A Review of June

Please click here for my summary of the cinematic month gone by. Courtesy of Studentbeans.com

The Incredible Hulk

Ed Norton is out to prove he is more than Ang Lee

DETAILS:
Released - 13 June 2008
Certificate - 12A
Running Time - 112min
Director -Louis Leterrier
Screenwriter - Zak Penn
Producers -Avi Arad, Kevin Feige, Gale Anne Hurd, Stan Lee
Cinematography - Peter Menzies Jr.
Editing - Rick Shaine and John Wright
Music - Craig Armstrong
Theatrical distributor - Universal
Country - USA

SYNOPSIS:
After a military scientific experiment goes wrong, Dr. Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is infected with gamma radiation and is classified a fugitive of the American government by order of General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross (William Hurt). After years of living secluded in trying to come to terms with his disease it is time for Bruce to come back into the open to find a cure for his Hulk symptoms. Whilst trying to meet with a scientist samaritan under the pseudonym Mr. Blue, Bruce has to deal with the pursuing armed forces, his love for the general’s daughter Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) whilst not forgetting the biggest threat of all; evil rogue marine Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), a megalomaniac who is determined to hunt him down.

REVIEW:
The story of the Hulk is a problematic narrative to translate to the big screen. It is extremely difficult to find a coherent balance between emotionally engaging characters and testosterone filled carnage. This problem does not concern the comic books as the narration of Bruce’s inner thoughts lets the emotion flow easily through both sides of Jekyll and Hyde to maintain one fluent plot. But without these soliloquies the darker side of Bruce cannot be as effectively portrayed in a more visual medium. The Hulk just becomes a big green piece of CGI, an angry Shrek or jolly green giant with a frown which is not as threatening. Such difficulties Ang Lee tried to avoid with an art house approach are just as present here. Once again the CGI takes the spotlight over the actual story. In an attempt to find a balance between a plot and bashing things a vague love interest makes us mildly care but ultimately the only way to end things is to introduce a bigger and meaner creature for Hulk to bash to bits.

Despite this, Louis Leterrier’s Hulk is a vast improvement on Ang Lee’s depiction which proved that art house cinema and blockbusters do not mix. In simple terms Hulk fans are into action and uninterested in art house whereas Ang Lee fans are generally not into blockbuster cinema. After marvel’s hiccup this time around the action film the fans wanted originally has arrived. A plot which puts Bruce Banner on the run adds more urgency and intensity to proceedings. The main problem with the original was that we were waiting too long for Bruce to realise that he was the Hulk and begin to turn into it. The initial wait is not as long this time around as Bruce’s transformation is summed up in an extremely brief opening montage that lasts the best part of a minute. This is all that was needed in the first place. Similarly an action director is integral to the film and who is better for the challenge than the Transporter 2’s Leterrier. What he has proved in places is that Bruce Banner does not necessarily have to be green for the action to take place. The first chase scene where Bruce runs from Marines over favela rooftops is derivative of Paul Greengrass’ Bourne franchise and almost as heart pounding. Plot tools include a pulse monitoring watch which enhances the tension. Also a humorous reference to where his purple stretchy pants came from shows how Leterrier has the fans best interests at heart.

Ed Norton is the perfect casting for the role. He has proved in the past that he can play a calm collective and likeable character with the ability to switch on a convincing rage driven monster particularly in his Oscar nominated role as murderer Aaron Stampler in Primal Fear. Although here there is not much for him to do except run and look scared. He has done what he has been told perfectly but he is unable to explore his vast talent. Also Roth just has to look mean, but he is the right person to play a psycho.

As Marvel enters its second phase of dominating the comic book cinematic market more critically established actors are taking on the Superhero limelight which is beginning to add a certain integrity to this genre. But is this also a step backwards that means in order to get noticed more such actors are turning down better less blockbuster type roles? Ultimately superhero movie characters are caricatures and nothing more. At the end of the incredible hulk another reference is made to the Avengers project as Tony Stark cameos at the end. Here we are reminded how Marvel are going mental in the future with a vast amount of further releases. Hopefully the quality will not slip through their fingers as they become overloaded with too many projects to handle. In the Avengers will too many chefs spoil the broth? Only time will tell.

TO SUM UP:
Overall the Hulk is a far better film than Ang Lee’s initial attempt. Having said that it suffers from the same problems, the intense action and emotional side story do not seem to gel well together proving that the Hulk is best left in the comics.

Gone Baby Gone

are our memories of Ben Affleck's dire reputation

DETAILS:

Released - 9 May 2008

Certificate - 15

Running Time - 109min

Director -Ben Affleck

Screenwriter - Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard based on Dennis Lehane's novel

Producers -Sean Bailey, Alan Ladd Jr., Danton Rissner and Aaron Stockard
Cinematography - John Toll

Editing - William Goldenberg

Music - Harry Gregson-Williams
Theatrical distributor - Buena Vista

Country - USA

SYNOPSIS:

Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) is a streetwise freelance private investigator who lives with his wife Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan) in a less affluent area of Boston USA. One day Bea McCready (Amy Madigan) grandmother of a missing child asks for his services in the high profile case, which has been swept up by the media, due to his connections with the criminal underworld. Before long Kenzie unwittingly finds out who has captured the young four year old girl but an accident occurs during an exchange for money which leaves her dead. Months later when taking it upon himself to redeem himself with a similar case certain inaccuracies from his aide Det. Remy Bressant (Ed Harris) come to light which begin to unearth corruption possibly involving Capt. Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman) of the police department.

REVIEW:

Utter the name Ben Affleck and you are more inclined to remember endless wooden performances and a high profile relationship with Jennifer Lopez. With this in mind it is easy to forget that he is in fact an Oscar winning writer for his co-written script with Matt Damon for Good Will Hunting. Whilst Damon’s career has soared he is often regarded as the more untalented half of the relationship. With Good Will Hunting seen as his fluke big-break into Hollywood Affleck has now finally bounced back and proved his talent behind the camera. His directional debut has a real sense of atmosphere and identity. The location of Boston is a part of the film. Boston itself is a character. His camera ignores the more famous landmarks and captures the graffiti which tells its own story. Affleck has captured the essence of his old stomping ground. His camera shots accentuate a way of life for him growing up, particularly in the opening few minutes. This is far more interesting than another high profile director per say, directing the same story but missing out on Boston’s integrity to the film. Aside from his identity Affleck also shows his talent for creating a sense of a haunting atmosphere. With such delicate subject matter, Affleck’s darkness has a subtlety that is not too gruesome. His contrast between light and dark especially in one scene where Casey runs out into the daylight after a robbery in a dark smoky bar is very iconic. Also his contrast between music and silence shows his ability to flit between scenes of panic and scenes of solitude.

His decision to cast his brother in the lead role rather than himself is admirable. Casey has a certain quality and subtlety which lacks in Ben’s overacting. Casey feels more down to earth, his broken voice portrays a character with human qualities such as imperfection and vulnerability. His heartfelt voice over during shots over Boston in the films opening minutes certainly catch your attention. He also carries a sense of mystery around his characters. All this makes his parts likeable opposed to his smug brother. His face makes him look a lot younger than thirty-one which gives him a feeling of innocence, but he is able to switch on intensity and threatening qualities. By the end of the film his face looks more troubled, aged and experienced than the fresh faced tracksuit wearing character that started the film. His streetwise adolescent maturity into a hardened cop is certainly believable. His Boston accent is also a lot more natural than the cast of the Departed. His supporting cast also do what they do best. Ed Harris once again is an old and intense hardened cop. Freeman’s stern upright police chief is a part he has been cast for more than just his dramatic voice, especially when he gets angry.

As the film develops into unknown territory it seems to remember that it is primarily a crime thriller and conforms back to certain plot conventions. However Gone Baby Gone manages to stay clear of the simplistic story of good detective capturing evil kiddy capturer with a few tricks along the way. Casey’s decision at the end makes us question our own morals and the overall conclusion is rather open ended. Gone baby Gone has more to it than Alex Cross’ adventures as far as a standard missing persons crime thriller goes.

TO SUM UP:

Ben has the skill to direct Scorsese-esque identity and David Fincher type darkness but due to demands of conforming to the genre and Dennis Lehane’s novel he is unable to ultimately branch out into something different. However, there is definitely a future career for him in directing and his masterpiece will come, eventually.

A Review of May

Due to my exclusivity to StudentBeans, please Click Here to view my article

What Happens in Vegas

Should have stayed in Vegas

DETAILS:
Released - 9 May 2008
Certificate - 12A
Running Time - 98mins
Director -Tom Vaughan
Screenwriter - Dana Fox
Producers -Michael Aguilar, Dean Georgaris, Shawn Levy
Cinematography - Matthew F. Leonetti
Editing - Matt Friedman
Music - Christophe Beck
Theatrical distributor - 20th Century Fox
Country - USA




SYNOPSIS:
After being fired from his job, Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) decides to go on a trip to Vegas to forget about his troubles. Whilst there he bumps into Joy McNally (Cameron Diaz) who is also there to forget about her boyfriend who recently dumped her in front of all her friends. After a wild night of boozing and partying the couple wake up to find that in a alcohol fuelled act of idiocy they have married each other. But to confuse matters after Joy puts a quarter into a slot machine Jack pulls the lever to win $3 million. To resolve who is entitled to the money whilst applying for divorce a judge sentences the couple to live together for six months before he will let either party get their hands on the fortune.

REVIEW (My letter published in Sight and Sound magazine):
On a trip to my local cinema with a group of friends I was a tad unconvinced with a collective decision beyond my control to see What Happens in Vegas. But due to a more than positive review from Sight and Sound, the only publication to give every new film release a deep and thorough analysis without subduing to a brief star rating system, I kept my spirits high and ignored the various critical hounding I had read elsewhere.

Although one and a half hours later I was distraught that I had wasted the best part of five pounds on quite arguably the worst film of the year so far, let alone the summer. Obviously when I entered the screen I did not expect a film with any form of artistic license. But as a simple low key form of entertainment it failed on so many levels that it ruined our evening altogether.

What Davies’ review failed to address was the film’s sheer predictability. As soon as the characters were established you could see the awkward situations that would arise and subsequent happy ending a mile off. Also in no way was this 'chick-flick' fresh in its attempt to narrow the gap between male and female audiences. Jokes such as a couple living together disputing over a toilet seat is an observation that is overused in the genre. Davies was right to point out that this film will appeal to both sexes, but only in the sense that they will both agree in unison at the film’s lack of originality.

Aside from the obvious predictability it was simply a film I had great difficulty in empathising with. Never having visited Vegas myself or similarly being an extremely beautiful Hollywood A-lister with the confidence to drunkenly marry another one I still fail to see the film’s general engagement with mass audiences. All I saw was a pair of arrogant and image conscious former models playing themselves. As comic performers all they did was shout at each other and pull daft faces, which is a far cry from effective comic timing. As far as the sexual chemistry goes; if you want to see two people unashamed to reveal to audiences worldwide their sharply toned bodies which they constantly slave over to maintain, then go ahead.

What Happens in Vegas had the potential to question the drunken marriage culture in Vegas that has encompassed so many people including high profile celebrities, but in the end in just became a product of this cultural trend. Not a feel-good hit but a throwaway and mundane piece of tosh I hope Davies’ review was writhing with subtle sarcasm that I failed to pick upon.

Ben Lamb
Hull

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

There’s still some crack in the old whip yet

DETAILS:
Released - 22 May 2008
Certificate - 12A
Running Time - 122min
Director - Steven Spielberg
Screenwriter - David Koepp
Producers -George Lucas, Frank Marshall
Cinematography -Janusz Kaminski
Editing - Michael Kahn
Music - John Williams
Theatrical distributor - Paramount
Country - USA





SYNOPSIS:
Once again Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is in a race to retrieve an ancient historical artifact and prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. Although twenty years since his last adventure the Nazi’s have long since fallen and it is the Soviets lead by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) he must do battle against. To add insult to injury the threat is a little closer to home. During the height of the cold war McCarthyism is rife and the FBI has forced Marshall College to fire Indy due to his suspicious adventuring. With nothing to lose he agrees helps to help teenager Mutt (Shia LaBeouf) help rescue his captured mother Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) and follow a map in his possession which leads to the Crystal Skull of Akator and possibly the ancient city of El Dorado. Teamed with his sidekicks Professor 'Ox' (John Hurt) and the questionable Mac (Ray Winstone) the adventurer must solve clues and beat the Soviets to obtaining the biggest archeological find in history.


REVIEW:
In recent years I have failed to see the point in exhuming expired 80’s icons. Other than making a bit of money the filmmakers put a dent in the franchise’s legacy and severely disappoint the fans. Through their various faults these money grabbing sequels remind the audiences what made the originals so great in the first place. The trend started in 2003 with the exhumation of Terminator 3, followed by Die Hard 4.0 before pensioner Sylvester Stallone soon followed suit. Due to this increasing trend I shudder at the thought of Beverly Hills Cop 4 which has been green-lighted. However I always had more hope in the new Indiana Jones film. Spielberg and Lucas have had the project in development for almost a decade. Rejecting several scripts from several established Hollywood scriptwriters including Frank Darabont, Spielberg pledged that he would only make another Indiana Jones film that was in the fans best interests. Spielberg certainly has a love for cinema and would not return to Indiana primarily for the money but to do what he enjoys best which is certainly promising. With such hype, preconceptions and expectations, this is a great challenge even for the most successful director in the history of cinema to overcome.

Although all these factors are meaningless without Harrison Ford’s full commitment. If you want to bring back Indiana Jones he is the only man for the job. No matter what his age, Harrison Ford’s charisma and charm embodies Indiana Jones with ease. His take on the role is what made his character so successful and made us take him to our hearts in the first place. Quite arguably Harrison’s best role in his very long, varied and successful career this franchise would have been a very different story if the original casting of Tom Selleck went ahead. Although despite looking very good for his ripe old age of sixty-six it seems time has taken its toll a bit. His lines sometimes don’t role off his tongue as easily and they often seem a bit over rehearsed. It is also a tad bit unconvincing that he can still beat off muscular Soviets when he is old enough to be classed as an ancient artifact himself. His age has kind of been incorporated into the script but not really. Many muses at how old all the characters are now does not hide the fact that people of such maturity are incapable of such death threatening feats.

The main problem is that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is just not an integral part of the series. The spirit and thirst for adventure is not really present as boring overcomplicated mythical babble takes up the majority of the film. This educational speak is nowhere near as mystifying or as intriguing as the cryptic code cracking from the originals. By trying to avoid an overindulgence in action scenes Indy 4 has taken an opposite route by setting up the story for the majority of the film. There are just too many stand offs and escaping between Jones’ crew and the Soviets. Cate Blanchett constant recapturing Jones and his subsequent escaping becomes far too repetitive.

It is not until the last forty minutes of the film when the adventure actually gets going but by this time it is too late. In fact Lucas has just made the whole film too late. Fans would rather see the adventures that occurred between the 3rd and 4th film that are constantly referred too which sound a lot more exciting. If the originals were of this quality it is safe to say the Indiana Jones films would not be as fondly remembered.

There are glimpses of wit and charm which were dominant in the original series and made them so heartwarming but they are not frequent enough. Hiding behind the over played signature theme tune it almost feels like Lucas is trying to reassure us that this is still an Indiana Jones film, honest. Especially when the aliens land at the end which is not done as convincingly as Spielberg has done so often in the past. For moments it feels like watching a rejected script. If this is the best attempt possible to continue the series I rather that they had not bothered, as it tarnishes the fond memories we have of the originals. Imitating a former version of themselves it seems the cast and crew were so caught up in enjoying themselves that they left out the viewer. There is nothing here to enhance or add to the series just a son and wife for Indy to provide some vague closure.

However if we look at this in out of context with the trilogy Spielberg is certainly far better than most blockbuster directors of our generation. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal is Skull is a masterclass in acting compared to Spiderman 3, has a more gripping script than the dire Pirates of the Caribbean at worlds end and is more efficiently directed than the all guns blazing Transformers. There is definitely at least some fight in the old dogs yet. As an Indiana Jones film this is mediocre, as a standalone film it is a cut above all the rest. It was just capable of so much more with the talent that was on board

TO SUM UP:

Whenever a new family action adventure film is released it is always compared to the Indy trilogy. Looked upon as the pinnacle of the adventure genre it is clearly a legacy that Lucas and Spielberg themselves cannot quite live up to.

Doomsday

Pretty much sums up the end of Neil Marshall’s critically acclaimed reputation.

DETAILS:
Released - 9 May 2008
Certificate - 18
Running Time - 108min
Director/Screenwriter - Neil Marshall
Producers -Benedict Carver, Steven Paul,
Cinematography -Sam McCurdy
Editing - Andrew MacRitchie and Neil Marshall
Music - Tyler Bates
Theatrical distributor - Universal
Country - UK




SYNOPSIS:
In 2007 a massive epidemic breaks out over the British Isles killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people. In response the authorities forcefully quarantine Scotland by renovating Hadrian’s Wall. But by the year 2035 the lethal ‘reaper virus’ begins to resurface. As part of a top secret plan; prominent politician Bill Nelson (Bob Hoskins) sends Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) with a team of specialists through the wall to seek out Kane (Malcolm McDowell) who according to legend may have the answer to the cure. Without any back up on their journey they embark upon a whole host of bitter, abandoned and blood thirsty survivors.


REVIEW:
Writer and director Neil Marshall has been a gem to the British film industry. With his debut Dog Soldiers he rejuvenated the werewolf movie and popularised it again. But he came into his element two years later with The Descent. A terrifying claustrophobic gory thriller he was immune from the difficult second album syndrome as it was far better than his first. Critically it was one of the best horror movies in recent years. So having made a reputation for himself in the horror genre for his third feature he has been able to get his hands on a huge budget and have much fun with a British action movie. The film’s opening is certainly promising. A brutally graphic quarantining of Scotland which creates a sense of horror and panic sets the tone and a subsequent action sequence on a boat has some inventiveness to it.

When the characters initially get through the wall dark there is a brief spooky atmosphere and mild tension, as the events begin to set themselves up we sit back and prepare ourselves for some Marshall type action. But before long it becomes increasingly apparent how this is not derivative but a purely copied or borrowed cinema. If this was a piece of schoolwork it would be dismissed as plagiarism. Escape from New York, Aliens, Mad Max, Land of the dead, 28 weeks later are but a few titles he has cherry picked his favourite action scenes from. There is no coherent developing plot. As soon as Rhona Mitra goes through the wall her and her crack team operatives appear to travel on a journey of rehashed action sequences from other films. The film is just ridiculously action packed, it does not stand alone as a single piece of work just a series of disjointed action sequences and something that would not exist if were not for past great directors. It appears Marshall has put the entire budget in big explosions and spent his time going through his DVD collection rather than spending time, effort and money into anything worthwhile. His talent for direction is clearly apparent, but there is little point in it. There is no tension, progression or any chills which has made Marshall so previously successful. He has chosen to ignore all this and produced some clear nonsense. A car chase which seems to be directly lifted from Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome with the ineffective Frankie Goes to Hollywood’s when two tribes go to war thumping in the background is just as hilariously camp and stupid as the end where Eden decides to return to the tribe that almost killed with their old leaders severed head as Kasabian's Club foot blurts out. This makes little sense or much emotion and is forgettable rather than cutting edge

There is also something about Rhona Mitra’s Eden which is deeply unbelievable. As she progresses through her horrendous ordeal she still remains to look gorgeous. Her supporting cast are also guilty of severe overacting. The dialogue itself has to charm or wit, it is just obvious and clunky, full to the brim with meaningless swear words with a severe lack of emotion or substance. Every one liner deserves a subsequent drum and symbol to add to the blunt obviousness. Malcolm McDowell and Bob Hoskins play their typical roles. McDowell’s voice emphasises the stresses in words and Bob Hoskins rugged, blunt language and accent seem to help him win political debate. The film is full of ludicrous stereotypes, such mediaeval Scottish punks and London southerners with up to date technology is really silly. With a whole circus of annoying characters by the time the Prime minister shoots himself no one seems to care.

Marshall has brought an end to his winning streak and is one in a long line of filmmakers who when it came to making their dream movie, such as Paul Andrew William’s The Cottage or Peter Jackson’s King Kong, it was rubbish. Hopefully his talent for filmmaking has not been tarnished with what he truly wanted to do. We understand it is supposed to be tongue in cheek action cinema that is not supposed to be taken too seriously but it just far too tedious and stupid to be regarded as a fine piece of work.

TO SUM UP:
The pioneer of modern horror should stay away from big budgets and use his inspiration to make original features which he has done so well in the past. Hopefully this feature will be a short and sharp shock which will keep him sticking to what he does best with low-budget horror.

Speed Racer

Will a significantly younger demographic be more appreciative of the Wachowski’s fading talents?

DETAILS:
Released - 9 May 2008
Certificate - PG
Running Time - 134min
Directors - Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Screenwriters - Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski from the original cartoon by Tatsuo Yoshida
Producers -Grant Hill, Joel Silver, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Cinematography -David Tattersall
Editing - Roger Barton and Zach Staenberg
Music - Michael Giacchino
Theatrical distributor - Warner Bros
Country - USA


SYNOPSIS:
Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is a natural behind the wheel of a fast car. His aspiration in life is to win the hotly contested crucible cup and live up to his tragically dead brother Rex (Scott Porter) and his successful legacy. True to his parents, Pops Racer (John Goodman) and Mom Racer (Susan Sarandon), Speed decides to turn down a more than tempting offer from the corrupt Royalton Industries in order to support his families business. By refusing to represent Royalton industries on the track Arnold Royalton himself (Roger Allam) vows he will do everything to hinder Speed’s chances at winning the Crucible. With support from his loyal girlfriend (Christina Ricci) Speed decides to team up with his rival Racer X (Matthew Fox) to beat Royalton at his own game, win the cup, boost his families business and end the corruption in racing once and for all!


REVIEW (My letter read out on Mayo and Kermode's Film Reviews, BBC Radio 5 Live):

Dear Sonny and Cher,

Has the good doctor become nostalgically deluded in his old age? Having recently seen Speed Racer I was appalled by the Wachowski brother’s inability to engage with an audience. An entire film cannot be carried by its ‘extraordinary design level’ it still needs a gripping plot and likeable characters to enhance the experience. How can you say such a storyline is irrelevant? This is precisely what separates the art of cinema from video-games. As a theme park ride Speed Racer would be vaguely entertaining, but as a film it is wishy washy, zip zang nonsense. Any self respecting child will look beyond this flashy direction and be bored at its lack of substance. Visually striking it may be, but it is nevertheless instantly forgettable. Perhaps Mr. Mayo should employ the doc’s son to review children’s films in future rather than allowing him to embarrassingly attempt to channel his own inner child.

This so-called hallucinogenic spectacle has somehow hypnotised the good doctor and burned away his retinas as he is too blinded to see the sold-out filmmakers that hide beneath.

Ben Lamb from Hull


TO SUM UP:
The Matrix sequels were overcomplicated nonsense, V for Vendetta was too dull and Speed Racer is far too simple and dumbed down. The Wachowskis desperately need to find the correct balance between substance and action even if they are making films for children. Promoting family values to youngsters is admirable but the messages will go 'wooosch' over their heads in amongst the tedious and repetitive action sequences. Overall a passively entertaining film for children and I think it was admirable of Mark Kermode to admit he was wrong on this occasion.

IRON MAN

Robert Downey Jr. has his stark break into the mainstream

DETAILS:
Released - 2 May 2008
Certificate - 12A
Running Time - 125min
Director - Jon Favreau
Screenwriters - Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, Matt Holloway
Producers -Avi Arad, Kevin Feige
Cinematography - Matthew Libatique
Editing - Dan Lebental
Music - Ramin Djawadi
Theatrical distributor - Paramount
Country - USA



SYNOPSIS:
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is the CEO of the worlds leading weapons manufacturer; Stark Industries. Relishing in his rich playboy lifestyle his world is turned upside down on a trip to Afghanistan. There to demonstrate the capabilities of his company’s new Jericho missile he is captured by terrorists and forced to build them his new weapon. Instead he hones in on his engineering skills to build a suit of iron and escapes. On his return to America he is a changed man. Having experienced the suffering his weapons bring to the world he wants to develop his Iron suit to bring peace and prosperity. On his mission to change Stark Industries intentions for the greater good his PA and potential love interest Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is more than willing to help but his second in command Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges) has better ideas.

REVIEW:
Marvel’s influence on Hollywood these recent years has been phenomenal. Stan Lee and his associates have given birth to a whole new genre: the superhero movie. Iron Man itself also marks the next chapter in Marvel’s legacy as it is the first film to be fully financed by their studios. This may seem a somewhat risky decision as Iron man is by no means the most popular comic book and the franchise itself not as bankable as Spiderman or X-men, but Marvel seem to have pulled it off. By releasing Iron Man a couple of months in the shadow of The Dark Knight when there are little blockbusters and no comic book releases to compete with more people will be inclined to see it. With a whole host of films under their belt there is no time like the present to increase their business empire.

Although in the traditional Marvel fashion Iron Man is first and foremost an origin film. This would not be the birth of a Marvel superhero franchise unless we typically had the entirety of the film depicting an average guy undertaking a heroic transformation. Usually a superhero film can suffer from this plot convention like the Fantastic 4 which spent too much time establishing too many different characters changes rather than the development of a collective plot. But despite this minor limitation Iron Man’s dramatic opening appears to offer something different with a vaguely political feel. As Stark’s jeep is immediately seized in Afghanistan and he has to escape from a terrorist’s lair this is extremely attention grabbing cinema. As the Jericho Missile flies behind Tony Stark towards the distant mountains as he stands upright to demonstrate its capabilities to potential buyers is certainly visually striking.

But it is Robert Downey Jr., taking this role effortlessly in his stride, who carries the weight of the film on his shoulders. A cookie, loveable and humorous rogue but at the same time a geek with a tough side is a fairly layered character to portray. Downey Jr. has managed to make the drastic transformation in character from rebel to freedom fighter with a limited time space far more believable than say Tobey Maguire could have done. Downey Jr. has certainly brought a lot of his own personality to this role. His changing of the written dialogue to his own improvisations and humorous quips has given Iron Man a lot more charismatic and human qualities than various other wooden marvel heroes. In the best casting since Indiana Jones Tony Stark is a witty, fresh and charming bloke. As for his supporting cast; Jeff Bridges as a villain carries a little more bite and intensity whereas Gwen plays herself. As a love interest thrown in to add sex appeal she does give a bit more for Downey Jr. to play off than most would. Iron Man is definitely the first marvel film since X-men 2 to come of age and take on board the ambitious characterisation of Batman Begins, at least to a degree.

Iron Man is in many ways different to most Marvel superheroes. Not genetically changed he has to look deep inside his intelligence during times of desperation and has to turn to his conscience when confronted with the evils of his company. As a superhero he is always himself, he just puts on his hi-tech suit to channel his heroic qualities. The majority of the films running time is devoted to Tony Stark enhancing and modifying his suit but due to Downey Jr. this is very entertaining and in no way as boring as it sounds. His presence adds to the films charm as there is not an overly frantic a pace. With amazing visuals providing glimpses of dazzling effects such as flying through near space, there is not too much of an overindulgence in action.

Although in the last twenty minutes Iron Man seems to run out of steam. Suddenly there is a showdown between Obadiah and Stark both in Iron Suits. It seems just as the film is going somewhere different and original like Batman Begins it ends up copying modern trends in the same vein as Transformers and the fantastic 4 in a severe anti-climax. It may not be a superhero film which changes or subverts the genre but it still does more than most within its laid out conventions.

TO SUM UP:
Not the best superhero film but not exactly far off, an enjoyable flick to wet our appetites for The Dark Knight. Now we have established his character bring on Iron Man 2!

A review of April

I have signed a contract which promises exclusivity to StudentBeans, so to view my article in full, please: Click Here

NEVER BACK DOWN

From ever giving into seeing this tripe

DETAILS:
Released - 4 April 2008
Certificate - 15
Running Time - 113mins
Director - Jeff Wadlow
Screenwriter - Chris Hauty
Producers - Craig Baumgarten, David Zelon
Cinematography - Lukas Ettlin
Editing - Victor Du Bois and Debra Weinfeld Music - Michael Wandmacher
Theatrical distributor - Momentum Pictures
Country - USA
Awards - MTV movie award for best fight

SYNOPSIS:
Due to a brief loss of sanity at a high school American football game rebellious teen, Jake Tyler (Sean Faris) has to move schools for his violent and seemingly uncontrollable actions. At first his new schoolmates seem friendly enough and he instantly befriends the popular Ryan McCarthy (Cam Gigandet). However the truth soon surfaces at a typical alcohol and stripper filled adolescent house party. Due to the evils of the internet his schoolmates know the true reason for Jake’s expulsion and force him to fight Ryan where he is beaten to a bloody pulp. Annoyed at being the joke of his new school Jake feels compelled to defeat Ryan at a local underground fighting tournament and show everyone who is really the boss. Persuading mixed martial arts veteran Jean Roqua (Djimon Hounsou) to coach him will be successful in gaining popularity and obtaining Ryan’s girlfriend Baja Miller (Amber Heard)?..........................who cares, really?

REVIEW:
The commonly used mantra ‘never judge a book by its cover’ is one that is used in many walks of life. Although in many circumstances this is can be applicable to cinema. When looking at the poster for Never Back Down plastered all over bus stops and city centres I was right to assume that this film was the adolescent clap trap that the poster seemed to advertise. Such a desperate marketing campaign suggests the studio’s lack of faith such in a film. With a scantily dressed women in a tight fitting yellow dress accentuating her curves whilst looked upon by two handsome but expressionless young males I was right to presume this film would be the sexist nonsense that was advertised.

With so many faults to chose from it is difficult to pick somewhere to start. As a teen angst movie Never Back Down is very poor indeed, if anyone enjoyed this film they need to take a serious look at themselves. Often we like to indulge in bad films to laugh at their absurdity but Never Back Down is not even this good for so many reasons. Even the most laid back film goer will feel let down.

What Never back down was trying to achieve was a sort of Fight Club for adolescents. The main character’s name being Tyler is more than a giveaway. Instead of this being Tyler Durden’s days at school this is in fact Fight Club without any political significance, black humour, sharp dialogue, complexity or any where near as culturally observant. Apparently all ‘cool’ American adolescents should fight each other to gain respect and win over women. By constantly referencing violence on computer screens and mobile phones the filmmakers seem to think this happy slapping plugging will appeal to the youth culture of today which is quite frankly insulting. This is a very stripped down Fight Club with no talented scriptwriting, acting, cinematography or direction to the fight scenes themselves which seem to be the whole point of the movie. There are definitely some unintentional homosexual overtones as there is a constant focus on the greased up male leads rather than any real resonance.

The casting is diabolical. All these so called high school students look old enough to teach the lessons themselves. Absolutely no one is likeable with all the characters lacking any real sense of psyche. McCarthy has no apparent reason to be evil, he tries to look mean and beat innocent people up just for the sake of it. Through the various close ups of his annoyed face in no way is he intimidating or cool, Rebel without a cause he is not. On the other side, Tyler gets angry from time to time primarily due to his fathers death which is the extent of the emotional depth to this film tries to explore. I just don’t understand why Tyler can’t just find new friends than intensely train to win this idiots respect? As well as this Never Back Down is filled to the brim with clichés. You would have thought that so many years after the Rocky series the filmmakers would have better ingenuity than to show a montage of beefing up training with the 80’s written all over it. Similarly having the most popular jock in high school going out with the most beautiful girl, jeez I have never seen characters like that before!

But predictability reaches a whole new level in the final showdown between Tyler (good) and McCarthy (evil). What I want to know is why is it in these films that no matter how long or hard the good guy has been beaten up he will always suddenly find a final surge of strength to just about defeat the bad guy? However, to make up for this, despite the fact both characters have almost killed each other they are suddenly best of friends at the end. Beat people half to death and they will respect you enough to become your friend apparently.

As you can tell the plot is extremely incoherent and makes no conceivable sense. According to screenwriter Chris Hauty; all American teenagers indulge in lesbian kissing and fighting parties. The message to this film is unbelievably offensive as everyone is driven by the mentality that you must fight to get anywhere in life. Apparently it is perfectly acceptable to gaily beat up some strangers in a fit of road rage. Fighting = popularity = sex especially when you are a teenager. Just by glamorizing and drawing attention to the happy slapping culture is no way of delving into it. Jeff Wadlow’s direction of the over stylised fighting scenes themselves lack any real punch, bloody realism or intensity. Various popular bands thrashing guitars in the soundtrack such as My Chemical Romance in no way adds any sort of tension. All in all never back down is just overloaded testosterone filled rubbish with an undercurrent of homosexualism.

TO SUM UP:
An offensive and morally bankrupt film which glamorises adolescent violence. Instead of having anything worthwhile to observe about its increasing significance in our culture Never Back Down just adds to it. A marital arts instruction DVD will be far more worth your while.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the coward Robert Ford

A few months in the life of Jesse James

DETAILS:
Released - 30 November 2007
Certificate - 15
Running Time - 153mins
Director - Andrew Dominik
Screenwriter - Andrew Dominik based on Ron Hansen's novel
Producers - Jules Daly, Dede Gardner, Brad Pitt, Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, David Valdes
Cinematography - Roger Deakins
Editing - Curtiss Clayton and Dylan Tichenor
Music - Nick Cave and Warren Ellis
Theatrical distributor - Warner Bros
Country - USA
Awards - Oscar, Golden Globe and Screen Actor's Guild Nomination for Casey Affleck as a supporting actor and Oscar win for Roger Deakins' Cinematography, Empire award for best film and various other critical awards and nomiations

SYNOPSIS:
The most notorious outlaw in American history, Jesse James (Brad Pitt), and his gang are coming to the end of their long reign. Being in the media spotlight for so long has certainly taken its toll. Having spent many years on the wrong side of the law they have grown significantly weaker mentally and physically. In the last months of Jesse James’ life his gang severely deteriorates as his associates end up either dead or arrested. With the reward on his head rapidly increasing Jesse knows his death is becoming increasingly imminent. A confused, paranoid and temperamental man the last thing Jesse expects is that the man who will put him out of his misery will be the young Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) the latest addition to his gang who has idolised Jesse since childhood.

REVIEW:
If you managed to catch The Assassination of Jesse James in 2007 then you will be in the stark minority. One of the most anticipated films of the year was given such a short release campaign, blink and you would have missed it. However, critics pining and pleading with people to see this film has kept it firmly in our minds till its DVD release.

On initial impressions this is certainly a beautifully shot film. The gorgeous settings and costuming combined with Roger Deakin’s cinematography make The Assassination of Jesse James absolutely stunning to look at. Along with Andrew Dominik’s direction, often including slightly unfocused framing, the film maintains an intriguing yet slow paced and sombre feel. The infamous train robbery scene contains some of the most iconic imagery in the past few years of cinema and Dominik’s ambiguous and mysterious plot certainly can never be accused of being predictable. Although the most appraisable aspect to this film is its authenticity. Deliberately an anti spaghetti western piece the image of Jesse James is in no way idealised. In one particular shoot out scene, the camera remains static to give a realistic and matter of fact feel instead of creating over the top action cinema. The films purpose is to separate the man from the myth in a historically accurate piece. The Assassination of Jesse James has certainly achieved this and created its own artistic style of cinema. This is more of a historical period drama than a traditional western. So why did it do so badly at the box office?

Well despite a star like Brad Pitt being onboard, who can sell tickets alone, this film is unmarketable. This is like no other western ever seen before and Brad Pitt’s role is one he rarely tackles. At first he seems to be an intimidating, larger than life figure with a significantly aged and troubled inside. He is without a doubt an interesting character, in one harrowing scene where beats up a teenager for information, he soon realises he is in fact beating himself up and questioning his methods. The problem is that Pitt seems to be guilty of his past roles and celebrity status. He is a tad unconvincing as Jesse, he looks the part but as soon as he opens his mouth he seems to be Brad Pitt in historical dress rather than the complete Jesse James package. Usually in his roles he tries to hide his age but here he is accentuating it and he cannot be taken seriously. Surprisingly it is Casey Affleck who steals the spotlight. He proves he is a talented actor in his own right and has cast away the shadow left by his older and bigger brother. A snivelling, slimy and weak Robert Ford he was deserving of his academy award nomination for best supporting actor but rightly lost out to Javier Bardem’s magnificent portrayal of a bounty hunter in the Coen’s No Country for old men. Casey Affleck has certainly proved that he has a natural talent. All the characters in this film are by no means obvious stereotypes but what they do all lack is a certain likeability.

After an hour it all becomes a little unconvincing and at times tedious. All the dialogue seems to be mumbled and there is little emotional drive given the characters circumstances. They are supposed to be hiding their inner emotions but this is not effectively done as we are not terribly bothered about what they really feel. Similarly the constant narration from Hugh Ross is not required, the characters should explain to us their story rather than an incessant school teacher voice bringing context to what feels like every scene. This self indulgent film takes far too much pride in what it has achieved rather than developing events. Not terribly gripping the Assassination of Jesse James would have benefited from some more editing. At times it feels like a dictatorial history lesson rather than a film.

By the time the film seems to develop it is far too late. At last some well needed tension comes into play in the last couple of scenes where Jesse shares a house with the Ford brothers. Jesse’s temperamental snapping leaves the brothers in a constant state of paranoia making every little aspect of life, such as eating meals at the table, uncomfortable. But the film does not end with Jesse’s death, in the films most interesting turn the Ford brothers travel around the States enacting the assassination itself as a performance in several theatres. The straining relationship between the brothers turns Charley Ford to alcoholism and Robert Ford’s inability to cope with such negative fame. Labelled as a ‘coward’ by the whole country this leads to his downfall and eventual assassination. The whole film has been setting up these scenes and by now we have all lost concentration. I recommend having a break midway through to maintain your interest for this dramatic conclusion.

TO SUM UP:
Not the perfect film we have been led to believe by various critics. Now seeing Jesse James it is obvious why it did not win any major Oscars but one for its cinematography would not have gone a miss. Although it was let down by its lengthy script, lack of editing and at time development there is a lot here still worth your consideration. At least there was a masterpiece in here, somewhere.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

Paul Thomas Anderson proves oil runs thicker than water

DETAILS:
Released - 15 February 2008
Certificate - 15
Running Time - 158min
Director - Paul Thomas Anderson
Screenwriter - Paul Thomas Anderson based on Upton Sinclair's novel Oil!
Producers - Paul Thomas Anderson, Daniel Lupi and JoAnne Sellar
Cinematography - Robert Elswit
Editing - Dylan Tichenor
Music - Jonny Greenwood
Theatrical distributor - Buena Vista International UK Country - USA
Awards - Oscar, BAFTA, Golden Globe win for Daniel Day-Lewis and oscar win for Robert Elswit in Cinematography among countless amounts of other wins and nominations in film festivals and critic circles


SYNOPSIS:
When Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) accidentally stumbles upon some oil he soon turns from silver miner to a very successful oil prospector with an entire business empire at his feet. Ruthless, greedy and fuelled with rage Daniel will let no one come between him and his thirst for oil. On an ominous tip from Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) Plainview soon starts drilling at the impoverished Sunday ranch in Boston. By flashing around his adopted son H.W. (Dillon Freasier) Plainview sets out to exploit the poor townspeople under the illusion that he is a family man who will provide a better life for them. Although this is not as easy as he initially thought due to preacher Eli Sunday (Dano) who questions Plainview’s true intentions as a respected figure in the Christian community. As Plainview grows older his determination to succeed and become even richer brings his true inner self to the surface plunging him in a state of near madness and slowly alienating him from those closest around him.

REVIEW:

Daniel Day-Lewis is a peculiar yet intriguing character himself. At the height of his fame and critical acclaim he quit acting to pursue his lifelong dream; shoe cobbling. But he was soon brought out of early retirement when Martin Scorsese had a leading role for him in his historical epic Gangs of New York. A fairly flawed film it was Day Lewis’ dark performance as Bill the Butcher which held it together. Since then Day-Lewis has built up a reputation as the most selective actor working in Hollywood today. Only signing up to around one film a year at most you always know you are in for something special. Even the most talented of Hollywood actors can be accused of typecasting themselves by playing similar roles but Day-Lewis is truly the most versatile actor of our time, when his name is on a film we never know quite what to expect.

There will be blood is certainly no exception. A performance which is outstanding even by his standards he has totally immersed himself in this rage driven psychopath. Every slightest twitch in his facial features is planned down to the smallest detail. When he is in front of the camera he absorbs every part of his body into Daniel Plainview. In one particular scene, where he holds a gun to his on-screen brother’s head, a close up of his angry pulsating face lifts off the screen intimidating the audience to cower in their seats. Only Day-Lewis can narrow the gap between viewer and performance this far. Allegedly the original actor who played Plainview’s brother left production as he felt to intimidated by Day-Lewis and it is obvious why. To top it all off the most surprising thing about Day Lewis’ unpredictable performance is his knack for comic timing and the amount of dark humour he expertly delivers in this film.

But Daniel Day-Lewis is not the only thing brilliant about this film. He is also complimented by an effective supporting cast. Despite fairly brief screen time Paul Dano in particular has pushed his geeky teenager roles long behind him as his insane preaching certainly sends a shiver down our spine. He gives a lot here for Day-Lewis to play off. Also the music score by Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood single-handedly gives the film an atmospheric edge maintaining our state of unease. By using old fashioned instruments in a contemporary fashion his loud strings are bleeding and weeping with emotion. Such a striking film score deserved an Oscar win let alone a nomination.

Although it is due to Paul Thomas Anderson’s complete vision that all these contributing factors are brought together in one coherent work. With so much talent on board it is Anderson’s script and direction which is the true star, but this is not immediately apparent. There Will Be Blood is by no means an easy watch. It requires your complete devout attention and once you are sucked in you are completely absorbed in Daniel Plainview’s world. When the film begins the sound of loud unsettling strings drowns out your ears to the image of two vast hills of the American West, immediately creating a sense of nervousness as a very striking way to grab our attention. Then for the subsequent opening twenty minutes of the film not a word of dialogue is uttered. Through nothing but silent actions does the events progress.

With the immediate appearance of a linear plot structure and unfolding of events we are wielded into a false sense of security. There is so much more going on here beneath the apparent surface. There are a lot of underlying messages involving politics, capitalism and religion making this film a hell of a lot to digest in two hours and forty minutes. But I would quite happily sit through it again to decode its complexity. There will be blood is not the usual success story praising the American dream. Plainview’s success story takes a back seat and is never really explained as the complex relationships with those around him and the conflicts within him are at the forefront of our attention as we see his life slowly deteriorate.

With so much shocks, violence, black humour, murder, love and hate it is very hard to classify this film with a genre, is it a biopic, period drama, black comedy, epic, thriller or even western? Well whatever genre it may be, it is only once you have left the cinema that the events will begin to set in and make sense leaving you to truly appreciate the mind blowing cinema masterpiece that this is There Will Be Blood.

TO SUM UP:
An anarchic Citizen Kane that is not only one of the best films of last year but one of the greatest films of all time.

Grindhouse

An homage to the old style of cinema…sort of

DETAILS:
Released - 6 April 2007 (USA)
Certificate - 18
Running Time - 3 hours
Director/Screenwriter - Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez
Producers - Bob Weinstein and Harvey Weinstein
Cinematography - Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez
Editing - Sally Menke and Robert Rodriguez
Music - Robert Rodriguez
Theatrical distributor - Momentum Pictures
Country - USA

SYNOPSIS:
Two feature length B-Movies are combined into one double bill to replicate to modern day audiences the experience of the old 70’s Grind House style.

In the first film Death Proof Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) is an ex Hollywood stunt car driver with a sick obsession for young women. In his customised ‘death proof' car he relishes in arranging murderous car crashes and walking away unscathed. Although whilst preying on a group of women in Tennessee he meets his match in the form of stunt woman Zoë Bell (herself), fellow stunt woman Kim (Tracie Thoms) make-up girl Abernathy (Rosario Dawson) and B-movie Actress Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead).

Then in the second feature Planet Terror when an experimental bio-nerve gas is accidentally released from a remote military base into the local Texan town, many are infected turning them into flesh eating zombies. A group of survivors led by mechanic El Wray (Freddy Rodríguez) which include his machine gun legged stripper girlfriend Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), Doctor Dakota (Marley Shelton) and the hard boiled Sheriff Hague (Michael Biehn) fight to survive and save the rest of the world from such a mass epidemic.

REVIEW:
As soon as Tarantino and Rodriguez fans heard they were both collaborating to make two separate films as part of a joint project mouth’s watered with anticipation. So much hype dominated their cult following that Grindhouse merchandise was bought under the assumption that such a film was guaranteed to be a masterpiece. However, after a surprisingly disastrous performance at the U.S. box office the hype soon died down when the Weinstein brothers chose to separate and lengthen the films into two separate pictures to make up for such a loss. Worldwide fans were in disarray, pleading to see films as one collaborative project.

Eventually when Tarantino’s Death Proof reached our screens it soon became apparent why Grindhouse was such a flop. It was not due to America’s misunderstanding of the homage, they were just unimpressed with this boring film and rightly so. This is by no means a revisionist exploitation picture but simply a very poor Tarantino film. Just by filling the film with deliberate mistakes such as the Technicolor changing to Black and white and a car abruptly disappearing from the screen due to a dodgy reel for no apparent reason does not make it an exploitation picture. These little ‘gems’ are neither amusing nor integral to the film. Under the false pretence of being a b-movie this just seems to be an excuse to show the carnage of a car crash annoyingly from several different angles.

At two hours this film is far too long and drawn out. As a single feature it definitely does not hold its own and does not feel like a film in its own right. Every character seems to talk like Quentin Tarantino. Spouting constant bullshit at an incredibly fast rate the women lack any charm and are not likeable let alone believable. Death Proof had the potential to be observant of a female culture but the entirety of the film sets up a group of women wanting to do some bizarre stunt with a car.

The last couple of action scenes at the end are mildly entertaining and Zoë Bell’s stunt work is far more impressive than her acting. But these brief scenes do not save this film from being an utter bore. Not scary, gory or remotely funny this is not a worthy homage to a dead and forgotten form of cinema. The only reason worth watching this extended version would have to be Vanessa Fertilo’s lap-dancing which was cut from the original. It seems Quentin has run out of material to steal from others and has started borrowing from his previous work. In one particular scene when the group of women are talking round a circular table his camera movement is exactly the same as the opening scene from Reservoir dogs. By relying on his old techniques with nothing new to observe about our culture Quentin has well and truly sold out. Good at writing gangster films and directing action Tarantino should stick to what he does best as he is not a versatile filmmaker at all, especially when it comes to horror.

After the utter shambles that was Death Proof I was initially a tad reluctant to see Rodriguez’s Planet Terror. Although when I actually got round to seeing this film I was pleasantly surprised at how Rodriguez’s efforts seemed to lift the whole Grindhouse experience. Whereas Tarantino took his work far too seriously Rodriguez has successfully made a film with an upbeat tongue and cheek feel to it. A true homage to b-movies Rodriguez seems to understand how poor grind house techniques can be used integrally to the film. A hot burning film strip during Cherry Darling’s saucy go-go dancing and lost footage containing important plot information enhance the cinematography and keeps focused to a consistent storyline. Similarly, by dealing with the outbreak of a lethal disease, the military and a reference to Bin Laden Rodriguez has successfully updated the genre into a modern day context with a whiff of political significance. Instead of failing to set up a story he has created an over the top hilarious action horror romp. In the same vein as the Evil dead and Bad Taste this is generally entertaining. Some parts are genuinely gory and scary but always amusing. Whereas most of Death Proof should have stayed on the cutting room floor this does feel like the full film Rodriguez originally intended to make.

But despite the fact it ticks all the boxes as a revisionist exploitation piece Planet Terror is certainly not without its flaws. The film as a whole is not a terribly original concept and the over the top action scenes do become rather tiresome towards the end.

TO SUM UP:
Overall there is a feel to these films which is ostensibly fake. An attempt to bring back a genre that nobody really wanted it all seemed fairly pointless really.