Greatest Directors: Woody Allen; Part 6, Interiors (1978)

Interiors (1978) is an American drama film, directed by Woody Allen. The sixth film of his I’ve covered in this series. From immediate impressions, it’s a huge departure from anything we’ve seen before. You could say Annie Hall, and his boycott of the Oscars that year showed he was moving towards a much more serious direction, instead of the satire, the slapstick. The humor is surprisingly nowhere to be found in Interiors, and more surprisingly, Woody Allen isn’t in this one. My initial first look at Interiors before I sat down and watched it weeks later, was that it was somewhat of a domestic drama, headed in a much more artistic direction than Bananas (1971) and the like, however, as deep and poetic as Interiors maybe, I felt it had something missing. 

Often stressed, and successful Writer Renata (Diane Keaton)

Interiors is about a family as two parents go through a trial separation  until finally the husband demands a full divorce and introduces his new wife to his three daughters, the narrative focuses highly on the three daughters and their reaction to this, and how they cope. The mother (Geraldine Page) is incredibly overbearing, and tries to force her ways on her husband and her children, as we discover she’s fairly neurotic through the course of the story, and is ultimately unable to live without her husband (E.G Marshall). Renata (Diane Keaton) is the oldest of the three sisters, and harbors some responsibility, a lot of the tension from the film comes between her, and her husband Frederick (Richard Jordan). Renata is a successful writer, but Frederick feels he is unable to live up to her standards and grows to resent her. Meanwhile Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) is floundering in life, and is unable to find her purpose, or a job that suits her, she is strongly attached to her mother even though ultimately her mother rejects her, and prefers Renata for her artistic merits. Third sister Flyn (Kristin Griffith) is a relatively successful actor and model, yet relatively dim as is the subject of jealousy from Renata and Joey as she flutters and blushes for their spouses amusement. 

Interiors is definitely an expressionist film, highly focused around families, dynamics, and how we interact with one another. Woody Allen identifies the film himself as an homage to Ingmar Bergman, and it shows. The film it’s self has many elements of realism, and naturalism, with virtually no score throughout the film, which preserves emotion and makes you focus on performance. Akin to Annie Hall (1977) Allen uses cuts to juxtapose scenes of varying emotions showing characters in their varying moods which makes them feel remarkably human, seeing Renata and and Frederick perfectly happy in one scene for example, and soon a cut shows them arguing and very malcontent. The film is very dark, I assume not much lighting has been used as to try and capture that kind of danish naturalism Allens paying homage to in this film. I’d be lying if I said a lot of the film wasn’t very samey, and we basically live out the same arguments with several different characters, but there are some very potent scenes. One of which occurs at the end, in which eve the neurotic mother decides she finally can’t cope being alone, as she walks into the sea. Her daughter Joey attempts to save her, only to be dragged back by her husband to stop her from drowning, during this we see intercut shots of the other daughters and the ex-husband sleeping. Quite a potent metaphor showing they’re done caring for her, and they’ve basically accepted this, signified by their passive sleeping. 

The floundering and purposeless, Joey.

The performances are pretty potent, however no one’s really given a great chance to shine given that the naturalistic style doesn’t bode well for high drama, as it tries to preserve human emotion, as opposed to theatrical emotion. Overall, there are elements of Allen’s style still evident here, in particular it definitely shows his understanding of the cinematic elements more than his other films. Interiors definitely isn’t as interesting, witty, or satirical it does show directorial talent. For those interested in personal human drama, it’s worth a watch, if not it’s probably a bit bland, and leaves a bitter taste on the tongue.

A death in the family.

Summary: Interesting, but not entertaining. Woody Allen’s 6th film, Interiors is based on family dynamics, and human interaction. Particularly those who are artistically inclined, however while it does show directorial talent and performance, the film is very naturalistic which at times can be quite dull or otherwise quite uncharacteristic, especially for an aesthetic film lover like myself. Regardless, Interiors is at least interesting if nothing else, and I’ll continue with Stardust Memories, next time, on Greatest Directors. Follow me on Twittor @Sams_Reel_Views. 

Black Dynamite (2009) or ‘Fiendish Dr.Wu, You dun fucked up now!’

Black Dynamite (2009) is a comedy, blaxploitation, martial arts film paying deep homage to the blaxpoitation films of old, with deep use of satire, reference, and sharp-witted humor. The film stars Michael Jai White, and now has a spin-off animation show animated by the same studio as The Boondocks, and is quite a big part of Adult Swim’s current U.S line-up, or so I’ve read. I hadn’t really heard anything about the film before I decided to give it a go, aside from the animated Tv Show.

Black Dynamite has a very loose story structure, doesn’t exactly have a main goal or purpose. Mainly our protagonist Black Dynamite (Michael Jai White) being a hero in various ways, freeing orphans from the addictions of smack, fighting gang-wars while establishing himself as alpha male, and most importantly leading a team of highly honed warriors onto Kung-Fu Island in which they slay the vicious Fiendish Dr.Wu. The masterplan unravels to reveal a malt liquor that the government has been pushing has a deadly chemical that shrinks the male anatomy, behind this masterplan, none other than, RICHARD NIXON! (GASP!) So primarily it’s just 2 hours of Black Dynamite fighting ‘The Man’ in numerous ways, which is absurdly hilarious. Oh, and there’s a revenge plot involving his dead brother (How did I forget this?) The film ends after he defeats Nixon in a kung-fu battle, as he produces an epilogue about his conquering of the white house, and how he will lead his people to justice.

Black Dynamite is a film of incredible style and substance, it’s filmed in Super 18 giving it a really retro feel, and the dialogue is hilarious. The way it combines action and gunplay along with martial arts is superb, whilst maintaining that shaft blaxploitation style. Michael Jai White definitely pulls his weight as Black Dynamite, and the whole cast was fine. An excerpt I loved particularly:

Bullhorn: Oh, you’s a corn-fed fool with a lot of muscle mass. But it’s time for Bullhorn to get up in that ass!

[Bullhorn proceeds to land a chop on the thug, which is blocked. He then punches the thug in the midsection. He blocks a punch and slaps the thug in the face]

Thug #1: Motherfucker!

[Scene cuts to a retake of the fight scene, only with the thug replaced with a stunt double. Bullhorn punches the thug in the face before landing multiple punches to the chest and a kick to the face]

Bullhorn: Let everybody know and suckers be warned that this is the outcome when you mess with Bullhorn!

Verdict = Sensational 8/10. Elaboration: I didn’t entirely expect a lot from a film that was immediately made into a cartoon series after it’s release. While entirely not a lot analyze as it’s a comedic parody, Black Dynamite oozes style and substance, with a slick, clean surface. Filmed in Super 18 it has a beautiful grit to the image, with a fantastic script, premise, and surprisingly good action scenes. Everyone should probably give Black Dynamite a whirl, you’ll be surprised. Until next time I’ll leave you with a trailer and suggest you Follow/Comment/Like if you like what you’ve seen, and follow me @Sams_Reel_Views. Cheers!

– Sam.

Star Trek – Into Darkness (2013)

Hello there, another big contemporary release as we look at Star Trek – Into Darkness (Why is it called this?), Directed by J.J Abrams. For those unaware, it’s the second in the series, following the events of the first film Star Trek (2009). I initially liked the first installment, but it wasn’t until seeing this one yesterday, that I sat down and couldn’t really remember it at all. That’s probably not a good sign. However, I was mainly hyped for this because of Benedict Cumberbatch and seeing him play a villain, although I was unaware he turned out to be ‘THE’ villain.

Spock among the flames.

Before you read anyfurther SPOILERS, Etc: The narrative begins with Dr.McCoy (Karl Urban) and Admiral James T.Kirk (Chris Pine) on an alien planet being casually hunted by the savage locals. They escape in a knick of time, and detonate some kind of solidifying bomb invented to prevent a volcanic explosion on the humble planet. Spock (Zachary Quinto) almost dies, but they save him from the magma. Later on, Kirk and Spock are demoted for revealing themselves to the alien locals in order to save them. We cut to a poor girl who is dying, and a federation worker who is her father, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) appears and says he can save her if the man does him a favour. The worker obliges, and drops a ring into a glass of water in Federation HQ which causes a massive explosion as John Harrison roots around in the archive files. During council, John Harrison attacks the federation headquarters, and Admiral Christopher Pike dies (Bruce Greenwood) along with several others.

The corrupt Admiral Marcus.

This is the narrative trigger in Star Trek – Into Darkness, as Kirk, and commanding admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) decide they must do something about this, as Weller gives kirk 72 ‘Special’ photon missiles to threaten the fleeing John Harrison with. They go to Kronos, the Klingon homeworld, where after a small skirmish Harrison surrenders. He reveals him self as Khan! (KAAAAAAHN!) Deception happens, Khan betrays the starfleet twice, Admiral Marcus is also evil, as Kirk must find a way to save his crew whilst Spock seeks revenge for Kirk’s seemingly abrupt death at the hands of Khan, as he finally confronts his emotions and truly accepts Kirk as his friend.

So, for a typical blockbuster sequel, there’s a lot going on in Star Trek. It actually has a narrative with twists, turns, plot development. It quite surprised me. Well first of all, the aesthetics, the sound, anything audio-visual in Star Trek is fantastic to a tee, it really captures and enhances the mood of Star Trek: Into Darkness perfectly. Use of environments were interesting, we definitely saw more environments than we did in Star Trek (2009), and the primitive Jungle/Volcano world at the beginning was fantastic to see, and beautifully designed. However, I think the main departure from these two films, in comparison to the old ones are the willingness to actually explore other worlds (Which is kind of the point). Both films have basically climaxed with a ship invasion, with some mild gunplay, with Kirk and pals inevitably capturing the enemy ship or so, and then they’ll be a space-chase. We saw a glimpse of the Klingon menace but they weren’t to stick around, clearly saving it for the third sequel.

Benedict Cumberbatch was unsurprisingly, the best thing about the film. He’s a fantastic character actor, as he really sold the show as Khan, especially with a decent script to recapture the old Khan, with the mirroring between him and Kirk as ironically similar characters just trying to save their crews. This is doubly so with secondary antagonist Peter Weller building Khan up as this evil archetype, even though ultimately Khan had done nothing wrong, and he had awoken the sleeping giant himself. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) was pretty phoned in, and wasn’t developed in anyway, minor characters Bones (Karl Urban) and Scotty (Simon Pegg) certainly made the ensemble feel valid, as if it wasn’t mostly Chris Pine busting his ass off doing the world’s best Shatner impression. The film has some minor plot twists, most of them predictable. As for Sci-fi elements, the gun-play and mid-traffic fight scenes were a delightful spectacle to watch, however the old OH NO WE’VE BEEN HIT ONCE AND NOW THE SHIP IS DYING cliche’ was a bit below what I expected.

http://youtu.be/QAEkuVgt6Aw

Verdict = Solid 7.8/10. A solid second installment into the Star Trek trilogy, paying homage to old plots and characters, while embedding twists that keep it fresh and mildly interesting. The action, aesthetics, and audio qualities were all superb and couldn’t have been better. The script was fine, but definitely burrowed a lot from old cliches. In many ways I would have liked to have seem more of the Star Trek universe, and different civilizations, as a lot of it became stuck on the ship once again, which I do admit is part of Star Trek but to what degree? The performances were fine, with Benedict really stealing the show as you’d expect. It’s certainly not a must see film, but it’s a very solid installment that’s at least as good as the first reboot, or in my opinion a fair amount better.

The Place Beyond The Pines (2013) or ‘Sins of the Father’

Hello there friends, today I take an in-depth look at Director Derek Cianfrance’s second film The Place Beyond The Pines (2013) starring Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, and Ray Liotta. It’s an American drama film, or more accurately one of those ‘life’ films, portraying a kind of narrative strand within life it’s self, just portraying a story of the human existence kind of like Tree of Life (2011) directed by Terence Malick, without the experimental parts. I saw the trailers and a lot of the hype for this, and was quite excited. Watching it today, it is not what I expected but then again, I think it’s quite hard to portray what this film is within the confines of a short trailer. However the promotional material definitely seems to make the film a lot more palpable for mainstream audiences, when it’s definitely more of an alternative film, I feel.

The angel-haired, nihilistic Luke Glanson

Luke (Ryan Gosling) is a touring motorcyclist stuntman for a travelling fair, as he returns to a small town to find a girl named Romina (Eva Mendes) he slept with years ago now has his child . He attempts to support her and the child, being befriended by a mechanic called Robin (Ben Mendelsohn) He begins to rob banks, with the aid of robin, until Robin wants out, and Luke is confronted by young ambition copy Avery which leads to a shootout and Luke is killed. The story then switches to Avery’s point of view, as he and his police friends go to Romina’s house, and search it, taking the stolen bank money Luke left and giving it to Avery claiming it’s ‘hazard pay’. Following this, Avery is dragged into dirty dealings, and sells his fellow cops out to get the promotion he thinks he deserves, as he becomes District Attorney. 15 Years later, Luke and Avery’s sons meet as they unravel the truth of their father’s history.

A happy family, for at least a split second.

I may be going off on a wild tangent here, but I’d like to talk about narrative structure before I dive into the crux of The Place Beyond The Pines. In practicality, if you want to segment your story into different parts, told by different people you need to make sure that one of your story segments isn’t vastly more entertaining than the others, especially not at the beginning of the film. This is what Place Beyond The Pine does, first exploring the deep, confused character of Luke (Ryan Gosling), switching to the not so goody two-shoes Avery (Bradley Cooper), before then descending into this squabble between their children. It just took the plunge from high interesting drama, to teenage angst and for me the film lost steam, I couldn’t maintain interest particularly in it’s catharsis which seemed kind of empty. There was no real penultimate action, it just lead to Luke’s son discovering his identity, and going on the run to be like him.

The ultimate cathartic moment that happened about 50 minutes into the film, felt left wanting afterwards.

So the performances were hit and miss really, Eva Mendes was okay, but she didn’t have a lot of screentime. Gosling was the best performance in the film by a country mile, however as a supporting actor Ben Mendelsohn added a lot of personality into the story. The score was particularly effective, a blend of harsh and mellow sharp tones, accompanied by 80’s nostalgic music when appropriate. The cinematography was pretty much superb, the tracking shots on the motorcycle were expertly done, and I particularly like the long tracking shots following the two characters as we see how people react to them (Luke in the Circus fairground/Avery in the Police Station).

The corrupt cops Avery sells for a promotion.

While you don’t typically wanna read into a text like the Place Beyond The Pines too deeply, I would define it as one of morality. The cop shot the robber dead, the robber wasn’t even concerned with attacking the cop seemingly, and his son grows up to be a confused, maligned man just wanting a father figure to guide him, while the son of the cop grows up to be the world’s most smarmiest prick anyone’s ever seen.

A son, longing to be like his father.

Judgement = Good (6-7/10). Elaboration: The Place Beyond The Pines certainly had me hooked at first, but in my opinion went in the wrong direction, and could have been a lot more gripping if it had mirrored the two characters and had them face each other in the end, however the whole dead-pan flop I felt the ending was marred and otherwise a soulful and aesthetic experience. Well that’s it for this time folks, please Follow/Comment/Like, and Follow me @Sam’s_Reel_Views. Cheers!

From Russia With Love (1963) – Bond Collection Part 2!

Just a brief foreword: Really glad to be back here, been doing assignments and such, all finished now! Will be firing these out soon enough, getting on with lots of in-depth series, and will be releasing a little case study piece I’ve worked a lot on recently. Anyway, glad to be back, and thanks for tuning in, and sorry for the hiatus. Let’s continue!

Use of a chess tournament to develop a Villain as maniacal is something you wouldn’t think would work, but it really does, to an absurd level.

Film number 2 in the bond collection, as I watch From Russia With Love (1963) once again directed by Terence Young. I saw From Russia With Love a few months before buying the collection, but I watched it again, to revisit the finer details. So, just as a foreword, gunna plough through all of these at some point, balancing with more modern films, and the Woody Allen analysis, with some form of ranking as to my favorite bond film so far at the end of each one. So, for some context, the book was only released six years before the film, and was still quite fresh, which shows that it wasn’t necessary the obligatory adaptation of a bestseller we see today, as opposed to the beginning of a formula that worked, as Dr.No (1962) had quite positive respond regardless of it’s low budgets, and arguable flaws and relatively unknown cast.

Yes, that is a periscope.

The story line revolves around SPECTRE, as we see one of the first, and very brief appearances of Blofeld in the series, in which he puts General Klobb up to the task of killing James Bond (Sean Connery) for foiling the plan in Dr.No. Klobb fools  incredibly attractive Russian girl Tatania Romanova (Daniela Binachi) into seducing Bond, as she sends a letter to the British embassy claiming that she is a clerk for the Russian embassy, and has fallen in love with James Bond via a picture she saw on file. Thus, she is willing to give them the ever so valuable LECTOR decoder the embassy has been wanting if James comes to pick up her and the device. Thus Bond goes, and succeeds in traditional fashion, surviving his encounter with deadly agent Grant, a helicopter, several boats, and an attack from the desperate General Klobb herself.

One thing From Russia with Love did incredibly well, was Bond’s support characters, Ali Karim Bey (Pedro Armendariz) and Titania really add some depth, and change the kind of dialogue and chemistry we see from Bond. Ali Karim is an elderly Turkish gent and hotel owner who lives in Istanbul, who essentially is a mentor figure to Bond, as he guides him through various pitfalls and helps him with this investigation. It’s quite an unusual relationship for Bond, and is actually quite refreshing as an idea, and his tragic death is certainly near to tear-jerking when we see him die on the train at the hands of the maniacal agent Grant. Titania isn’t the best character, she’s awfully cliche, incredibly predictable, and quite frankly the acting is pretty appalling. However, the eye candy primarily does her job and serves as bait, and another chip on the table as Bond attempts to escape Istanbul alive. On an off note, I found my self addicted to this track from the score:

One real gem in From Russia with Love is Donald ‘Red’ Grant, or Agent Grant (Robert Shaw). He exists as the essential counter-part for Bond, a highly trained agent, like Bond only more ruthless and ultimately more of an assassin as him, although that’s the role Bond often serves himself. Their encounter and final battle is built up to expertly, having Grant trace him through the story, saving Bond on many occasions just so he can have the kill himself. The opening sequence even foreshadows the event by having Grant in a training exercise hunting someone down with a mask of Bond over their face. I think what made the battle it’s self so good is the fact that, ultimately Grant had Bond dead to rights, and could have pulled the trigger on many occasions, and it was ultimately greed that killed him. Grant is my favourite Bond villain of all the ones i’ve seen, no ridiculous gimmick, motive, or otherwise, just an agent matched to Bond’s skillset, one arguably better than him. Another minor thing From Russia With Love did expertly is it’s use of gadgets. Gadgets are often a small element in spy films, especially Bond and the later ones certainly let the idea get out of hand, and Dr.No didn’t really have any involved, on this mission Bond has…a briefcase. Oh, just a briefcase you say? Oh not just a briefcase. Inside is a secret tab, containing fifty gold bouillon, the tabs of the case must be turned a particular away, otherwise tear gas will erupt from inside, from a seemingly innocuous bottle of talcum powder. My personal favorite, a detachable handle that is actually a knife. Here’s my favorite scene from From Russia With Love, the incredibly visceral fight scene between Bond and Grant.

In summary, From Russia With Love is one of my favorite Bond films, one a fan of any installment of series should seriously watch, it’s fantastic even by regular films standards. Anyway, give it a watch, it’s superb, and please Follow/Comment/Like if you like what you saw. Join me tomorrow as I watch Interiors, the next Woody Allen film in the chronology. Also, Follow me on Twitter @Sams_Reel_Views. Cheers!

The incredibly seductive, Tatiana Romanova (Daniela Binachi)

– Sam.

Tyrannosaur (2011)

Okay, gunna start this one off by saying this review is not for the faint of heart, I had to grit through it myself to be honest. Tyrannosaur (2011) is a British realist drama, written and directed by Paddy Considine, very much in the style of British director Shane Meadows. Tyrannosaur is a very harsh realistic drama, for a very harsh world. I mainly decided to watch it as I’m a fan of Paddy Considine’s acting and was curious as to his directing style, also the film did relatively well at Sundance.

Joseph (Peter Mullan) is a damaged, harrowed individual who’s self-destructive nature has lead to the boring life he now leads that contains nothing for him. In the opening scene of the film, Joseph is outraged at his misfortunes at the bookies, as kills his dog as a result. He immediately feels remorse, and buries it. Continuing this downward spiral he meets Hannah (Olivia Colman) a charity shop worker who prays for Joseph and tries to help him. At first he rejects her, however they keep interacting regardless, as he asks her to pray for his dying old friend. Joseph claims Hannah doesn’t understand what life is like for him, yet she suffers constant abuse from her husband, including assault, rape, urination, and at one point she claims he inserted glass inside her so she couldn’t have children. She moves in with Joseph for the time being, as they fight, as she claims he is the only one she can run to. Joseph takes her house keys as she sleeps and goes to confront the husband, only finding his dead corpse. As the narrative climaxes, we see Joseph as a reformed man, wearing a suit, changing his ways, as we see him on a train. In the final few shots we see Joseph go to meet Hannah in prison, showing his affection for her.

The corrupt, perverted husband apologizes.

That was kind of a messy synopsis by me, but it’s often difficult to effectively summarize these real life domestic dramas without drumming over excessive detail. Obviously you expect this kind of harsh statement about the world, and how people can be from social realism, but at the same time, Tyrannosaur doesn’t contrast these damaged, victimized individuals to any concept of normality, and the amount of reprieve in the film is bare glimpses if that compared to the amount of wrong we see. Joseph as a character, is very well played by Peter Mullan, incredibly distant, silent, yet so emotionally unstable. I did have a lot of empathy for Joseph, while knocking down the shed, trying to forget about his dog, as it prayed on his mind. I think the trouble I had with Tyrannosaur was the characters aren’t very consistent  they seem to change and shift all the time, and it doesn’t really show them develop, the moments of crisis when they are forced to change at people. Like the end for example, when we cut from Joseph getting revenge and brutally slaying the pitbull with what we assume from the silhouette, is a baseball bat to, a changed man who practices religion. Surely the film should be about the reformation of this man, if it’s truly trying to be a social realist film, which of course it is, yet it just builds up to it, then shows it there rather abruptly.

The title of the film, I was expecting to have some deep meaning, however, it’s simply the nickname Joseph referred to his wife as, as she was a diabetic, and slowly killed herself by eating unhealthily, so he used to lambaste her for it, joking that when she walked downstairs, the walls would shake, and his tea would ripple, like Jurassic Park. Hence the film poster, showing a Tyrannosaur in the ground, referring to Joseph’s dead wife. Tyrannosaur seems like it wants to have some kind of social message, yet it doesn’t seem what, everything seems awfully contradictory to something else. Violence doesn’t solve everything, but Joseph is never punished for his violent sins. Is this because he repented in the eyes of god? Hannah killed her abusive, perverted, psychotic husband, but was punished all the same, in prison. Thus i’m not too sure what Tyrannosaur is really trying to tell us, other than just being a vaguely interesting take on a kitchen sink mellodrama, which I think would be dismissing it at surface value.

An uncomfortable scene.

Tyrannosaur certainly was an intriguing and an interesting film, however as a cinematic experience I certainly can’t say it was enjoyable, it was harrowing, rather saddening with little justification, and I really had to pace myself watching it. Can’t like em all I suppose, if you have any views yourself on Tyrannosaur I’d be happy to hear them. Until then, Tweet me @Sams_Reel_Views if yah like, or Like/Comment/Follow for more of my content. Until next time, amigos.

– Sam.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Reblogged, because it ate my post seemingly. Right, Take 2; 

Film Through Time.

So, before I dive right in, just going to say I will be analyzing everything about the film, thus the plot-points some consider twists too, so if you don’t want to know, find a more generalized review, or just wait til you’ve seen it. With that noted, Iron Man 3 as you all know is an American Action/Science-fiction Superhero hybrid from Marvel Studios directed by Shane Black (surprisingly not Jon Favreau). Starring Robert Downey Jr, Guy Pearce, Jon Favreau, Gwenyth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, and Ben Kingsley. So my expectations; I had only heard good things, and was told it broke the mold from the trilogy, and from Marvel Films, that’s probably a true statement the script is definitely not what I expected, however I’m probably in the minority that the things I didn’t expect didn’t exactly make it good, or fresh, just kind of wronged as to what I did expect.

Right, so…

View original post 872 more words

Iron Man 3 (2013)

There’s a particular reason I chose this poster, as opposed to the others.

So, before I dive right in, just going to say I will be analyzing everything about the film, thus the plot-points some consider twists too, so if you don’t want to know, find a more generalized review, or just wait til you’ve seen it. With that noted, Iron Man 3 as you all know is an American Action/Science-fiction Superhero hybrid from Marvel Studios directed by Shane Black (surprisingly not Jon Favreau). Starring Robert Downey Jr, Guy Pearce, Jon Favreau, Gwenyth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, and Ben Kingsley. So my expectations; I had only heard good things, and was told it broke the mold from the trilogy, and from Marvel Films, that’s probably a true statement the script is definitely not what I expected, however I’m probably in the minority that the things I didn’t expect didn’t exactly make it good, or fresh, just kind of wronged as to what I did expect.

Don Cheadle’s character revamp, as ‘The Iron Patriot’

Right, so the narrative starts with a narration from Tony Stark, and a flashback to ‘how the story began’ with a press conference in Sweden, in 1999. It introduce Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) as a biological scientist who invents something called ‘Extremis’ which at the time she believes can be used to regenerate cell tissue, repair false limbs, and such, however there’s a glitch in which things explode as we see with her experimental plant. During the conference Aldridge Cillian (Guy Pearce) approaches Tony Stark, and asks him to work for A.I.M (Advanced Idea Mechanics), as Tony snubbs the meeting and doesn’t show up.Cillian goes to Stark Industries to talk to Pepper, as he now attempts to sell Extremis to her, in a ploy for funding as she refuses. Meanwhile, a terrorist known as the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) is launching many attacks, one of which is on Stark headquarters, in which it is sieged by missiles, Pepper is captured by men affected by Extremis (they have enhanced strength, speed, the ability to burn, and a tendency to spontaneously combust), as Stark’s armor malfunctions and flies him to Tennessee on auto-pilot due to Jarvis’s confusion of a conversation they had earlier.

Tony Stark and Iron Man MK 42.

Thus, Stark must repair his armor, hunt down mandarin, etc, while Rhodey (Don Cheadle) as Iron Patriot (Formly War Machine) is sent by the U.S military to hunt down The Mandarin. It turns out The Mandarin is just an actor, and a figure head and the real villain is Cillian, spurned by Stark, determined to kill him and all those near to him. They fight, Stark summons lots of Robots (Ala Mickey Rourke in Iron Man 2), and he wins with some assistance from the now Super-powered Pepper as he agrees to never be Iron Man again. (Which is shortlived as a line of text tells us). So before I continue, here’s a gallery of excerpts I took from Invincible Iron Man V4 1-6 which is the original story arc the film is loosely based on in case you were interested.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Right, so Iron Man did somethings incredibly well, and some badly in my opinion. Let’s as customary start with the good. Everyone in the film gave a great performance, from the title character himself as we expect, especially showing more signs of weakness with his whole anxiety issue. Guy Pearce and Ben Kingsley were good too. The film is visually stunning, with it being at least as visually interesting as the other two in the franchise, possibly more so. However, the use of explosions was possibly a bit too much, it felt like a Michael Bay film, so many explosions. Other than that, the script was interesting, and fairly unique, with a lot of humor, writing in the child character for Stark’s childish, immature character to blend with was also an incredible touch. The Iron Patriot rebranding of War Machine, and in general Don Cheadle’s portrayal of the character was also pretty good, contrasting with the terrorism and middle-eastern motif that the Mandarin gave across. 

The ten rings of Mandarin, the source of his power in Iron Man comics. Also worth noting, Kingsley’s character also wore these in his pirate transmissions.

Right, now we’ll get to the crux of Iron Man 3, and why I didn’t love it (Quite honestly, I preferred Iron Man 2). The Mandarin is built up as this fearful presence, and Kingsley was fantastic in his broadcasts, in his messages threatening to presence and it really felt above any Marvel villain we had seen, realistic, brutal, removed from the cheesy cliches’ and motives. However, as soon as Stark confronts The Mandarin we discover he’s actually an actor from Croydon named Trevor, who is just paid to be The Mandarin on camera. A lot of the opinions I’ve heard and read of, basically praise the twist saying it was amusing, and interesting and Kingsley played both sides of the character well. He did, but what I don’t like is the massive waste of potential by doing this. I don’t know about the majority of audiences, but I wanted to see Kingsley as the Mandarin, a brutal political figured powered by the 10 mystical rings, this big ideological clash of mysticism, versus science. But instead Guy Pearce turns out to be the title villain. All we’ve really ever seen is Stark fight other guys like him, other scientists, other iron-men, Jeff Bridges, Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke, Guy Pearce they’re basically all the same villain, with the same motivation of hating, or besting Stark so they just stuck to the formula, and given the marketing campaign which clearly showed off Kingsley as the Mandarin I’ve got to say I feel they jumped the shark on this one. Especially with Pearce claiming that he’s the Mandarin? which really doesn’t make sense given the lore, meaning, and rite of that.

Pepper Pots (Gwenyth Paltrow, Left) Aldrich Cillian (Guy Pearce, Right)

The visual spectacle, performances, and humor were certainly in abundance in Iron Man 3, and the ‘House Party’ initiative at the end certainly was a joy to see. However Guy Pearce as the real baddy, as the ‘real Mandarin’ didn’t work in my opinion. Regardless you should all go see it, and it’s probably the best film in the series, even though I feel inclined to say I preferred number 2. Follow me on Twitter @Sams_Reel_Views, and Follow/Like/Comment if you like what you’ve read. Until next time! Adios!

– Sam. 

Greatest Directors: Woody Allen, Part 5: Annie Hall (1977)

Hello people, this is Part 5 of my Greatest Directors series, in particular focusing on incredibly seminal satirical comedy auteur Woody Allen. After trawling through some of the film’s that started Woody Allen’s career, finally we reach a real turning point in his career, 6 years down from his first solo Directing debut Bananas (1971) we take a look at the film that got critical acclaim for Allen, the one that put him on the map so to speak. At least for a little while, I can’t really judge this is all written as I discover it. So, Annie Hall (1977) is a satirical comedy, starring Woody Allen himself in the title role, along side Diane Keaton. This is an important thing to mention, as together they star in this, and Woody’s preceding 2 films, and Play it Again, Sam (1972), as a result by the time Annie Hall’s released quite a serious romantic drama, the chemistry is really solidified, it feels as if they’re reading off the script a lot of time, and Diane Keaton and Woody Allen are only good actors, not fantastic so the real chemistry between the two characters in Annie Hall is nice to see.

Alvy Singer reliving his childhood days.

The narrative follows Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) as he recounts his romance and time spent with Photographer and singer Annie Hall (Diane Keaton). It’s sort of a recount, as the first shot we get is Alvy addressing the audience in close-up, talking about how he’s had many marriages but his romance with Annie Hall reigns above the others, and how he can’t stop thinking about it as he recounts the story. The story’s told in vague chronological order, but has flashbacks to kind of flesh-out the characters showing numerous stages in their relationship. Showing as their an established couple with problems first, flashing back to how they first met, and how they grew from then on, inevitably building until they part ways, and remain friends. The use of shifting the chronology, but using it logically to really contrast different points in the relationship, like the early loving stage, the routine, the break-up is really effective, and relate-able to the relationships we’ve all been in. At points it also has split-shots for example contrasting Alvy and Annie’s families, or contrasting how Alvy once believed school was important, and then denouncing it as a joke, the ultimate statement that people change constantly. The real effectiveness comes at the end of the story, when the storytelling makes you realize that the two characters we once knew are now completely contrasting people.

Use of the split juxtaposition shot I mention.

The humor in Annie Hall is slightly different from the medium he’s established in the 4 films I’ve watched prior to this of his, and at the point I last reviewed Love and Death I thought of it as incredibly formulaic.  There isn’t as much stupid slapstick, him being strangled by a hose, his weapons disassembling in his hands, slip-slapping around being all funny-like, it’s very much a serious tone, for a movie that has serious moments mixed with some really smart, high-brow literary gags as opposed to the latter audiences were probably used to. In addition there’s a lot of moments where he just takes the audience to the side, and talks to them, adding to what’s happening in the scene which really adds a characteristic to the narrator of the story, makes it feel unique and personal which is odd really. It feels personal even though he’s addressing the audience which usually breaks any idea of theatrical elements, however Woody Allen on screen is always a likable character and it’s hard to not think of him as a friend when he addresses you in such in a jovial fashion.

Alvy and Diane ‘Wicked witch of the west’ Keaton.

Annie Hall was certainly praised at that year’s oscars gaining 4 awards in total, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, and of course Best Actress for miss Diane Keaton. Thing is, Annie Hall certainly doesn’t feel like a best picture film, if anyone understands what I mean by this. I think it’s because it took a very dull genre that hadn’t been explored incredibly well by that point in time (Romantic Comedy) and gave it depth, gave it cinematic insight on many levels with two characters that felt unmistakably human.  That’s really a hard sell in the genre, giving you a man and a woman, a romance that’s believable, and ultimately flawed because that’s what hooks audiences in, I mean sure some people do just want the happy ending ala Tim Robbins in The Player (1992), but every stage felt incredibly real, and the dialogue was at a level of Allen’s humor where it was still witty, satirical, and pulled off 3rd wall gags, but it still maintained the overall pace and composure of the film. Compared to Sleeper, or Love and Death where it just got awfully tedious towards the end, and kind of forgot themselves as films.

OH MY GOD IT’S JEFF GOLDBLUM.

As for Allen, seeing Bananas, Love and Death, the absurdly long one about sex, and Sleeper, I’m not entirely surprised to see a really well-written, well thought out film like Annie Hall in his filmography. He certainly had the potential, and the knowledge of the cinematic elements given his heavy use of homage and reference. However, it makes me incredibly curious to see what happens next with Interiors (1978) given a lot of things I’ve read about it bill it as ‘Ill received’, or ‘imperfect’ and some jargon about it being rushed, and incredibly confused. A lot of people regard Annie Hall as the peak of Allan’s career, some judge it as a turning point. Needless, I look forward as always as I leave you now with often praised scene with an odd cameo from Film and Communications critic Marshall McLuhan. Until next time, you can follow me on Twittor @Sams_Reel_Views  and I would appreciate it if you like/follow/comment if you like what you saw. Adios!

Imdb Addendum:

Annie Hall (1977) is a satirical romantic comedy from witty auteur Woody Allen. The film feels like a last hurrah in some ways, given his filmography and the very artistic direction he took following the success of Annie Hall. The film follows a comedian who recalls one of the greatest loves of his life, and how he fears he may never be able to forget her. Woody Allen stars as his comedic persona once again, alongside long time collaborator Diane Keaton. The story is told in a very vivid, and complex way as to make it feel a lot more fluid and snappy as opposed to melodramatic. I’m not so certain about Annie Hall’s conclusion in the Top 250. I can see it’s appeal, and how it it’s kind of the pinnacle of the rom-com.  However I feel mostly opposed to it, just because some of Allen’s other work has so much more soul. I suppose that’s just personal bias.

Judgment – Debatable

Dr.No (1962) – Bond Collection!

Hello there people, I’m baaaaack (from doing multiple assignments) and should have more time available now. Anyway, I recently bought BOND50 (Every Eon Bond-film remastered with glorious picture) So I figured i’d go through the bonds, in motion and do a full review of the series. So some subtext, Dr.No is the first Eon Film, but came after Casino Royale if i’m not wrong, which was essentially a parody without the permission of Ian Fleming which isn’t really consider great. Dr.No was a fairly low budget film, and not a lot of faith was put in the cast to successfully bring the series to life. However, it’s kind of a misconception that Fleming’s novels where massively heralded upon Dr.No’s release and the original few films, in fact there’s been multiple marketing campaigns and many reprintings to try and justify the quality of Fleming’s work, up to the acclaim of the films. Regardless I love Dr.No as a film regardless of it’s flaws, though it does have many. 

The first, and debatable best portrayal of Bond.

Dr.No first foreshadows Bond, the first appearance of the characters as we see him flirting with women, playing poker, living up to the bond we know today. However his first mission takes place in Jamaica, as Bond (Sean Connery) in typical fashion works his way to the final confrontation with the arch-nemesis of the day. The scientist Dr.Strangways has gone missing as bond investigates, being endangered in various fashions, a particular favorite of mine is an assassin posing as a cheffeur, as Bond makes a phonecall and confirms no one sent him, immediately rousing his plan. It’s that kind of writing, the small clever things that really make Bond a remarkable spy thriller in most of it’s stories. And the Judo. Don’t forget the Judo. He almost dies to a generic henchman, as he plants an incredibly venomous spider in his room, as Bond wakes during the night and slaughters it with a shoe (how tense!). He bumps into Felix his often useful American friend, and his trusty sidekick Quarrel (I assume this is the spelling?). He becomes infatuated with the beautiful Honey Ryder as he travels to the island of Crab Key to find Dr.No. Soon after, he is spotted by the island patrol, and Quarrel is incinerated by a metal APC with a flamethrower posing as a dragon. Honey and Bond are captured and taken to the base, as Dr. Julius No reveals his plan to disrupt the Project Mercury space launch from Cape Canaveral with his atomic-powered radio beam. Soon after, Bond confronts No, as they fight above a nuclear reactor, in which No is knocked off the scaffolding, into the bubbling atomic waters, as he faces his demise.

Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder.

So, a fairly formulaic, but clean-cut narrative. However, while the narrative runs smoothly, and the performances are mostly fine, this Bond film in particular in my eyes is a big example of character flaws. I’ll work my way through them, first of all, you have Quarrel. Now, Quarrel is a native Jamaican who don’t talk too good, and me and a friend upon watching Dr.No for the first time found the depiction incredibly racist. Bond constantly corrects, and lambastes Quarrel though he tries to be helpful, at one point Bond even utters the line ‘Quarrel, fetch my shoes’, and also he’s shown to be completely dispensable as he is incinerated by a giant fucking metal dragon tank. Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress) is often referred to as one of the most attractive women to appear in bond, however… throughout the narrative she never really has a purpose. I know you could say this for most bond girls?, but even in From Russia With Love Romanov has a lot to do with the narrative and is a focal point, and in Goldfinger obviously Pussy Galore is a big factor in Bond’s plans too. So, clearly the formula and bond and his accomplices hadn’t really been mastered yet. The final character flaw that gets me is Dr.No himself. The acting is fantastic, the plan is fine, and the whole industrial laboratory base is quite cool, however we don’t see him before the last 20 minutes of the film, and that’s a massive shame for such a seemingly interesting character who’s gone before we ever really met him.

Dr. Julius No.

Regardless, Dr.No has an incredibly good pacing to it, some really good use of scenery and sets, and some relatively good action set-pieces, and sequences. The highlight has to be Connery, just being pure Bond, really showing the charming, suave, yet forceful roots of the agent.  Dr.No is a basic film in the Bond canon, but good, and if remade in modern times as per the rumors, I think it’d be fantastic with some modernization. Right, that’s it for this time, will be more discussion as I get deeper into the collection, particularly in bond comparisons, join me next time for Annie Hall as I talk more about seminal director Woody Allen. Please Follow/Like/Comment if you feel need, and follow me @Sams_Reel_Views on the twit-twoos. Until next time.

– Sam.