Iron Man 2

There’s a tendency to lump all superhero movies together into one genre. Let me just say that to do so is utter bollocks. Don’t believe me? Well, just compare Iron Man 2 with The Dark Knight. Both have superficial similarities; sequels to successful films, these feature millionaire superheroes fighting bad guys who in some way resemble corrupted versions of themselves. But in terms of tone and style, the two films could not be more different. The Dark Knight is a dark film about escalating violence, and takes on elements of a Greek tragedy. Iron Man 2 is a glib, tongue-in-cheek two hour soft-porn film for technophiles. It is also interesting to contrast the two central characters – Bruce Wayne behaves like a dick to hide his alter-ego and protect his friends and loved ones. Tony Stark, however, behaves like a dick because, basically, he’s a dick.

But enough of that comparison; let’s talk Iron Man 2. What’s it like? Well, it is as if Favreau and his production team decided that the template for Pierce Brosnan Bond movies was a winner, and decided to carry on that franchise using Tony Stark instead. Consequently, you get a fun, brash, silly film with an engaging but often irritating central character. Downey Jr clearly has fun in these movies, and who can blame him? It is just a chance for him to strut around pretending he is king of the world.

And don’t talk to me about darkness in the film. Yes, Stark has health problems and Stark gets drunk and behaves like a fool. But that’s hardly ground-breaking and gritty, is it? And yes, there is character development – if you can call it that. Pepper Potts (unconvincingly) changes from being completely wet in the first film to a brusque businesswoman who has almost a maternal attitude to Stark. Her transformation isn’t about developing her character; it’s about giving Stark some sort of a foil to point out how annoying he is.

Then there’s Mickey Rourke’s performance as Vanko. Sure, he’s intense, and he gives a restrained, subtle performance in a role just crying out to be camped up. But seriously, he’s in the wrong sort of film for that performance. His character, and his character’s family, run through every cliché possible of a Russian villain, and his character’s actions in the film (like attacking a Grand Prix, for fuck’s sake) are hardly the actions of a thoughtful man. Watching Rourke in this film is like watching a gourmet chef try to make a decent meal out of a Big Mac. It ain’t ever gonna happen.

No doubt there will be Iron Man 3 - and the franchise could run and run as long as Downey Jr (given every other actor in the series is immediately replaceable) is up for it and as long as people keep on watching. And yeah, this is enjoyable nonsense – which I pretty much think is exactly what the producers and directors wished to achieve. But I find it quite telling that throughout the film, the DVD I had from LoveFilm kept on skipping (which is happening a lot, actually. Come on, LoveFilm, sort it out). Yet despite missing several scenes and the dialogue that ended the film, I really didn’t feel I missed out. Which, I suppose, is both the benefit and the potential flaw of this film; they are the very definition of non-essential. And this may well cause the franchise problems when it starts to come up against real opposition at the Box Office.

The Next Superman Movie

The options from a poll in The Times* about a new Superman movie is worth looking at, (especially if you are a comic book geek like me). If only because the options are so awful.


Just let the big guy rest a while. No Superman movie for a few years.
Yeah, whilst this may be the best option offered by this poll, it just isn't going to happen. With the massive success of The Dark Knight and Iron Man, anything that comes from a comic book is in vogue and will probably get the greenlight to go ahead by the money-hungry people in Hollywood.


A straight follow-up to the Singer/Routh movie.
One small problem with this idea - the Singer/Routh movie was dull. It was really, really boring. I never realised just how boring Superman could be until I saw that movie. Even Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (as pious and crap as it was) managed to be entertaining. Not so much Superman Returns. Long before the end of that movie my attention was not just elsewhere, but anywhere other than on the movie I was meant to be watching.


A big screen outing for Smallville.
That series only just works on the small screen. There is no way, particularly with all the years of continuity behind it, that it would work in cinemas.


Darkness in Metropolis. A Chris Nolan Superman.

No. Don't be dumb. Darkness works well for Batman - he is, after all, a vigilante with post-traumatic stress disorder. But Superman is a light hearted superhero. Making him dark is to completely miss the point of the character and what has made previous Superman movies so enjoyable.

Which, for me, is the point. A Superman movie should be big, brash and dumb. Forget the darkness, forget making it worthy or realistic. Just make it fun. It is about a man who can fly and who has a stupid kiss curl in his hair. Intellect and worthiness are not good matches for a Superman movie. It needs to be fast-paced, enjoyable and light-hearted.

So a memo to the makers of the Next Superman movie: make it fun**.

*Can't seem to get a direct link for it, but it is attached to this entertaining article here.
**And if you want someone to write the script for you, I'll do it. For a very reasonable rate. I've got an idea for it and all.

Gordon Brown... Superman?!?

So, if the leaders of the two main parties were to be superheros, which ones would they be?

Harriet Harman has a suggestion:

Commons leader Harriet Harman responded to Tory MPs in the Commons she would "rather have Superman as our leader than their leader who is The Joker".

Gordon Brown as Superman... well, no, to be honest with you. The Moai and I discussed this at length in the pub last night, and decided that if Gordon Brown was going to be a superhero, then it would have be Batman. Think about it - they are both dark, brooding, angry, dysfunctional, anti-social people who throw around large amounts of money and, on occasion, come across as borderline psychotic.

And as for Cameron being the Joker... the Joker is a charismatic, unpredictable madman who acts as a true nemesis to Batman. The dull, predictable Cameron is probably not going to be the Joker because - alas - he is proving himself to be anything other than a nemesis for Gordon's Batman. If he was going to be a superhero, then The Moai reckoned he would be Iron Man - a feckless, indolent millionaire put in a position of power by his piles of cash. Whereas I would say Cameron is more like the Penguin; portly, posh and a little ridiculous.

As an aside, I would say this sort of debate is perfect for the pub. Whether or not our politicians should be debating this sort of thing in the Commons is open to question; what with the economy disappearing down the shitter and with our troops dying abroad, I'd argue that there are more pressing concerns in front of the Commons. But then again, I hold the political class in so low esteem that comparing themselves to superheros is just as good as them trying to legislate...

UPDATE:

The Moai has some more suggestions: "Peter Mandelson – Two-Face? The Green Goblin? Someone utterly amoral, definitely." And we're agreed that Clegg would be Superman - reasonably good looking, conventional, utterly, utterly dull and a bit of a boy scout. And "Miliband is geeky, annoying, vacuous and worryingly close to Brown. So he’s Robin."

The Dark Knight - Why So Serious?

Having ranted away this morning about a couple of things that fucked me right off, I thought I would attempt balance by offering a more positive post. Although it is something positive that I reckon a lot of people will find fundamentally depressing.

Yep, The Dark Knight. The new Batman picture. It has been hyped to the max, and was always going to make a lot of money. But being hyped and making money is not an effective test of quality. If it was, then Titanic would be the best film ever made. Rather than a tedious, predictable bit of popcorn fodder enjoyed only by teenage girls lusting after the boyish Leonardo Di Caprio. So, is The Dark Knight any good?

Yes. Absolutely. Pretty fantastic, if you ask me. There are some negative points, of course - no film is perfect. Some of the action sequences don't make sense. Other moments, like Dent's kidnapping, should be seen rather than told. Overall, the already long film feels like it should be longer - and that the extra time would help make the narrative clearer and more coherent. Finally, Bale's Batman is so gruff that it is almost impossible to hear what he is saying - if his voice was any deeper, it would be a dull, incoherent rumble. A tube train, rather than an actor talking.

But these are minor gripes. Overall, the film is superb. Ledger is good in an actor's dream role - his Joker is scary and unpredictable, but I think those actors with less obvious parts are arguably stronger than Ledger. Bale effectively plays three different roles - Bruce Wayne the arrogant playboy, Bruce Wayne the detective, and Batman the action (anti) hero. Eckhart does Dent justice but really comes into his own when playing two face - making a hideously disfigured murderer sympathetic. But for me the best performance comes from Gary Oldman as Gordon - he manages to make the police officer a fallible, human character at the same time as making him the quietest, yet most affecting, hero of the picture. And the film is visually stunning - the action set pieces look good and the pace of the film, despite the long run time, never lets up. A stunning piece of film making.

And my review is in line with a lot of other positive reviews. Mark my words, though, it won't be long until people start dissenting and criticising the film. And I think a lot of criticisms will focus in on the tone of the film. Make no mistake, this is a dark film. Batman is seriously screwed up. The Joker gives people Glasgow smiles. Two-Face is created through a traumatic moment, and the make-up for the monstrous side of his face is horrific. As a result there will be those who remember the 1960's show, or Joel Schmacher and the Bat Nipples, and ask (to quote the Joker) "Why so serious?"

The answer is simple - because it should be. Yes, Batman is derived from a comic book. But that doesn't mean it has to be light-hearted pap. This is a dark story - it is about a vigilante with post traumatic stress disorder fighting in a crime ridden city against nightmarish psychopaths. It was never going to be, and should never aspire to be, Mamma Mia. If you are looking for a jovial, comic book romp, Iron Man is for you. If you are looking for an audacious piece of film-making that transcends the comic book origin, go see The Dark Knight.

In fact, go see The Dark Knight anyway. Part Greek tragedy, part horror movie, part action packed blockbuster - whether you like Batman or not, The Dark Knight is worth a view.

The Incredible Hulk

Went to see The Incredible Hulk last night (in a surprisingly cold cinema). And, frankly, it rocked.

Probably best I confess a bias here - I like the Hulk. I like the old TV series, I like some of the comic books. Hell, I even enjoyed the original big screen adaptation, although many others feel differently. So there was every chance I would like this version. And it did not disappoint.

Edward Norton is a great piece of casting; looking just as one would imagine the weedy, geeky scientist Doctor Bruce Banner looking. Liv Tyler makes the best of the role of Betty Ross - which is no mean feat as it consists mainly on saying "Bruce" a lot in a longing way. William Hurt brings the right level of pomposity and danger to the crassly named General "Thunderbolt" Ross, whilst Tim Roth manages to bring a certain physicality and a generally unpleasant facade to the role of Emil Blonsky, who becomes the Hulk's nemesis. A great cast, performing well - and all for a comic book adaptation about a guy who gets pissed off a lot.

The special effects are superb, with the Hulk coming across as a real character. A particular high point for me was the (first) helicopter crash, particularly with the helicopter blades detaching as the machine hit the ground. The Abomination also looked impressive (although clearly part of Emil's transformation was the loss of his genitals; for obvious reasons the film didn't explore that but his sudden emasculation could be the reasons why he was so uber pissed off in the final scenes) and in general it illustrated just how much special effects have come on since the original TV series - no longer is the Hulk a big guy, painted green, in a fright wig.

But above all, it was the script that worked. Don't get me wrong, it was a piece of hack script writing, with more cheese in it than a Dairylea factory. The story - such as it was - hung together on a serious of deeply unlikely con-incidences. But it almost seems stupid to mock a movie like this for having an unlikely, cliched script - because the story is built on an absurdity anyway. Anyone pointing out the plot holes needs to acknowledge the fact that the central premise is absolutely absurd as well.

What the script did understand is that the film needed to be fast paced, action packed and with an overall acknowledgment that this is a bums on seat, popcorn selling Blockbuster movie. It was produced, like the recent Iron Man flick, by Marvel Studios, who seems to understand that for all the pretentious implications that can be wrought from comic books, ultimately the comic books work because they are fantastic, and they are escapist fun. The producers seem to understand that both The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man were never going to be The Godfather - and, in my not at all humble opinion, are all the better for it.