Iron Man 3 (2D) - Fifth-Pass / Spoilers Cert: 12A / 135 mins / Dir. Shane Black
I know what you're thinking, and part of you might be probably a little bit right, but I was there for the first screening of this at my local, and in the absence of anything else to watch I may as well be there for the last one, too.
The dust has settled, the film's been picked to bits, and it seems that Marvel/Disney have pulled a good one out of the bag. RDJ's current contract is done now, and it'll be interesting to see what occurs for Avengers 2 & 3 as the closing card of IM3 states simply 'Tony Stark Will Return', leaving us (me) to speculate what form this will take. Iron Man 4 looks like a no-go (which is fine by me; go out on a high), but we've got Cap and Thor sequels to take us towards Avengers 2, and it'll be interesting to see if young Mr Stark makes a cameo in those.
So, in closing, I didn't really get anything new out of my fifth watching of IM3, but it did reinforce something I've been thinking about for a while now. There's been some talk, both on and offline, comparing the third Iron Man film with the third Batman one. While there are very valid points to be made in this, it seems to skip over the central theme that separates the two heroes (and indeed, films). Iron Man isn't the same kind of hero as Batman, and isn't trying to be. Throughout Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, Batman repeatedly puts over the point that the people of Gotham need a symbol. That symbol can be anyone; anyone who's prepared to commit himself to justice. It's the suit that's important, not the man. In order to effectively monitor Gotham, Bruce Wayne keeps his alternate identity a secret, knowing that the revelation will (and does) compromise his ability to function.
Tony Stark, on the other hand, outs himself as Iron Man at the end of his first movie. The problems that come his way are less to do with street-crime, and more to do with his past as an arms-dealer and Grade A Arsehole. Stark is the public face of the Avengers; you just can't keep that kind of ego down. It's the ego that gets him into trouble, and the ego that helps him out of it. In the third IM movie, when young Harley finds an intruder in his garage, and Stark shines the spotlight on the armour, the boy asks "…is that Iron Man?" to the reply "well no, technically I am". There are multiple characters who wear the suit (both Iron Man's and Iron Patriot's) in the final film, and on top of that there are a bunch of empty ones that show up for good measure. But they're not Iron Man. Tony's last words to the viewer (and/or listener, depending on how you want to look at it) as he drives away from the ruins of Stark Mansion are that you can take away the house, the gadgets and even the suits; "But there's one thing you can't take away… I am Iron Man."
Whereas in TDKR, Bane orchestrates the destruction of Wayne's personal and financial empire, breaks his back and leaves him in a Middle-Eastern jail to rot; Tony Stark's major stumbling block isn't having his mansion destroyed, it's a series of panic-attacks. It's the one entirely personal obstacle he has which wasn't placed in front of him by the Ten Rings organisation, the one which only he can fix, and the one which isn't really fixed by the end of the film (because Tom Conti punching you in the spine doesn't really work for anxiety issues).
I'm not saying one character's better or worse than the other, just that their motivations are too differing to compare directly.
There's no doubt about it: Batman is a hero. But Iron Man is a super-hero.
Bring on Thor.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So I received an e-mail the other week, from the lovely people at Vue, informing me of a special screening they were holding of a new film called 'Trainspotting'. I have to say that the quirky poster they attached was quite different from the staid, sober mood the title would suggest. With that, I was intrigued, and decided to pop along for a look.
Well, firstly, I should point out that this must have been a very exclusive screening, as Vue showed the film in the bijou Screen 10, and only eleven people had been invited to attend! There was an absolute minimum of fuss, and I wasn't asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I'm guessing Channel 4 Films are hoping that influential bloggers and social-networking types will spread word of mouth, ahead of general release. Obviously, I'll be only too happy to oblige.
Secondly, as it transpired, the film isn't about trainspotting at all (although I did catch a train to the cinema to see this, and there were some trainspotters on the platform. Viral marketing performance art?), but is actually about some Scotch heroin addicts! I did see two trains in the film, but the characters seemed to make no attempt to record either their model nor registration numbers. I'll assume they have those down in their books already. Although with all that skag coursing through their veins, who knows what their handwriting looks like?!?
The story follows Ewan McGregor's 'Mark' and his pasty chums as they get into an escalating series of scrapes around money, women and you've guessed it... heroin! I've seen Ewan before in a Star Wars film, but don't worry - his Scotch accent is almost impeccable. He is quite convincing. A rather nice touch, I thought, is that this is a period piece, set in the 1990's, and the fashion, music and branches of John Menzies add a layer of realism that really draws you in.
Although bleak at times (don't worry, the baby comes back later!), 'Trainspotting' is a real Boy's-Own romp that will keep audiences entertained and adrenalised from start to finish. Mark my words, publicity may be low-key now, but this is a cult-hit waiting to happen, and by the end of the summer I suspect you'll be hard pressed to find any serious film fan who hasn't at least heard of it.
Warning: features Keith Allen, albeit briefly, and two scenes of people with poo on their hands. I'll let you decide which is worse.
It makes the film look like a lot more fun than it often is, but yes.
Yes.
Yes. Which is to say it's more cohesive than the book.
Well, if you get the chance to revisit this at the cinema, it's well worth it, but the DVD/BRD should see you right.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
If / when the gang get back together to make a sequel, would you want it to incorporate (if not neccessarily follow) Welsh's sequel book, Porno?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
What an absolute gem! Despite it being rooted firmly in indie film territory, it's very light on kookiness. The futuristic setting and appliances are presented (for the most part) without awe or exposition, and the varying treatment of Robot by the characters make him as human as any of them (despite Robot's repeated statements that he isn't).
There are recurring themes, metaphors and symbols on age, memory, regret and friendship, or if those aren't your bag, you can sit back and watch Frank Langella give a spellbinding performance opposite what is essentially a great mime-artist inside a very limiting suit. It's thoughtful, moving, funny, and the sort of thing I usually find very hit or miss. This is a hit. Oh, and is Frank's line of "She doesn't like you… I don't like you, either" a deliberate cantina-scene reference, or am I just willing that into being?
If you fancy something a bit different, but completely accessible, you should give this a go.
Perfectly.
Yes.
Yes.
Pay to rent; it's beautiful but doesn't need to be watched too often..
Yes.
Yes, although not for a while.
No.
When can I have a robot?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The Liability Cert: 15 / 86 mins / Dir. Craig Viveiros
From an intriguing trailer comes a mixed bag of a film about a good-for-nothing layabout (Jack O'Connell's Adam) who gets mixed up with a hitman (Tim Roth's Roy), and unwittingly becomes his apprentice. The scene above is a perfect snapshot of the chemistry between O'Connell and Roth, and they make the film a pleasure to watch. That said, it's odd that O'Connell plays essentially the same persona as he did in Tower Block, and yet I couldn't stand that character. Ah, well.
While Peter Mullan puts in an effortlessly great turn as Adam's stepfather, the rest of the cast feel like they're capable of more but aren't getting the chance to have their turn. There's the core of a great thriller here, but it feels neglected as the relationship between Adam and Roy is carefully dissected. By the time it's all wrapped up, it's happened a little too quickly, leaving too many loose ends as the credits roll. As interesting and well-shot as it is (the grey skies of the North East of England set a beautiful muted tone for the film), it feels like a missed opportunity.
The film about a killer wanting to retire, and a hapless kid wanting to succeed him is a good one. The film about regret, revenge and human-trafficking is barely hinted at, and gets lost behind extended scenes of dark-humour.
Still, at least it's not Kill List.
It sums up the relationship between O'Connell and Roth's characters. So, yes.
Mostly.
I think so.
There's no rush, you can wait for this to be on the free channels.
No.
Probably.
No.
Is Peter Mullan as quietly-terrifying in real life as I imagine he is? Y'know, I think he'd be friendly and that, it's just that you wouldn't be able to relax when he was in the room.
Comments box. Let me know? Cheers.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Safe is that odd mix of an often lighthearted tone, fused with some pretty brutal violence. The film has beautiful stylistic touches, such as the camera showing us The Stath™ running over hoodlums in a stolen car by focusing purely on the contents of the rearview mirror, but many parts of the script are flat-out appalling, both in writing and delivery.
Given the patchy nature of Jason's back-catalogue, Safe is a lot of fun, and definitely in the top-end of his canon, but it lacks the greatness that The Stath™ can bring when he's really trying.
Luckily, The Stath™'s autopilot cruises well above the level that many of today's action heroes don't reach when they're on manual. IMHO. Obviously.
Safe is 'a Jason Statham film', with everything that implies.
Yes.
Pretty much.
Pretty much.
If you're a fan of The Stath™, it's worth the four quid for a rental. But if you're not, you won't even be considering it anyway..
No.
Yes.
Not that I heard. Could be wrong, though.
As much as I love The Stath™, he's going to have to do something new soon or risk going the way of Van Damme (although many would argue that's happened already).
What would you like to see him have a go at, and more importantly, do you think he'd be able to pull it off?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
"Is the package for yourself?", the counter assistant asked. This was the stupidest question I'd heard all day.
Two days earlier, a card had arrived through the front door while I was at work. A package, for Mrs Blackout, was awaiting collection at the Post Office. Now, this was unusual, because normally they hold them at the sorting office, not an actual branch. The more I thought about it, this made more sense as the Post Office itself has opening hours longer than that of the sorting office. 'That's fine', I said, 'I'll pick it up on my way home on Friday'.
Friday arrives, my early-finish arrives shortly after that, and by 1pm I'm walking through town, in the rain, towards the Post Office. Not the nearest one to my house, and not a one which is actually on my way home (ie, I've already walked past a) the sorting office, and b) the nearest Post Office by the time I get there), but the one which is holding the package. I'll say now, by the way, that the item in question is two packs of replacement bags for the vacuum cleaner. Exciting, I know, but it sort of leads into what comes later.
So I arrive at the Post Office. I reach into my bag and pull out the card which has been left at my house, and also a bank statement as proof of my address, as required by that card (because if I'd broken or tricked my way into someone's house to steal this precious delivery-card, there's no way I could also have stolen something else with the same address on it). I inform the counter assistant that I have a package to pick up, and slide the card under the glass partition. She looks at the card (for far too long, in my opinion), looks vaguely around the paper-strewn desks behind her, and reaches for the package. It's about 10"x5"x3", and I can see by the way it moves that it contains two boxes inside a plastic 'courier bag' type thing.
The counter assistant looks at the name and address on the card. She looks at the name and address on the package. She looks at the name and address on the card. "Do you have any ID?" she asks. "Yeah…", I reply, and hold up the bank statement at the glass. She gestures for me to pass it under the partition. Clearly she can't be expected to read a name and address from almost two feet away through a sheet of toughened safety-glass, and there's no way she can lean closer, so I comply and pass her the envelope.
The counter assistant looks at the name and address on the envelope. She looks at the name and address on the package. She looks at the name and address on the envelope. She doesn't look back at the card, which I find odd. Surely a triple-sequential-check is better than a double? Or has she just remembered that the name and address on the card and the one on the package are the same? Let's hope so. Studying the two items with a frown on her face, she almost seems unable to come to terms with the fact that the only common feature they share is the address and postcode. I have no problem at all with the fastidious nature of this transaction. She's doing her job, and she's doing it well, ensuring that the packages which leave her particular counter only go to the correct recipients. I respect that, and appreciate that it takes a little longer to do something properly. It's the next question which tips the balance. She raises her head from her studies to address me…
"Is the package for yourself?", she asks. There are three answers to this question.
1) Yes. Yes, it's for me. That's why the name on the envelope is different to the one on the package, obviously. You see, I'm currently undergoing a course of online-retail-based gender reassignment operations, and the sender of that there box has already begun to use my new name "Ms Collins", while the fuddy-duddy squares at my bank seem hellbent on calling me "Mr Paterson" until the procedure is complete. I know, I know, crazy, isn't it? Yes, I don't look remotely female, in either physicality or dress, but it's early days. Those are my new breasts in the package you're holding, one in each box. No, I'm not kidding, why would I? What's that? Gender reassignment still wouldn't account for the surname being different, even if the prefix to the name was? Fuck, you're right. Erm… right, Yes. Yes, the package is for me. I have a multiple personality disorder, and "Ms Collins" bought some hoover-bags online the other night, but as I can't control when she manifests in my psyche, it's good ol' "Mr Paterson" who's here to collect them. That said, "Mr Paterson" could just be another pseudonym that I've fooled the bank into believing. Of course, the bank weren't as Marple-like as yourself, good lady, and you've seen right to the bottom of my ruse. The truth is, I have no clue who I REALLY am. DAMN YOU, woman. Damn you.
2) Well, as you've studied the two items in your sweaty hands for over a minute now, what the fuck do you think? Notwithstanding answer number one, do I LOOK like "Ms Collins" to you? That's who the package is addressed to, isn't it? So that's who it's FOR, isn't it? So what the fuck kind of question was that? The answer's CLEARLY going to be NO, but since I have access to the mail of the occupants of this address, including the missed-delivery card of one and the bank statement of another, I'd say that me picking up their hoover-bags is pretty much THE FUCKING LEAST OF THEIR WORRIES, wouldn't you?
3) No, it's for my partner.
I answer with number three. It seems easiest, if I'm being honest. She considers my answer for a further 10 seconds before pointing wordlessly at the side window and sliding my package through the hatch, with my bank statement atop. She doesn't say anything more, so neither do I.
Package collected, lesson learned.
And while I'm on, I do recommend you use brand/model specific bags for your vacuum cleaner. The generic ones are passable in the short-term, but the difference in pickup with the correct bag is quite remarkable.
So y'know. Every cloud…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Let me state for the record, I enjoyed this movie. There, I said it. There seems to be less direction than the previousHangover movies (meaning the patchy story, not Phillips' directing), and it feels more than ever like a series of sketches and set-pieces strung together by three men bickering in a car. But let's not piss about; that's what this series is. The plot takes a turn away from the manhunt/memory-loss groove, but doesn't get too far away from that. Secondary characters from the first two episodes seem to have been shoehorned in out of contractual obligation, and this time round it's really just 'the Zach Galifianakis & Ken Jeong show'. Then again, I think this character is ZG's best work*1, and I love Ken Jeong in pretty much everything anyway, so y'know. Ed Helms and Bradley Cooper are there, and are good, but it's just not really their movie. John Goodman appears as his John Goodman character, which he's getting quite good at doing, and Melissa McCarthy appears as her Melissa McCarthy character (although thankfully she doesn't have enough screen-time to start ad-libbing*2).
So, we roll along, from abduction-sketch to burglary-sketch to parachuting-sketch, and slowly but surely the story just sort of… peters out. There's an ending, but it just feels like it's there because there were no more ideas left in the notepad. It's not a 'long' film anyway, but it still starts to drag its heels as we realise there isn't really a final bang to go out on; which is a damn shame given how much I did chortle throughout it. It's the sort of thing which will seem a lot better with beer and friends, so it's probably more suited to DVD. I'm aware that I'm not really selling the film to you, but then neither have Warner Bros. They're banking on you wanting to see it because of what's gone before, not what they have for you this time.
I wasn't disappointed by it because it's pretty much what I was expecting: One for the fans. Bottom line? It's better than 21 & Over. And to me, that means a lot.
As a franchise, The Hangover needed this movie. Although I'm not entirely sure its audience did.
Yeah.
Yeah.
More than likely.
DVD'll do, unless you're eager to see it.
No.
Yeah.
No. I thought I heard one at one point, but it was just Alan getting the crap kicked out of him.
The Hangover has exhausted its own well. Not only has it run itself dry, but it's pretty much also put paid to its competitors, too.
What's next?
*1 Because let's face it, all of Zach's other roles are essentially watered-down versions of Alan From The Hangover. At least in these movies he can go for it, full steam ahead.
*2 Or to become deeply irritating. Which is the same thing, in her case
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
