Article: First Watch of Maniac Cop

I always remember the poster of Maniac Cop being slapped up on independent video shops in my town. A dark, mean-looking poster that promised horrible things would happen in the movie. “You have the right to remain silent…FOREVER!” What a tagline. Such succulent marketing. Was there any doubt about the type of movie that you were going to get? 

Indeed, grim events do take in Maniac Cop, an exploitation feature that is part procedural, part authoritative corruption, pulled down a supernatural slasher film funnel. The film is lean and mean and doesn’t like to hang around. Yet despite its short run time, a glut of intriguing themes are pulled from its plot. Situated in 80s New York, a volatile period when the city was still in a mode of economic and societal recovery, Maniac Cop delivers slight but pointed commentary on ideas of police brutality and corruption.  Asking the question: What would happen to a Dirty Harry-style cop if the hierarchy started to turn the screws on their antics. Nothing has time to be explored with any complexity. But while it’s not academic it certainly feels like it wants to prod at the thin blue line.

Detective Frank McCrae (Tom Akins) begins an investigation into a series of brutal murders which at first seemingly have no pattern yet have enough clues to convince the officer that the killings are coming from one of their own. Jack Forrest (Bruce Campbell) fits the bill of the killer at large and is taken in under suspicion. However, when the attacks are still occurring, it falls to Forrest, McCrae, and Forrest’s partner Theresa (Laurene Landon) to find out what’s happening. 

Maniac Cop is the creation of filmmaker William Lustig. Director of low-budget, exploitation features such as Maniac (1980) and Vigilante (1982).  Maniac Cop is perhaps Lustig's most well-known feature, becoming a cult hit in the 80s and succeeded by two sequels after the 1988 original. It’s easy to see Maniac Cop did so well. While it may be an exploitation vehicle at heart, the film is still a well-made piece of trash. For a low-budget movie that may not even reach 90 minutes without its end credits, Maniac Cop packs a lot into its characters, while handling some effective set pieces. Nothing outstays its welcome, which makes it understandable why some people expected more meat on the film’s bones. 

Yet Maniac Cop is a film that is succulent with some of the things that it says. The film’s first murder feels unnerving not least for the victim, Cassie, to mention nonchalantly to her Bar colleagues: “I’d rather face the muggers” when someone cracks wise about her leaving the establishment. She is then chased by some would-be thieves before running into the Maniac Cop.  Glimpsing the uniform, Cassie believes she is safe, only to meet a ruthless and violent end. It’s a moment that reaches into something quite primitive. When people see the authorities, they expect safety. 

The film plays on this well. 15 minutes in and tension in the city is so high enough that citizens are more than willing to unload on police folk. Unfortunately, due to how the city goes about its policing, the film happily suggests that this is the NYPD’s own doing. When a black kid on TV is interviewed at one point, he is frank:

“I’ve seen plenty of my friends murdered by cops. Shot in the back, shot when they didn’t have a gun or a knife, claiming the suspect had a shiny object. You know, Cops like killing…That’s why they’re cops…who’s gonna be next?!”

The lines don’t appear in the quote section of the film’s IMDB page, yet they feel like a haunting precursor to recent history. When Cassie is examined by the coroner after her death, another officer is flippant that a cop would do such a thing. And yet, we know that officers can and will. Watching the news says enough. 

I was a little upset to see reviewers being as sour on the movie as they were. Perhaps due to the expectation of the film to be more for what it is. It’s a film that is quite serious and cynical at times but never really penetrates any of its topics with any academic depth. It’s an exploitation B-movie through and through, but it’s not as outrageous as one may expect from its premise. I can’t say I didn’t expect slightly more from its premise, but as a trimly cut action horror, it’s solid in a way direct-to-stream movies of the modern ages are not. It’s uncomplicated, uncompromising and far better crafted than it gets credit for. I do not expect the logic of a possibly supernatural cop to hold up well. However, I will praise the subversive nature of casting the man who would risk his neck for his brother man as a corrupt and calculating commissioner. I’m also willing to forgive the film's lack of extreme violence for its simple, yet effective set pieces. There’s something I find profoundly ominous about a cop terrorising a couple at a deserted traffic stop. The idea of having to drag a dying cop who’s handcuffed to you has an odd chill to it too.

But what perhaps made Maniac Cop work the most for me is the sense that everyone in the production is looking to do a little with the little they have via resources. This is a movie that has a strong visual style visually. The night scenes are solid, while the action has a good sense of geography. The cast know the kind of movie they’re in and act accordingly with Bruce Campbell showing himself to be a far more vulnerable leading man than he’s ever really had the chance to showcase. Far from the gloopy pratfalls of The Evil Dead series, Campbell shows off the B-movie acting chops fans have always loved him for. He’s flawed, angry, and a little sensitive. It works. 

It's a shame that not all of it pays off. The film’s slenderness ensures some head-scratching. However, watching Maniac Cop in the current era feels fresh. The film feels like it wants to take a few jabs at the establishment while being a Friday-night actioner and a slasher movie. The film hedges its bets a little. But that said, I’ve been told that the second film is the thing to see. And there are enough good things in Maniac Cop to place its sequel higher up on my watchlist. And if a movie is entertaining enough to do that, then it’s worth a watch.    

Maniac Cop is currently streaming on Amazon Prime. 

Dug what you read? Support me on Ko-fi

  

Review: Captain America: Civil War

Year: 2016

Directors: The Russo Brothers

Screenplay:Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Chadwick Boseman, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Rudd, Emily VanCamp, Tom Holland, Frank Grillo, William Hurt, Daniel Brühl.

Synopsis is here:

Let’s get this out of the way now. The comparisons of Marvel’s Civil War and Warner Brother’s Batman vs Superman were always going to be made from the moment they were announced. In the upcoming weeks there will be think pieces and hot takes galore about which of these films “won” based on box office takings and opening weekend reactions. I’m sure twitter arguments will be abound about which is the “better” film. Nature of the beast.

After leaving the early bank holiday screening of Captain America: Civil War, I found I had no qualm on my position on the matter. Quite simply, Marvel seems to understand its audience better. Bitter DC Fans can complain about critics being “paid off” all they want. Such talk is nonsense. Civil War isn’t the best Marvel film. Heck, I don't even think it’s the best Captain America flick. However, in terms of balancing it’s characters and telling an engaging story, Civil War wins the so called battle.

It certainly helps that we’ve now spent nearly a decade getting to know many of the characters that appear in this feature over the course of various entries. However, this alone highlights the assured vision that we watch on screen. Civil War doesn’t hold many surprises, but Marvel’s control of their brand, while dulling a certain sense of wonderment when watching a blockbuster (do we honestly think ANYONE is at risk here?), has created an established and expansive universe that understands and maintains its tone, and is clear with its character motivations. Both Civil War and Batman vs Superman talk about “who watches the watchmen” and collateral damage. Both only really use them as Macguffin’s for beating the hell out of one another. It is Civil War, however, that understands its character between the characters and its audience. The relationship built from the previous films, gives Civil War more grounding, and yet, when characters debate and argue, you do not feel lost in mindless manusha. A complaint found in Batman vs Superman was simply “why were they fighting?” Civil War never has the same issues. We see the differing ideologies and their clashes as clear as day. There’s no need for a longer cut or after the fact articles to gain understandings which should have clarity within the theatrical narrative.

This doesn’t stop Civil War from being a flawed piece. On the contrary. We are now at the point where these films merely press on with their stories, less like a grand adventure, but more like a cosplayed soap opera. Civil War gives us the truly tortured Tony Stark so clearly missing from the likes of Iron Man 3 (2012), as well as hinting on budding personal relationship which may or may not come to pass in future instalments. This is fine if there was a solid feeling of these ongoing journeys actually reaching a destination. Civil War, like so many Marvel movies, are good at hinting at more to come. Tom Holland’s sprightly performance whets the appetite for a new Spiderman film. We’re finally getting Robert Downley Jr’s Tony Stark pulling towards some new ground with the character. Scarlett Johansson’s work as Natasha/Black Widow keeps going under praised and I could easily sit through the adventures of many of the characters that appear. Especially the ones who are female or black.

Despite this, I’m also clambering for a sense of true closure, or at least a villain that can truly keep up with the multitude of running, jumping mega heroes. What plays out in Civil War is emotional and at times satisfying, but to only to a certain level. The Buck Rogers TV serial-like method of these films enables a feeling of being fed on a decent burger yet never feeling full. Notice I haven’t yet mentioned much of Steve Rogers (A still wonderfully stiff jawed Evans) himself? That’s because much like Superman, he’s been pushed to the side to accommodate everything else that needs to tie to brand Marvel. The main reason the Captain America movies appealed was because of Roger’s character. The man out of time. The hero who doesn’t like bullies. That strong moral belief. Such elements haven’t disappeared completely, but they have to make way for Ant-man, Black Panther, The Vision, Scarlet Witch…the list goes on.

The Russo’s however, provide a decent job of trying to balance all these strands out. No character feels as shoehorned in as the characters did Batman vs Superman. Marvel may hold a certain blue print that many of these films need to adhere to, but The Russo’s have shown how well they can operate around Marvel’s slightly restrictive template, but do so with yet another film filled with tightly executed action, solid character beats and a vibrant sense of tone. Despite holding a certain amount of fatigue with comic book films, Captain America: Civil War still brings enough sound, fury and vibrancy to remain an entertaining piece. I can’t say that this long running film series is delivering any real shocks as before and the idea that one of their films; Infinity Wars, sounds more like a sadistic promise now that we’ve seen the studios long term plans. Nevertheless, as an enjoyable (albeit overlong) piece of fluff,  Civil War more than delivers.

Review: John Wick

Year: 2015

Directors: Chad Stahelski, David Leitch

Screenplay: Derek Kolstad 

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo, Willem Dafoe.

Synopsis is here:

There's a character profile poster of the titular John Wick, which has his tie fashioned as a fuse set alight. The tag line reads: Don't set him off. It's a piece of marketing that is as direct as the film its advertising. It's as lean as they come and that's why it works. It's a poster that doesn't complicate things. Neither does the film itself. John Wick is quick with establishing the stakes, but never clouds them with needless padding. Mr Wick has lost his car. He has lost his dog (a symbol of a greater loss). He demands satisfaction.

John Wick is the kind of genre film that assholes like me keep claiming aren’t being made anymore. Yet its type of film we can only think of someone like Keanu Reeves still being capable of making. Pulling punches is not in its dictionary. It hits quickly and hard. I fell in love with John Wick not only because of its physicality and practical effects, but because it creates an intricate universe with economy and sharpness. We’re quickly informed of the informal details before our lead character is wound up and let loose.

Despite being fully loaded with an armory's worth of cliché, John Wick is an action film that its own sense of style and attitude throughout. It’s a bold mixture of hard boiled noir and bloody nosed revenge flick. Its vivid cinematography (often punctuated with flashes of primary colours) gives it a feel reminiscent of a video game or a comic book you may have experienced, but holds a set design that seems to have one foot planted firmly in the past. That would help to explain the character’s strict adherence to a mysterious assassin’s code. These killers are paid in doubloon like coins, they order their messy clean ups as “reservations”. Their natural ground (where no business is allowed) has the semblance of a speakeasy. The film pilfers an assorted mixture of crime motifs and ideas. From muscle cars to codes of honour and whisks them into a heady mix.

John Wick could have easily been an ugly mess. However the film's directors; Chad Stahelski and David Leitch (uncredited) have laser focus in this debut. The film doesn’t hold a trace of fat, with its creators not only trimming the film to keep up its pace, but also to add the right amount of intrigue to the material. In the same way that the makers know when to cut and edit the brutally tactile choreography, they also know where to shave off flabby elements of plot. No one outstays their welcome, while the well pick cast know how to get the most out of very little.

Speaking of which. The film is definitely Keanu’s. Forever the straight man, Reeves has been mocked as a non-actor throughout his career. Range has never been his gift. But I can’t doubt or deny his on screen presence when it comes to action. His grim visage was never built for multi-faceted dramas. But here he excels. Reacting to those around him like a tightly wound coil. It’s in John Wick you realise just how well Reeves has played the straight man. Particularly now with many of the new generation of movie stars looking increasingly more bland with each announced reboot/remake. Reeve’s has never been one for dramatic depth. Yet, as Wick he still manages to show the determination and focus which made him so engaging in the likes of Speed (1994), Point Break (1991), and The Matrix (1999).

That’s what makes John Wick so engaging. Everyone is working to their strengths. Keanu Reeves is still an actor that looks like he can take henchmen down comfortably. The directors come from the stunt world, therefore keep their sights set on the elements that they work well in. The film is well cast and the "timeless" world that they're allowed to play in, is wonderfully distinct.  It’s an action film that won me over with its boldness and knowing how to play with the tropes. Here’s hoping this lean, mean outlook to action films gives these filmmakers a nice full fat directional career. 

Review: The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Screenplay: Joss Whedon

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders, Anthony Mackie, Hayley Atwell, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgård, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson.

Synopsis is here:

I found Age of Ultron to be a bit of an oddity. It’s a film in which, like a Chris Nolan feature, piles on a heavy amount of exposition and characters explaining themselves in the simplest of terms. Yet when watching the likes of Inception (2010) or The Dark Knight Rises (2012), I always find myself quite satisfied with those film’s final acts. I found myself befuddled by the last third of Age of Ultron. Near the very Tony Stark devises an improvised plan to save the world, and the other Avengers comply and react accordingly. Yet once our heroes put the plan into action, I can’t say I was able to follow it.

It’s difficult to explain. I “got” what was happening in the overall sense. However, I found myself staring at the screen glassy eyed through most of the film's finale. Then again, I felt that for much of the films slightly clunky action set pieces. I never fully got with the rhythm of the film. Joss does well to balance Age of Ultron as much as he can. This is no simple task. Whedon does manage to inform the movie with a decent sense of scale (it certainly feels bulkier and more substantial than the other Phase Two features). However, the vast array of characters and the tricky issue of what to do with them all, is starting to show. I’m not surprised the film concludes in the way it does.

All this makes it sounds like I sat in the cinema with a permanent grimace on my face. Far from it. Age of Ultron excels in its character beats and developments. Whedon’s screenplay gives the likes of Thor permission become more ponderous and investigative. Hawkeye is allowed to become the human heart at the center of the team. An unlikely romance blossoms between characters and it’s not only the most remarkable element, but also the sweetest. I’m not surprised that Whedon’s character beats are the most effective aspects of the film. As someone who limited their consumption of film’s buzz and marketing to only the trailers, it didn’t shock me in the slightest that the quieter, less excitable scenes, are the ones I was drawn to.

Whedon’s sense of humour has not succumbed to the same fatigue I’ve had for superhero movies as whole (thanks constant hype!). The screenplay's punchlines and witticisms push the film along at a lively pace. Whedon also gets the best out of the cast. Both returning and newcomers. Elizabeth Oslon (Scarlet Witch) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Quicksilver) gives far more ample performances than they did in Godzilla (2014). Original heroes Pine, Downley Jr and Ruffalo, all come out the blocks fighting. Johansson, Hemsworth and Renner have the chance to show the most growth and do so with gusto. James Spader gives a delightfully quirky performance as Ultron, the A.I. with a god complex. As with Avengers Assemble (2012), Marvel’s most entertaining villains appear to be saved for this sector of its cinematic universe.

It’s a shame that the film’s narrative buckles under the sheer weight of everyone involved. I’ve not mentioned all the returning supporting cast, new characters and other characters who’ve appeared in other Marvel films and are returning. Everyone is fighting for space and it shows. Two major plot revelations occur and did little to elevate the heartbeat. It doesn’t help that every blog and film site did their best to eliminate any element of surprise. However, there’s just not enough time for everyone to breathe. I’m sure there’s a few comic fans who are happy to see everyone stuffed into the films 141 minutes. But I did find myself contemplating how well established, some characters were compared to others. After reading just how hard Whedon worked in the cutting of the film to give it a sense of order, you realise just how well he’s done to keep all the plates spinning.

Yep. It still sounds like I have too many misgivings. But honestly, watching Iron Man don hulkbusting amour and go toe to toe with the green giant is a huge bunch of fun. As is the musings of Ultron in general. There’s still much to unpack in Age of Ultron. It does seem that I’ll be leaving that to the hardcore fanboy audience. Age of Ultron didn’t leave me with an immediate wish to watch it again like the first film. But I did leave with enough of a smile on my face. 

Review: X-men: Days of Future Past

Year: 2014
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenplay: Simon Kinberg
Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart

Synopsis is here:

The blockbusters are now in full flow, and despite the latest entry of the x-men franchise gaining healthy word of mouth both critically and commercially, I once again left the auditorium with feelings of fatigue. My enjoyment of the X-men series hit its peak with the brash knock around pleasure of X-2 (I did really enjoy 1^st Class also) but the time hopping antics of Wolverine and company only allowed a cloud of malaise to fog my mind.

Not being a comic book fan (per se), I find that my enjoyment of many of these films stems from when they slightly stray from the frame. I found myself more entertained with these characters when Singer decidedly placed himself out the frame as opposed to following things panel to panel. I enjoyed his broad brush strokes of religion (Nightcrawler) and race (Malcolm X and Dr King parallels) slotting into generally fun and balanced ensemble pieces. Day of Future Past cuts things straight down the line, with little time to be distracted by things that aren't dictated by the plot. We're too far down the rabbit hole for those small character beats that some enjoy.

Days of Future Past has Wolverine as the de facto leading man once again in an alteration to the original that is understandable in terms of the story, but feels dull due to the volume of X-men films with Hugh Jackman setting the pace. Jackman is still solid in the role, but after situating Wolverine as the main poster boy for long now has the decision feeling stale. It did allow my audience to gawp and giggle at Jackman's bare ass. The hefty violence, however (which did cause one family walk out), didn't raise an eyebrow. As I considered how desensitised audiences can be to on-screen violence, I realised that while the film didn't stop for me to finish my contemplation (why should it?), it didn't have anything within it to make me stop my mind from drifting.

I found myself thinking about the texture that Singer had brought to X-men before. Having mutants such as Nightcrawler who didn't just feel like an amazing opening set piece, but a chance to introduce a mutant which had a certain amount of consideration to his character. Days of Future Past has an illuminating Quicksilver (A mutant with superhuman speed) sequence which had me grinning at the wit and cocksure attitude that Evan Peters brings to the role. However, he feels utilised only as a plot device rather than anything else. The use of Quicksilver doesn't feel as jarring as the motivations of Michael Fassbender's Magneto in the later stages. Writers who know their comic onions such as Devin Faraci have written entertaining pieces on why the film has no continuity errors, but a decision by Magneto feels more muddled than it ever should do. Had I no formal knowledge of the character, I would have been questioning the film even more. The film screenplay often clunks plot elements about heavily. Ask yourself: how often do we need Wolverine to explain to people on why he's in the past? 

Here's where we are now in the comic franchise city. If you weren't around at the beginning and something confuses you, then tough cookies. It makes sense to the nerds and geeks, so you're not invited. Anything that may feel like a piece of badly communicated plot can be happily explained to you afterwards, but if that's the case, is it good filmmaking? Then again, even those who have enjoyed past entries may raise an eyebrow to other actors who get short-changed by the film's direction and its clunky narrative. Halle Berry and Anna Paquin could have had grounds to sue if they looked like they gave more of a damn.

Clearly I'm being facetious, but looking at how previous characters are treated in Days of Future Past reminds me of how empty the film made me feel. After watching it last week, I'm now struggling to remember anything other than the odd one or two moments that held my attention. Nixon caricatures and speeding Quicksilvers aside, Days of Future Past will (and has) impress those who revere the film's source material. For the likes of myself who remain on the periphery of this wave of geek pop culture, there's a good chance of being slightly stumped.

 

Review: The Amazing Spiderman 2

Year: 2014
Director: Marc Webb
Screenplay: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Colm Feore, Felicity Jones, Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz, Paul Giamatti, Sally Field,

Synopsis is here:

Two years ago on what was likely to be a wet day in Peterborough (can't remember), I found myself leaving The Amazing Spiderman (2012) with a beleaguered look on my face. Sony’s redeux of the story felt more like the contract cash grab by many people, including myself. I found it not only to be wallowing in its own angst, but also quite dull in its execution. I can’t honestly think of a moment or sequence that truly stuck with me after it’s 136 minute running time.

Now in 2014, on a wet weekday in High Wycombe, I once again found myself struggling to find myself enthused with Marc Webb’s second entry to this rebooted canon. Although it’s worth noting that The Amazing Spiderman 2 shows a large improvement from the previous film.

Webb once again shows that his strength lies within the bonds he forms with the relationships. As much as I enjoyed the Sam Raimi movies, it’s Webb that really seems to nail the dynamics of these comic creations. Garfield and Stone really click as a couple, while Sally Field is most certainly a stronger Aunt May. With the likes of Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker) and Dane DeHann (Harry Osborne) in place of Toby Maguire and James Franco respectively, one may feel that Webb has lucked out with a better suited cast, yet there’s an affection that Webb coaxes of situations that Raimi overlooked. The dynamics between Garfield, DeHann and Stone (Gwen Stacey) in quieter scenes have better judgement than that of Raimi's. It helps that Webb and the screenwriters have clearly matured the characters and toned down the angst somewhat, although the role of Gwen Stacey feels underdeveloped.

The film's action is strangely forgettable. Despite the clear improvements to Spiderman’s web slinging and New York swinging (the opening intro trounces anything Raimi in the air), the films actual set pieces don’t really have too much to say and still feel slack on the physical front. They also feel odd in terms of pacing. The sequences don’t particularly feel well balanced to all the downtime we share with Peter as he tries to patch his personal issues. The Amazing Spiderman 2’s set pieces seem to finish quite quickly (with certain villains suffering under the too many antagonists theory). They also don’t feel that connected to the narrative. The film's opening and climax are very guilty parties, feeling more tacked on than they should. Of course, like so many of these adaptations, both the beginning and end are really about the NEXT escapade and to try and get you hooked on what comes next. More shadowy figures for Roberto Orci to get his teeth into.

It’s a shame The Amazing Spiderman 2 doesn’t reach the kind of heights we now expect for a second entry of a these recent franchise. The film feels less rushed, but still doesn’t define it’s villains as well as the previous series. The relationships work well, but the narrative still buckles under the strain of having to balance so many plates.

We get a film which is still more of a simple distraction than anything really distinctive. Even Jamie Foxx's Electro feels more of an echo of Jim Carrey in Batman Forever (1995) than anything particularly idiosyncratic. The most unfortunate thing about this is that Garfield is the better Peter Parker by quite a long way. I wish they could combine his smart-Alec attitude with Raimi’s knock around vibrancy. Then again, we all know that comic books do a great job at alternate universes. Maybe something for Sony to perhaps chew on while they slap their products all over their films.  

Review: Captain America: The Winter Solider

Year: 2014
Directors: Anthony and Joe Russo
Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely
Starring: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Cobie Smulders, Frank Grillo, Emily VanCamp, Hayley Atwell, Robert Redford, and Samuel L. Jackson.

Synopsis is here 

I do say to myself that I’m tired of this current stream of comic book movies. I still find it astonishing how some of my friends keep themselves psyched for each upcoming entry. I guess they do well to avoid the teaser teaser trailers and constant click bait articles which break down said trailers shot by shot.  Of course you ignore these things as much as a mainstream film fan can, one can still suffer from comic book fatigue. Evidence can be found in the hammer headed -marketing campaign that The Amazing Spiderman 2 is leading.

I complain about these things and yet due to this blog, the current film environment and that fact that I'm full of self hatred, I find myself settling down with popcorn to watch these things. I have become more partial with the superheroes. I abstained from Thor: The Dark World, for no other reason than I'm not especially interested in that strand of the Avengers (Loki excluded). Yet I found myself hitting Captain America: The Winter Solider on the opening weekend. Reason being, I simply want to see what they do with Steve Rogers thread.

Captain America: TWS pleasantly reminds me why I find myself coming back to comic book franchises.  This is a solid extension of what has come before with its head firmly placed with where it wishes to go. The basics still remain; Roger's is still the slick haired, Boy Scout action man, whose heart is so securely in the right place, you'd need power tools to wrench it loose. Yet there's a stern sense of growth. Evans deals comfortably with Rogers as a man who is a step out of touch with the world, but with the willingness and ability to adapt.

Observing at how the screenplay deals with an extraordinary man thrust into a modernised cynical world, makes me consider just how crooked the likes of Man of Steel feels against this. True the Marvel studio has had time, but it only takes a few scenes to see the deftness of touch. One scene based inside Washington's Smithsonian Institution balances Rogers as the relic he was and the hero he is. It's executed with a grace that displays a sense of assurance the Russo brothers clearly have, considering these are directors whose recent history is been more successful with smaller screen comedies (Arrested Development, Community).

The film still suffers from conflict. The presence of Robert Redford, paranoid mood and knowing establishing shots of the Washington monument do suggest 70's thriller the film aims for, but once the action kicks in, the tone sometimes gets swallowed up by Marvel's action style. While we gain more physicallity than we've seen in previous entries, most of the action itself still feels pretty typical of what we know. Less Parallax View, more powerhouse punches, although it's hard to think of the target audience noticing.

Joe Johnson created a Captain America with a similar tradition to the likes of The Rocketeer (1991). The first film's buccaneering style and compositions feel more comfortable with the comic book source. It's difficult not to feel that that The Winter Solider does sometimes feel at odds despite its larger, more confident set pieces.

 The Winter Solider still maintains some neat touches. In a film that talks about the enemy within, it's interesting to see Rogers have a book on George Bush on his shelves. Early talk about R&B singer Marvin Gaye starts off as an amusing aside, but reminds us of the artist's socio political leanings as well as his death by the hand of his own father. Consider this when we discover the identity of The Winter Soldier.

The uncomfortable notion that no one can be trusted is becoming key to this incarnation of this Marvel universe. The Winter Solider toys with the strand as effectively as the other entries in the universe. Unlike Iron Man 3 however, there's less awkwardness in the carrying out of the theme, revelations feel less like pulled rugs, while red herring play out more than adequately. A small yet effective piece of editing seems to turn attention to a character that isn't surprising, but hints at a dormant conflict that would throw up interesting outcomes.

I found it hard not to think of more Paul Greengrass more than Alan J Pakula. Evans has the kind of conflict of interests that bother Matt Damon and while he takes on the unassuming role well, the superhero aspects make him a little less affecting than the likes Gene Hackman, Warren Beatty or Donald Sutherland. That said, these films have a different agenda than their influences, or fan canon for that matter. People like me need reasons to keep coming. If Marvel keep generating curiosities such as Captain America: TWS, I guess I'll keep spending.

Review: Captain Phillips

Year: 2013

Director: Paul Greengrass

Screenplay: Billy Ray

Starring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Adbi, Faysal Ahmed

Synopsis is here

I’m still trying to figure out in my mind if Captain Phillips is a stunning film all together, or if the films climax is so strong that we forget that its first act feels quite plain. I considered the film that helped make Greengrass such a viable director in America; United 93 and found myself more engrossed with how that film looked at preparation and meditation. United 93 had a perfect balance of dread and procedural in its beginning, with its quiet moments betraying the impending chaos. Here Greengrass tries a similar thing but with less success to the tone. We see the films two captains going through their routines, blissfully unaware of how both will place each other through their paces. Phillips (an on form Hanks) and his wife (Catherine Keener in a small cameo) debate their son’s future before he sets off for his long haul. On the other side we find Adbuwali Muse (Adbi) lead a group of Somali pirates towards Phillips ship in search of ransom.

Greengrass’ ace in the hole, much like United 93 and Green Zone, is his ability to remind us that there are two sides to the story we’re watching. The time we spend with the pirates is vital, as we witness just what survival means to them. Unfortunately while the build up of character is needed for later on, there’s a distinct lack of urgency and blandness towards proceedings I cannot place my finger on. I can honestly say I can’t remember too much of the film before the clash of cultures.

Once Muse and Phillips meet, the screws begin to tighten. The idle chit chats and work grumblings that littered Phillips’ ship before are exchanged for frightened glances and hushed tones. The Pirates invade the ship both visually and orally. Their demands are yelled at a near unintelligible pitch and tensions accelerate to their peak because of this alone. The fear of their guns is obvious, but the combination of this along with the alien sound of another language being screamed constantly brings a worry we don’t often think about. Is someone demanding for you to do something or a commanding someone else to shoot you? This maybe based on a true story and yet I still found myself gripping my chair arms until my knuckles went white. I feel now it’s important for you to look at my profile picture as you will then realise the extremity of the tension.   

From that moment on, Greengrass’ powerful use of space takes hold. We alternate from tight claustrophobic close ups of desperate faces before switching to vast landscape views which show a lifeboat as a mere pin prick on an endless sea. Like Gravity; power of Captain Phillips comes from just how powerless the protagonists are rendered.  Both films are also superb at using tech to shove us within their characters headspaces. Twenty years ago, this film would seem an even more arduous task to comprehend. The work of Greengrass’ crew is overwhelmingly intricate, that I’m not surprised that more nauseous viewers avoided it due to seasickness. It’s that seamless.

The cast are equally unerring with Barkhad Adbi and Faysal Ahmed keeping up with the ever dutiful Hanks at every step. It’s important to remember that these are first-time performers and their ability to show the right amount of intensity and humanity should be well noted. We should not enjoy their acts, but the displays shown by the actors create an empathy that is difficult to attain.   

Like all filmed true stories, Captain Phillips clearly takes liberties. It’s amusing to see that Phillips does the same walkie talkie move I witnessed two days after when I watched Harrison Ford in Air Force One (if that was actaully done was it life imitating art?).  It’s also clear that the pirates run under certain archetypes. We have The Captain, the Kid, and the hot head all on show so it’s fair to say that there is a certain poetic licence in play. Yet while it’s based on true events, we’re supposed to gain the feel of what it’s like and not a full documentation. There are places to gain “more truth” I came for the film. And this is what Greengrass brings after a rather mundane beginning.

I watched this on the opening weekend of Catching Fire and the film has already seemingly dropped out of critical discourse, as is the way of many movies these days. Would people still be writing about Phillips if the beginning was stronger, or is this how we treat all films these days? That seems a shame if it’s the latter as Greengrass’ final stunning moments hit harder than many others films complete running times. That in itself is worth talking about alone. 

Review: Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters

Year: 2013

Director: Tommy Wirkola

Screenplay: Tommy Wirkola

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Peter Stromare, Famke Janssen

Synopsis is here:

Hansel and Gretel clearly wishes to be a cult comedy. The names Adam McKay and Will Farrell flitter up on the screen during the film’s opening credits, which play on an idea of fairy tale land newspapers. There’s a riff of Shrek in the air as you watch. This doesn't leave easily. Later on when Hansel narrowly avoids an oncoming arrow, we get a moment of bullet time. Shrek played with Matrix effects in what seems to be quite an age. Hansel and Gretel makes it feel like 2001 all over again.

That comes off a little harsh, considering the vast amount of films which have borrowed from the popular effect that The Matrix series help make popular. That said Hansel and Gretel wants to join in with some of the popularity made with po-faced fairy tale revamps such as Snow White and the Huntsman (2012), while trying to make sure that everyone’s forgotten that Terry Gilliam toyed with Grimm tales with mixed results in the tortured Miramax project The Brothers Grimm (2005).

Hansel and Gretel lacks the spiritedness that a director like Gilliam embraces wholeheartedly. His film may not work fully to certain viewers but many can take solace in the offbeat humour he tries to install within his piece as while of the ambition of a few of the ideas.  Tommy Wirkola’s H&G:WH is more about sexing everything up, as is the way with this cycle of fairy tales. See the aforementioned Snow White and the Huntsman.

The off pace Hansel and Gretel has no Monty Python gene and it shows, establishing itself with violence and swearing to try and endear itself to the dream audience of teenagers but perhaps lacking in the askew view that would give it a true cult feel. Yes this faux old timey period has makeshift tasers and defibrillators but these aren't felt has fun gags, more mediocre asides. Meanwhile the conceit of Hansel having diabetes feels more like a forced plot device than anything substantial. Then again that’s no more uncomfortable than Renner’s performance, with his Hansel feeling less like a womaniser, and more like a tepid, reconditioned version of his Hawkeye. Arteron also struggles with her Gretel despite having a lovely corset but little brassiness in her actual character. Although the screenplay is wise enough to make sure that she not just a sex pot with a crossbow that falls in love, but does little to truly highlight the attentiveness that makes her more emotionally in tune to her surroundings. No matter what Hansel mentions, I just didn't get the feeling.

But Hansel and Gretel isn’t about feelings, it’s about heads a popping. And the claret spills in a frustratingly messy style, doing little to show of the impressive monster design of the villains. The film holds a lot of practical effects, but still feels more like a retread of the early 2000’s. Watching this after a kinetic and pulpy found footage feature like Frankenstein’s Army (2013) is a shame, as this film pales in comparison. Then again the same goes for the films modern trappings that lack a decent subversive quality. The f-bombs and lame quips that litter the film can’t hold up to even the weakest parts of Hanna (2011) with revels in mucking around in the same ballpark with better effect.  But Hansel and Gretel is never completely sure of itself, as a fairy tale throwback, or a twisted genre jolly.  Peter Stromare stars in both this and The Brothers Grimm. He seems to be having more fun in 2005. 

Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Year: 2013

Director: Jon M Chu

Screenplay: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick

Starring: Dwayne Johnson, Channing Tatum, Adrianne Palicki, Byung-hun Lee

Synopsis is here

What do you get if you mix the Director of a couple of Step Up movies with the writers of Zombieland? You get a tonally awkward and erratically plotted sequel to a silly but entertaining franchise. It’s clear that G.I. Joe Retaliation’s issues are not the complete fault of its writers and director. The film has obviously been tinkered with. The studio had held the film back for re-shoots (involving more Channing Tatum) and there is a longer cut available. That said without Stephen Sommers; Retaliation becomes an extremely po faced exercise which lacks the knowing silliness that Rise of the Cobra featured.    

Retaliation hops from place to place with of real sense of time, while introducing us to a glut of brand new, bland characters not worth writing in depth about. Not that a G.I Joe film is looking for poignancy, however it’s troubling that an actor like Dwayne Johnson has less moments of interest than Marlon Wayans. The reshot scenes that involve Johnson and Tatum are of no real importance. Then again nor is the major city that is destroyed in an instant. Even when Paris went the way of Team America in Rise of Cobra, there was at least a reference to what had took place. Then again it’s hard to argue with a film that feels that a woman dressing down to a bra and panties produces more harm to young minds than the amount of cannon fodder which bit the dust during each limp action sequence.     

It’s bizarre to think why the studio has such disregard for its franchise and it’s fans. Why chuck away half the characters and actors we got to know for little reason? Do people really deserve such forgetful action sequences? Why was the original tone for Rise of Cobra replaced with something more gung ho and hawkish? These questions will never be truly answered and only the most militant of fans will happily paper over the cracks with their own resolutions. I'm glad for them. Others on the other hand may find themselves more than a little confused.

Review: Pain & Gain

Year: 2013

Director: Michael Bay

Screenplay: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie, Rebel Wilson, Tony Shalhoub, Ed Harris

Synopsis is here:

Based loosely on an even more insane true story, Pain & Gain finds Michael Bay at the height of his excesses. The film is homophobic, xenophobic and sleazy in all the ways we expect a Bay film to be. Yet as the film isn't aiming dubious messages at the world’s youth (see Transformers), the blow is softened somewhat. The nastiness of the story the film is based on is in fact perfect for a director like Bay who revels in the delinquency of it all. The film is full of discrepancies (composite characters, altered facts) but it doesn't seem to matter. In his own cartoony way, Bay has crafted a film that at its highest points satirises the desperation that infects some who chase the elusive American Dream. It’s Scarface by the way of The 3 Stooges.

Bay mines all the techniques that make many hate him, but his excessiveness only seems to aid the film. The forever roaming camera captures these exasperated characters in heavily saturated colours. The extreme close ups capture every ounce of sweat drenched anxiety that befouls these despicable creatures. The canted angles and hectic cross cutting only seem to serve the skewed views of these criminals.  Even the multiple voice over narration from nearly every character in the film, plays into the mania of it all. Like soulless vultures; the various voices (full of juxtaposition as opposed to what we’re seeing) highlight the hollowness of these people.

It’s easy to hate Pain & Gain because it captures the vapid nature of its characters acutely. Delving head first into the griminess of its story, the characters talk in infomercial platitudes. They take work out breaks when the grisly shit hits the fan. Bay throws this amped up aggression right in our faces and doesn't let, but I never found myself aligning myself with the characters. I felt there was more than enough distance for me to pity their ignorance and laugh at them then with them.

The films humour is often hit and miss, yet when the lurid nature of the piece hits the right spot, there is an amusement about it that will tickle a few. Bay still really needs to reign in his bizarre issues with homosexuals (there was no elements of this in the actual story), while his attitudes to race and females are still as crude as ever. However, I must maintain that some of this works towards the characters we are observing. To sanitize the nastiness of this story would be a disservice. Fact is, as grim as the tone of this movie may be; it’s still not as nasty as what actually happened.  That Bay manages to mine something “enjoyable” out of this, says more about me than anything, but there’s something in the blackness of it all that entertained me. I've said it before; you gotta laugh, or else you’ll cry.

Pain & Gain looks to attack the worse aspects of American materialism in plain sight. From the garish colours, and over indulgent direction (although Bay has eased up on his editing), to the arrogant, dunderhead performances (Johnson’s relapsed, meatheaded addict is a highlight) of the main cast. Everything plays into the sordid mentality of culture that’s able to cultivate sociopaths and all of this is wrapped within a high octane package that only Bay could deliver. I have to admit that after the 447 minutes of robot smashing that Bay gave us, Pain & Gain seems much more toned down and focused in its action. Again, nothing hits the peaks of some his earlier works, however compared to the fallen revenges of the dark of the moon, everything is little bit more engaging. I guess one of the reasons is that Bay isn't shilling this to adolescents.

Review: The World's End

Year: 2013
Director: Edgar Wright
Screenplay: Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright
Starring; Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsden, Martin Freeman, Rosamund Pike

Synopsis is here

I loved The World’s End not just because it features my delightful hometown of High Wycombe*. That was an added bonus. No I loved The World’s End because as a Wright/Pegg/Frost fan, I felt the trio’s final “Cornetto Trilogy” entry may not their most quotable. It is however, their most mature in terms of theme. In terms of getting their man children to grow up, they don’t entirely pack away all their toys. But there’s a clear growth in their writing and craft that stands out throughout this sci-fi pub crawl.

I noticed the intent straight away when we are introduced to our lead character Gary King (Pegg) whose development is even more arrested than 2004’s Shaun. No video games or dead end jobs here. There’s not even a girlfriend who’s sick and tired of his shtick. King honestly believes that his life will not be complete until he and his friends finish what they started nearly twenty years ago. A 12 pint pub crawl around their old hometown haunts. His reluctant friends think otherwise but give him the benefit of the doubt. Upon arriving back however, they realise some humanity threatening differences have occurred.

Wrapped in its sci-fi shell is a film that amusingly illustrates where its characters, creators and core audience are now. Approaching or at the wrong side of 30, The World’s End looks at how these three groups are trying to fit into a changing and ever connected world. Both Shaun and Hot Fuzz (2007) also touched upon this with their love for anti-establishment rebels. However the focus here is sharper. Mostly because King and his crew, like their creators are now a little more lived in. The World’s End is their biggest dig at modern age conformity. King’s friends all married and safe, half realised dreams now monotonous facts and figures. Even today’s chain pubs, which all look the same, get tarred with the same brush. The indictment of this is wry. That this condense, overly plugged in world is strangling the character out of us. Not an original thought, but one happily reconstructed with a keen British eye and endearing love for the sci-fi which came before it.

Wright, Pegg and Frost once again reference the living hell out of the film. We see nods to The Day the World Stood Still (1951), The Stepford Wives (1975), They Live (1988), The Omen (1976) and quite possibly Stakeland (2010). Of course the largest reference is Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956, 1978), which is observed not just in the visuals, but the subtext. Like all good sci-fi; The Worlds End is all about humanity, and much like the aforementioned Body Snatchers, The Worlds End broadly tackles discrimination with a knowing wink which only these three could provide.

It's a pity that despite this The World's End is a very "white" film considering of its subject matter. I found it particularly interesting how Gary King, despite being quite an unlikable character is treated against the likes of the council estate hero Moses from Joe Cornish’s Attack the Block. Both fight or humanity’s right to be and their own individualism yet it seem that Gary can easily be brushed off as a lovable rouge despite his shady past. Problematic opening sequence aside, it seemed that John Boyega’s Moses has a larger uphill battle to win an audience over despite Gary’s age and history. Whether this has anything to do with class representation, or the general audience reliability to The World’s End actors/writers would be an interesting subject to delve into. Mostly because I believe Boyega sells the drama and complex nature of Moses better than Pegg does with King. I must also add that Shaun of the Dead’s Kate Ashfield still provides strongest female role of the Cornetto Trilogy, with Rosemound Pike having very little to do. In fact; the lack of Jessica Hynes (actress and writing partner on Wright and Pegg’s Spaced) has now become more noticeable. A Daisy Steiner isn’t needed within the film’s framework, but if I saw one, I would appreciate it. These are however mere observations over outright negative criticisms of the material. It’s hard not to get mad at a film which not only has beautifully choreographed fight sequences (the bathroom scene is inspired), but a film that litters its fight scenes with WWE moves. It’s those touches that endear me to the Trio’s work.

With all this talk, I forgot to add that I actually found the film funny. Choc-full of actual gags (please note all you U.S ad libbers), witty one-liners and an amusing main conceit (End of humanity? Of Course we Brits would be at the pub!) , the film does more to satirise male fears in one scene than all three Hangover movies. I know of one or friends who are quite possibly sick of the sight of Pegg and Frost. I however, still get a kick out of their antics. Pegg; whose has grown to become a star in his own right, often feels a little naked without Frost and it was warming to see the two together with none of the chemistry lost.  

For me; The World’s End is quite simply high calibre action sci-fi with fluid action set pieces and trademark word play that made Pegg and Frost a household name to so many. I doubt this will do anything to turn non fans but those who have been with the trio since spaced should enjoy the final trip into the blood and Ice Cream world.

Review: Man of Steel

Year: 2013

Director: Zack Snyder

Screenplay: David S Goyer

Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Laurence Fishburne

Synopsis is here:

NOTE: This review begins with a small description of a scene that may feel like a slight spoiler to some. You’ve been warned. 

Clark Kent is sitting in school. He cannot concentrate on the teacher’s voice. The fact is; he hears more than just the teacher’s voice, he also hears the voices of the other children. But they are not talking. He is hearing their thoughts. He can’t focus on the teacher, as when he looks at her he sees her biological workings. He sees her insides.

The child, confused at this sensory overload, dashes out of class and locks himself in a nearby closest, trying to shut out the voices and gain sense of just what is happening to him.  He doesn't leave until his mother arrives sometime later.

Clark Kent: “The World’s too big, Mom.”

Martha Kent: “Then make it small.”

It’s a tiny moment of a very large and lengthy film, but to me it’s one of the most important.  A short scene in which we witness the Kyptonian’s powers first-hand but also notice how far these powers may reach. Call him Clark, call him The Man of Steel, Moments like this only help remind us of the largest allegory people often attach to Superman; Jesus. The film Man of Steel, much like Superman, much like The Lord and savoir, must be all things to all men. However scenes like the one mentioned are few and far between in Snyder’s loud and proud “Epic”. The world of Superman is huge. I often had issues with Man of Steel as Snyder struggles to make it small.

Not to say that I disliked Man of Steel outright. The film’s main objective to me is to create a Superman for a generation.  That generation may not be for those who reach for Christopher Reeve’s portrayal, or certain versions of comic book. It's earnest in some of its intentions and tries hard. Looking back, this new, more anxiety ridden Superman almost reminds me of the trapped young characters of Snyder’s own Sucker Punch. While Sucker Punch is the weaker film and although both are visually different, both have their young characters seemingly escape into fractured mind sets of themselves. Sucker Punch’s Babydoll steps into an alternate dream world to protect herself, while we observe the view point of Clark Kent through flashback as he tries to make sense of the man he will soon become.

At first I found myself at odds with the cinematic language utilised to inform us of how this new Superman would come to be. Hand held cinematography is rife, while the films screenplay does little to help out the films flashback structure with Individual scenes being quite effective while others pale in comparison. I didn't feel that Snyder’s overall direction was bad, but I kept feeling that some moments felt more at home than others. I know many enjoyed the films beginnings on the planet Kypton, and yet these scenes to be quite dull. Meanwhile; scenes in Smallville of a young Clark growing up, fared much better.

I found that despite the more clunker aspects of the script; Synder’s direction of the actors and their performances, kept my interest levels up, even if the very nature of the characters themselves sometimes went astray. Cavill gives us a Superman that isn't an aping of Christopher Reeves but does more than enough to show us that it shouldn't be. Michael Shannon’s tone as Zod is all fire and fury and yet he manages to capture a tragic aspect of the antagonist. Shannon, who said in interviews that he stay away from playing Zod as a villain, depicts a character who believes that what he’s doing is righteous in his own eyes. The crowning achievement goes to Costner, whose performance as Jonathan Kent, speaks volumes as an actor whose best roles were often ones of earnestness. Here he manages to take this even further, breaking hearts in the process. Even when questioning Jonathan’s motives, Costner nails the grey area that lies in all of us. Do we agree on his actions? Possibly not, however, not only does Costner sell his scenes (with limited screen time) but he also makes “Pa” Kent and more interesting character to get a handle on.

Unfortunately; in terms of the female’s roles, I was less impressed. Diane Lane was fine, but her turn didn't 

strike me as hard as it has others. Meanwhile, I found the usually brilliant Amy Adams to be one of the biggest chinks in the films amour. Gone is the ballsy, go getting portrayal laid by Margot Kidder, we are now given yet another entry into bland damsels in distress graduation year of 2013. A Lois Lane is one that "kicks ass" yet never feels organic while her romance with Cavil feels awkward and cold. Adams is not helped by a screenplay that doesn't seem that interested in her as a character.

Once the film finds its rhythm in the third act, set pieces become the real name of the game (as is name checking aspects of the DC universe). Snyder revels in the loud and proud destruction that takes place. Secondary characters; that are suddenly now more important than the film made out, are shoved into danger. The scale of carnage reaches Doomsday (the character) levels. I was impressed with just how overwhelming the scale was. You see where the money went and I can’t say I wasn't entertained.

Funnily enough, many have been disgruntled by the vast amount of collateral damage that is evident and how muted the response is considering the source. I found myself more annoyed at Iron Man 3 than here. Stark had hit the peak of his story arch at this point and I found his actions towards his antagonists problematic (due to certain story elements). I maybe wrong; but here we have a hero who is still learning who he is in the world and Snyder’s film still manages to execute a motion that helps address what we see.

Maybe Snyder and his crew will address some of this film’s frustrations with more clarity in the next instalment. Isn't that the way now? Just wait till the next one to answer your queries while supplying you with more? The scale and action is in the right place but other aspects are sloppy. Until Snyder can ground his story and characters as well as Richard Donner did with the first two films, then I feel we will once again have an uneven playing field. There was enough to keep me interested though. There’s room for improvement. It’s difficult trying to be perfect.

Review: Fast & Furious 6

Year: 2013

Director: Justin Lin

Screenplay: Chris Morgan

Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Michelle Rodriguez, Sung Kang, Chris Bridges, Luke Evans, Gina Carano, John Ortiz.

Synopsis is here

We are currently in a climate which film critics are being attacked for their taste in comparison to populous opinion(despite it often falling in line); the first defence is how the critic’s opinion means nothing as the films profit margin is way more important. "All these people went to see it; therefore your thoughts are invalid". The second attack is one I call the Kevin Smith offensive. This is where the only people with an opinion are the ones with the ticket stubs.  

You have to laugh at the absurdity. You can only have a say about the film if you pay for it, and by paying for it, your payment is a statement that you enjoyed the movie. It is a warped sensibility, but one that appears more and more. We now have the unsettling occurrence in which keyboard warriors lie in wait for the first negative review of any popular film and unleash at whatever poor sap had a different opinion from their own. 

So when your franchise is six films in and the latest entry is close to making half a billion at the box office, it doesn't really matter what any blogger or critic thinks. Yet here we are writing about these movies, often trying to give cultural context to these episodes of pop culture, while the loyal servants lie in wait to explain how wrong you are by calling you a faggot. 

Fast & Furious 6 sole aim to fascinate and frustrate those who believe that their palette is too sophisticated for such "lower" nonsense. Many complain about the lack of original movies and while we may be standing at the films sixth entry to the franchise, Fast 6 not based on any previous material. True the franchise is completely derivative but, hey, at least it's doing it on its own account. The film still indulges in displaying gratuitous female flesh, and yet still utilises more female characters than both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek. Women in Fast 6 have more to do, say and truly feel part of the films terrible plot and storyline. Fast 6, much like 5 is also vastly multi-racial and uses it to its benefit. Aside from one or two poorly placed moments of dialogue, race is not a major issue in Fast 6, with its main theme of family extending across racial lines. 

Justin Lin (the veteran director of the franchise) doesn't lose stride with hi direction of the action. The late night London locale is effective and while Western editing has effectively maimed the beautiful art of choreography, Lin still manages to deliver simple, easy and enjoyable action to follow. I found it incredibly easy to find myself caught in the twisting of metal and cracking of bones, simply because Lin holds a shot for half a second longer than most. 

The film is still nonsense, keep up with the loop jumping plot and we're still watching a film in which the good criminals are planning to steal from bad thrives because screenplay. The film is incredibly happy with its strange discourse of bloodlessly murdering innocents without a care in the world. A nitpick but still bizarre when watching. The script is happily fuelled with dim witted dialogue, graceless wit and dubious platitudes and even at its worst the validity of the characters is flimsy. 

Yet, the sheer unpretentious of what's at play, drives Fast 6 through most of its obstacles. Unburdened with the geek weight of comic book adaptations, Fast 6 can happily laugh of any YouTube "everything that's wrong with" videos because it has nothing to live up to and yet succeeds somewhat with what it delivers. It's hard to call out a film which has its main catchphrase "ride or die" at its heart. 

Fast and Furious 6 isn't doing too bad critically. It is currently fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and riding high on the IMDB. It will not stop a small army of fans deride anyone who doesn't hold it with high praise. Despite this; what makes Fast and Furious 6 interesting, is not that it has a force big enough to provide ammunition if it were under attack. It's that the film and franchise is big and ugly enough not to give a fudge if anyone likes it or not. 

Review: Star Trek into Darkness

Year: 2013
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Simon Pegg, Bruce Greenwood, Paul Weller, Alice Eve

Synopsis is here

At least one film academic or critic is bound to be a little perturbed by the opening of JJ Abrams’ space rock opera in which an action sequence involving a tribe of "native" aliens begin to hail praise and worship on the enterprise with its corn fed, all American boy captain. Things only become odder when we delve deeper into this second summer package of the revamped star fleet. Particularly as much of the film relies on concepts of this group of explorers becoming more heavily armed to combat what looks for be an impending war. It's obvious that the filmmakers are not making any profound commentary such moments. Thinking about the 2009 entry, I'm reminded at how well race was displayed. But believe me when I say this, someone will say something.

That aside, I was far too happy to see what would happen to these next to care too much about such moments. Star Trek displayed enough love for the original series that it did not feel like a smash and grab number. It did so with a jazzed up, youthful but well picked cast that really held everything in place. The banter put in place along with the timing of the cast were of course half the fun of such a film. This new Star Trek was less about diplomacy as it was for trying to put a zing in mainstream summer blockbuster viewing. So here comes the difficult second album. Star Trek set the bar quite high as a piece of fluffy fun and now, its sequel "into Darkness" now has the job of either levelling for exceeding expectations.

For me, I found there to be something underwhelming about this recent venture. Something not sitting right as   I sat stuffing popcorn into my face (could be the reason). Four years ago, Star Trek was a shiny and glossy thrill ride. However; while Abrams hasn't changed too much to the proceedings, he doesn't make the evolutionary jump I had expected. The small lull I felt in the first film has expanded here. After a beguiling start which looks set to match the leap into chaos we found with The Dark Knight, I found myself more than a little distracted with the films second act. If it wasn't bogging you down with plot (not all of it feels needed) then it's slapping you around the face with another frustrating to follow action sequence.

Much of the film feels more about its loud bangs than its large characters. If not for the forcefulness of the films villain,  the film could have really lost its way. It's hard not to enjoy Benedict Cumberbatch as he expertly demoralises his foes with the utterance of one word. However, he is nearly lost amidst all the pulling of the strings the script and Abrams must do. An example is Alice Eve, who seems to be rivalling Rebecca Hall as most unfortunate bright young actress in a big blockbuster with little to do. When the film resets its focus upon the couples and groupings which made the 2009 entry what it was, the sparkle comes back.

As I've said before, I'm no TV Star Trek fan so this no fanboy rant or retort. However, it does feel that Abrams has missed a trick slightly, giving us a villain that really ups the stakes but nearly forgetting some of the essence that makes John Harrison such an interesting prospect. There's still some fun stuff here, with Abrams and Co still having fun poking in and around Star Trek lore and the final act having a decent emotional payoff. But all in all, the film feels more than a little overblown. Here's hoping that Abrams regains a bit of composure for the third entry. 

Review: Dead Man Down

Year: 2013
Director: Niels Arden Oplev
Screenplay: J.H. Wyman
Starring: Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace, Terrence Howard, Dominic Cooper

Synopsis is here

"You were expecting art" I was told by my podcast cast co-host after this shambolic viewing of Dead Man Down. A statement not even worth a response in my view. If I'm going into a film with a title such as this, with the knowledge that the film is produced by World Wrestling Entertainment Films, I know I'm not getting "art". When comments such as the aforementioned a thrown around, it's often used as an excuse not to engage with any of a films flaws. No, I was not expecting something that would inspire revolution. I was expecting B movie thrills. Unfortunately I was awestruck by the dullness that inhabited Dead Man Down, I found it hard to find any spark of enjoyment.

Dead Man Down is one of those movies in which is rooted down with such silliness, you realise that the film itself comes to a standstill if you were to try and rip out its problems. Characters must continue with their stupidity in order for the film to function. Characters act dumb while the audience are near yelling at the obvious. To think that a crime boss, who rose up the ranks and is now being elaborately threatened, can act so blind around those around him, cries foul. But to suggest this; means the film no longer ceases to be.

I may be looking at this the wrong way, but I don't think so. Right from the start we have the drop on the characters ahead of time. We have no suspense or tension. There's no anticipation because we're clear steps ahead of the game. We are waiting for a cast who is fair to good for the material to finish the puzzle you completed yesterday. And we are doing this at a snail’s pace. 

Director Niels Arden Oplev may be riding on his credentials gained from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but that film thrives on the energy of its outlandish plot and the forcefulness of its female protagonist; Lisbeth Salander, played by Rapace. Here Oplev's muse is diluted from complex construct to damaged damsel with little to do other than look pretty and helpless. The scars placed on Rapace's face by the makeup artists do little to deter her sex appeal, or convince of any serious disfigurement, no matter what the neighbourhood kids say. 

Oplev had a fun mystery to pull apart with Dragon Tattoo. Here he only has a pensive Colin Farrell furrowing his brow so hard, you could plant potatoes in the lines. The tale of revenge that takes place here is formulaic and boring, and save for the film’s final set piece at its climax, there is little to take note of. 

Films like this need a certain amount of urgency. If not, bored viewers may tug at it its frayed edges and tear it apart. I had more fun trying to guess which wrestlers had bit parts as hired goons. I didn't expect "art" but the best B movies are entrenched in their genre enough to be subversive, outrageous or smart. Dead Man Down does none of these things. But the least it could have been is exciting.

Review: Iron Man 3

Year: 2013
Director: Shane Black
Screenplay: Shane Black, Drew Pearce
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, Ben Kingsley, Jon Favreau

Synopsis is here:

NOTE: The following review contains what could be considered explicit spoilers. The film may have raked in all the money, but one must believe that not everyone visiting has seen it. 

"Since New York, everything changed" states an anxious and perturbed Tony Stark. It is a statement I wholeheartedly agree with. The billion dollar blockbuster which was The Avengers showed us just how big Marvel and Disney want to make these comic book franchises. The Avengers may be mostly based within the state of New York, yet in terms of the stakes, you can sense just how high they have become.

The Avengers also brought about a straight headed frothiness often forgotten in this kind of venture; happily reminding us that these comic books can not only manage grandeur but can do so while being bright, breezy and colourful. Iron Man 3 feels rather wearily like two steps back. Now, we have "final" entry that is little too romanced by The Dark Knight than it needs to be. While the second film didn't much the scale of The Dark Knight, so much of Shane Black's screenplay has the tinge of Nolan's adaptation, that the film near loses its own identity. However, there was a good chance of that happening anyway, as Iron Man 3 also harbours an awkward mesh of Disney and ultra violence that comes close to undoing the work that the first two films happily put forth. Yes, that's an admission that I didn't hate the second film.

My main issue with Iron Man 3, stems from its jarring tonal shifts. The film looks set to delve into the more curious aspects of Tony Stark, who is now having nightmares and panic attacks due to the events in New York. Unfortunately, despite the large amount of time Stark spends out of the suit, the film does very little to look at his demons effectively.

In fact Stark and friends feel the best of curing what ails him is with ludicrous and abrasive violence. The kill count of the good guys is not only high, but doesn't feel wholly justified when put in consideration to the villains badly realised motives. We should be fine with Iron Man blasting away indiscriminately because he spends lots of time with some latchkey kid during the second act. Stark's Real Steel moments suffer from the same kind of clumsiness that affects Spielberg at his so called worst, and yet due to the "cool" factor that comes with Robert Downley jr, this seems to be bypassed. The jump from Fisher Price my first mechanic to blasting fools with little regard becomes a harsh discourse.

I began to find the whole thing reductive. As a Disney/Marvel franchise feature, going dark could be problematic, but hiring Shane Black makes a clear statement of intent. Black's traits are everywhere for all to see, but are shoved awkwardly into a third feature which had its character under a different arc. One where its character evolved from selfish arms dealer to all into someone who begin to understand the responsibility he held in his blood stained hands. IM3 decides to effectively blast that away for some kick ass action scenes. That said, sky-diving set piece aside, the films spectacle is only intermittently engaging.    

 Iron man is far happier dulling my expectations by messing around with its main villain, The Mandarin. It's understandable that some of the more controversial and prejudiced aspects of the character needed to be exercised, but why after to the blood and sweat are we left with yet another white collar industrialist as the man behind the curtain? The series has cumbersomely come full circle.

On the positive side, the cast are still finely tuned to everything thrown at them. Downley Jr and Paltrow bounce off that fantastic chemistry that makes them such a fun couple to watch. Black's screenplay does much to keep them separate, yet their moments together are still effective. Sir Ben's Kingsley guzzles scenery like toffee and I really can't fault anything Guy Pearce, Don Cheadle or Rebecca Hall have done recently, let alone here.

A lot of the dialogue is snappy and chucklesome and individual moments and scenes hit their mark as you'd expect from a writer of Black's calibre. Yet the entire feature doesn't settle well in the pit of my stomach. As murky as the politics were in Nolan's Dark Knight Rises, the film still managed to fit within its universe of necessary evils and chaos that its characters are meant to inhabit. At least Batman kept it all about the turmoil of Bruce Wayne, Iron Man 3 seems happy to dismiss Stark's relationship and anxiety as fussy, uninteresting and easily micro managed by an 11 year old. That may not bother the cool kids or bean counters, but it gave me food for thought.