a technical display that literally nails it. Raimi is known for his inventive cinematography, and whilst the film does well at imitating that style, it still didn’t feel right. I think this is because the film was shot digitally; considering they’re going old-school on pretty much else, I think it would have made more sense if it had been shot on film.

The Evil Dead remake is a bit of a mixed bag. Whilst the effects are spot-on and Levy gives a performance that could define her career, the film never quite nails what made the originals such classics. It is still worth a watch for both Evil Dead fans and fans of horror in general, and is one of the better remakes out there. Hopefully, it will gain enough traction to get newcomers to the franchise to check out the originals. Talk of a sequel is already underway and, despite my issues with this first attempt, I’m interested to see what they do with it. But if anyone over at Tri Star or Ghost House is reading this (which they’re probably not, but hey can’t say I didn’t try) here’s my one big note to you: get some new writers. Alvarez definitely has potential as a director, but as a writer he is lacking. Let him stay on to direct, but get someone else to come in and pen the screenplay. Maybe then we’ll get a movie worthy of the cult status of the originals.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 6.5/10

Starring: Gerard Butler (300), Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), Rick Yune (Die Another Day)

Director: Antoine Fuqua (Training Day)

Writer: Creighton Rothenberger & Katrin Benedikt

Runtime: 2 hours

Release Date: March 22 (US), April 17 (UK)

 

Olympus Has Fallen is the first of two films being released this year concerning an attack on the White House; the latter being Roland Emmerich’s White House Down. Whilst we won’t know the verdict on that one for another few months, what about this first effort?

Many have summed up the film as  “Die Hard in the White House”, and they’re not lying. The tone, the characters, even certain scenes feel they’ve been taken straight out of the John McTiernan classic. That and Air Force One. Whilst I can accept these similarities, it would be easier to if the film didn’t take itself so seriously. The film is so patriotic and jingoistic, it would make Michael Bay blush. After a decent opening sequence, the film then takes way too long to get going with the main plot and doesn’t spend nearly enough time with Banning (Butler) as we should be for a protagonist. Once Banning gets inside the White House, things begin to pick up but constantly stall as we keep cutting back to people sitting in rooms talking about what they should be doing. The film lacks any personality and doesn’t give enough depth or emotion such a critical event. When you resort to introducing characters by having their names pop up on screen so we know who’s who, you have officially failed as a storyteller. And when the film finally reaches its finale, it borders on completely anti-climactic. There’s really not all that much to say about the plot of Olympus Has Fallen. It’s so bland and generic that I’m starting to forget what I saw just mere hours ago.

After a long string of terrible romantic comedies, Gerard Butler has returned to the action genre where he truly belongs. And I never thought I’d say this but it is true: he single-handedly saves this movie from being completely unwatchable. Butler is the only actor who plays the movie like it should be: witty and self-deprecating. He often channels Bruce Willis’ performance in Die Hard, but makes it his own and delivers some pretty decent one-liners (“Let’s play a game of go f*** yourself. You go first.”). But he also manages to bring the drama when required, as demonstrated in an excellent phone call scene between him and his wife (played by a mostly pointless Radha Mitchell). But as said before, he has nowhere near enough screen time. Everyone else in the movie is either under-acting or over-acting. Aaron Eckhart feels as though he should be doing more than he actually is, Rick Yune gets to look smug and evil a lot (which he isn’t bad at) but not much else, Morgan Freeman looks bored as if he shot all his scenes whilst on lunch break from shooting Oblivion, Melissa Leo does nothing but serve as a human punching bag, the list goes on and on. For a film that centres on such a massive event and with such high stakes, I just don’t give a s*** about anyone but Gerard Butler.

But even with a cookie-cutter script and mostly bland performances, Olympus Has Fallen’s main failings come on the technical spectrum. Every single bad trope you find in modern action movies is here. Shaky-cam? Check. Choppy editing? Check? Extreme close-ups? Check? Most actions scenes taking place in poorly lit areas? Double check. What action is comprehensible looks pretty decent, but most of the time I was just left squinting and wondering what just happened. Combine that with an overdramatic score and visual effects that look average at best and downright terrible at worst, and you’ve got yourself one big clusterf*** of technical issues.

Whilst marginally better than A Good Day to Die Hard (mainly because it doesn’t have a reputation to keep up), Olympus Has Fallen is still a generic and often boring action picture. Only Gerard Butler makes the movie watchable, and if a lesser actor played this role the film would be absolutely awful. Considering the man is also a producer on this, Butler really needs to find a better action vehicle for himself but he has at least proved he still has the chops for this kind of movie. Even so, I’d rather he continue doing trash like this than see him in another movie with Katherine Heigl.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 3/10

Starring: Tom Cruise (Collateral), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace), Andrea Riseborough (Welcome to the Punch), Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

 

Director: Joseph Koskinski (Tron: Legacy)

 

Writers: Karl Gajdusek (Trespass) and Michael Debruyn

 

Runtime: 2 hours 6 minutes

 

Release Date: 10 April (UK), 19 April (US)

 

Oblivion tells the tale of Jack Harper (Cruise), a droid repairman working on a post-apocalyptic Earth. But things aren’t all as they seem as he gets thrown into an adventure that reveals the truth about the world and himself. Is Oblivion a new sci-fi classic, or is it much less intelligent than it suggests?

The film’s plot is well told and thought out. The world is interesting and has an original visual aesthetic of a dead Earth. The film is, at first at least, a slow-burner, bringing to mind more traditional sci-fi films like 2001. But by the third act, the film strays more into modern sci-fi tropes. By no means is this a bad thing; in fact, once the curtain had been pulled back on exactly what is going on I really got into the movie. There are enough twists in the movie for it to remain intriguing, though some are obvious even from the first few minutes if you’re paying attention. The film’s epilogue is a little confused and feels like there might have been some studio tampering there, but otherwise the plot makes sense, moves at a decent clip and remains entertaining throughout. The main problem with Oblivion is that it isn’t as original as it thinks it is. Whilst the film does tackle many of its sci-fi concepts in its own way, so many of them have been done before. Elements are clearly taken from several other sci-fi films such as Total Recall, Moon, WALL-E and Planet of the Apes (I’ll let you figure out what those elements are). There are some interesting new ideas that I found fascinating, but I can’t reveal them for spoilers sake. Eventually it got a bit tiring going “Oh, it’s like_______”, and I was hoping the film would have some new ideas beyond the visuals.

Tom Cruise still manages to keep going making blockbuster after blockbuster despite most men of his age either retiring to dramas or joining The Expendables. Love him or hate him, he always gets the job done and does exactly what you want from a protagonist. He doesn’t exactly go beyond the material he’s working with considering the archetypical nature of his character, but he works as a hero that has enough humanity to get behind his motivation. Morgan Freeman isn’t in the film as much as the marketing wants you to think he is, but he gives the performance you’d expect from him. Olga Kurylenko fares decently, but she lacks enough charisma for her to truly stand out for such a pivotal character. Andrea Riseborough gives the breakthrough performance here, bringing what could be such a typical character beyond the material and make her role as memorable as she possibly can. I can’t say much of Melissa Leo for fear of spoilers, but her Southern drawl got grating by the end of the film.

Whether you liked or loathed Tron: Legacy, I think we can all admit it looked beautiful. Director Joseph Koskinski brings that same visual eye to Oblivion, making a gorgeous looking picture out of a desolate landscape. The design of everything feels very slick and stark, blaringly standing out amongst the grimy setting of much of the film, though I will say that much of it would have felt more at home in a video game like Mass Effect or Portal. The cinematography is stupendous, the sound effects blisteringly rocky, and the visual effects are seamlessly integrated and feel much more natural than most blockbusters of this ilk. The film’s score is very reminiscent of Daft Punk’s score for Tron: Legacy, the tone of which definitely works here as well. Koskinski is obviously much more of a visual director than one of actors, but when everything he does looks this pretty it’s hard to complain.

In the end, Oblivion is a gorgeous piece of cinema that excels in the technical department, but falters in creating a truly original story. Despite some uncredited work from the great Michael Arndt (who will tackling sci-fi again soon with Star Wars Episode VII), the plot here just feels too much like an amalgam of other ideas. Well-executed and well-implemented ideas, but unoriginal ones nonetheless. I think this film will be as divisive as Tron: Legacy was but, as a defender of the aforementioned film, I think I sit on the positive end of the spectrum despite my complaints. Koskinski has a bright future in the film industry; he just needs to find a script that clicks to use as a sturdy foundation, and then use his visual imagination to build upon it.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 8/10

Starring: Nicholas Hoult (Warm Bodies), Eleanor Tomlinson (Alice in Wonderland), Ewan McGregor (Trainspotting), Bill Nighy (Love Actually), Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones), Ian McShane (Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides)

 

Director: Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects)

 

Writers: Darren Lemke (Shrek Forever After), Christopher McQuarrie (Jack Reacher) and Dan Studney

 

Runtime: 1 hour 54 minutes

 

Release Date: March 1 (US), March 22 (UK)

 

After a big delay in release from June 2012 to March 2013 and a slight title change, Bryan Singer’s epic retelling of Jack and the Beanstalk has arrived in theatres to little fanfare. Is this the John Carter of 2013 as some claim, or does this tale have more than meets the eye?

Let’s make this clear: Jack the Giant Slayer is not a serious, dark version of the story. Snow White & The Huntsman it ain’t. The film is more aptly compared to classic 80’s fantasy pics like The Princess Bride or Willow. While this light-hearted tone works for the most part, there are two major flaws to it that can cause some problems. Firstly, the film occasionally seems to edge a bit darker and off-tone with some gruesome (but often implied) deaths. Secondly, whilst the film’s attitude is good and fits the story, the humour is often lacking. They luckily never fall into the trap of trying to modernise things or insert pop culture references, but most of the jokes are obvious and played-out. Some manage to hit the mark, but most just fall flat and further adds to the somewhat confused tone. Story wise, this is a very classic hero’s journey plot, hitting every beat in the rhythm expected. That doesn’t make the movie bad, in fact the film is quite enjoyable for the most part, but the film lacks much surprise or innovation as everything plays out as expected. The film does pack some good action scenes in there of large scale, and also the characters are just defined and human enough for you to care even if they follow the archetypes to a T. Whilst things are somewhat spoiled by an unnecessary and baffling epilogue, Jack the Giant Slayer is never boring, never tiresome and its runtime flies by at a good pace.

The acting in the film is of good quality, though somewhat limited considering the material they are working with. Nicholas Hoult always makes a convincing and sympathetic protagonist, but the character of Jack lacks enough interesting character traits to root for him beyond the fact that he is the underdog and wants the princess. Eleanor Tomlinson plays this aforementioned royalty, and is equally effective despite playing a British version of Jasmine from Aladdin. Ewan McGregor is great in his supporting role, managing to be the only character who manages to go beyond his archetype and do some things differently. Stanley Tucci, whilst bordering on OTT for much of the film as the slimy advisor, at least looks like he’s having a lot of fun. Faring worse is Ewan Bremner as his toady sidekick, who is supposed to be annoying but is so to the point of tedium. Bill Nighy works as the Giant Leader and Ian McShane gets to have some fun wearing a silly costume, but again they lack enough definition to be truly memorable. Some more character depth could have really helped not only make these players stand out, but improve the quality of the film as a whole.

Jack the Giant Slayer is most impressive on a technical front; you can tell watching it that it cost a lot. Singer gives the film a very classic look and feel, very reminiscent of the adventure films of old. Whilst this can lead to the occasionally goofy costume or set, the film presents everything with so much confidence that you accept it. The cinematography shows off the look well, and also manages to avoid getting too close to the action. The special effects are of an extremely high standard and look great for the most part, but whenever we get into extreme close-ups on the giants they lose some of their magic. I admire the film for trying to create these creatures through CGI instead of using more old-fashioned trick photography, but the technology isn’t quite perfect yet.

In the end, Jack the Giant Slayer is a fun but severely flawed film. The film has just enough good stuff in it to be worth a watch, but perhaps another punch-up on the script and a much stricter and consistent tone could have helped the film stand out from the pack a bit more. I will say it is better than Singer’s last outing (the decent but forgettable WWII thriller Valkyrie), and I hope his return to the X-Men franchise with Days of Future Past next year will be much better return to form for the great director.

 

FINAL VERDICT: 6.5/10