Review - Iron Man 3

For those who haven't seen the film yet...the no-spoilers review

For a third film in a franchise, Iron Man 3 is above average in many aspects. For a comic book movie, it is effective in blurring the line between fantasy and reality. But it's crowning achievement is perhaps the number of times it surprises and engages the audience with its ingenious twists and turns in both the story and character developments. I have to say I did not expect a lot of what I got, and it was delivered in a such really smart and admirable way a few times I saw myself taking off my imaginary hat to the film. Film three may not have the same level of wit as the first, but it is on par when it comes to entertaining the audience, perhaps even more successful in terms of balancing thematic depth and popcorn humor.

I have intimately followed the Marvel movies, and have felt a sense of gratitude to the studio for taking their characters so seriously; making them not only epic, but very watchable to your non-geeks. They are films you can have discussions about afterwards, which is part of the cinema-going experience for me. This film in particular is also very re-watchable, because it is an eye-candy with nutrition for our intelligence. It's been a while since I've seen an audience so engaged with a film, I daresay even more than The Avengers for the session I watch, so I'm very glad I watched it while it was fresh in the theaters and not after the hype is over.

Tony Stark is his usual lovable swift who takes the titular superhero to the next level by questioning the whole concept of who actually is Iron Man. I really appreciate that they explore this element of his character not through words, but through mostly visuals while still jabbing out witty remarks here and there. The centrality of the issue on Starks' ability to protect his 'family' does come with the assumption you know what happened in The Avengers, so I would say the film makes more sense to the franchise chasers than the casual viewer who probably already forgot what happened in the preceding film. But seeing how much money they've already earned before it's even opened in US, I doubt it's a major problem.

Unfortunately, no film is without flaws. For me the biggest downside in this film is that the backstory of some of the new characters are clumsy and do not justify their actions in the story properly. And while it isn't distracting, it does come across artificial and exaggerated in a few places, particularly for the climax and resolution of the film. Pepper Potts' role in the film expands in a pleasing but still limited way, very much still the love interest Tony Stark has to protect and save, but occasionally she gets to hold a machine gun which she doesn't know how to nor want to fire; she is a weaponised damsel in distress if you will.

But overall, it was a lot of fun and there were many funny scenes and dialogue throughout the film. The action scenes in are very inventive though a bit overt at the end, but that's what most fans were hoping for I'm guessing. Perhaps if they didn't knit the funny and deeper scenes so closely, it would leave more space for the viewer to ingest each scenes rather than feel like they're in a high speed roller coaster ride of emotions.

And for those who know the quirk of Marvel movies, yes, there IS a post-credits scene but you'll have to wait even longer than previous Marvel movies to get to it (since it's after ALL the credits, and not just the main ones).

Overall Rating: 8/10


Spoilers ahead!


Booby Bunny and Surprises

This film fascinates me from a character development perspective. The director or writer seems to hold back from developing Tony Stark in a 100% serious manner, like how Christopher Nolan went all out with the Batman franchise. The story and setting allowed for so much potential growth of Iron Man as a superhero but short of becoming an immortal symbol of good. Instead we end on a revelation, an epiphany that consummates in an uncertain future, which is fine and all but does deprive the film from achieving a 'great' status.

The giant bunny with boobs is perhaps a strong indicator of this reservation because a changed Stark wouldn't be selling his girlfriend such a cheap laugh, especially after events in The Avengers. Perhaps it's all his way of hiding insecurities, but the tone and setting of each scene doesn't allow for us the audience to fully appreciate his actions.

In terms of the scene where Stark threatens on public television to take on The Mandarin, there you can see that he is trying to hide his fears with being irresponsibly daring, and we do see the consequences he and Pepper had to bear with those words. However his quick and sincere apology to Pepper does show that he's not the same old self-absorbed egotistic man, but that he is still-in-progress changing to be the Iron Man and Tony Stark people need him to be, and making mistakes along the way while working out who and what he should be.


The Mandarin

How they incorporated the mandarin into the film is brilliant and effective, although some fans of the comic book may be annoyed or even feel betrayed that the supernatural aspects of the mandarin was discarded to keep the film more 'earthly'. In the fan's defense, The Avengers pretty much tossed reality aside for a cosmic story so I would've been happy if The Mandarin was real and not just a figurehead.

The character of The Mandarin/Trevor in this film is perhaps the second best thing behind Tony Stark, because he demonstrates that terror is a symbol and not a person. When the person that represents unstoppable threat exists as an idea over an individual, you gain a higher level of respect and fear for that terror. How the American government as portrayed in this film deals with the Mandarin is perhaps how the real government would react to such an unstoppable force. Yet on the flip side, Trevor is just hilarious. That's all I can say really. His postures, his demeanor and dialogue is practically another Jack Sparrow. It's a pity we only get like 6 minutes of him to make way for the fairly boring Killian.


And...nitpicks!

1. The backstory of Aldrich Killian as well as Maya Hansen is very weak and clumsy. How Killian was formerly interested in Pepper Potts, and Maya's 30 second redemption was all a bit contrived to be fair. Maybe they all studied in the same uni together.

2. The 'fake' mandarin Trevor, in one of his terrorist videos, shoots some CEO of an oil company after the President tries to call him to negotiate. We establish later that Trevor is actualy oblivious to how real his 'stage performances' are outside his mansion. So how does he not realise that the guy he just shot was really shot? Did he not see the blood coming out of the guy's head? Did he not notice that after 'cut' the guy had to be dragged off? Awkward isn't it when you think about it.

2.5 On the same note, we see that Trevor actually has TV, so wouldn't the news be all about him during these attacks? Shouldn't he have found out between snorts that his videos are being used to endorse terrorist activities? Also, at the start of the film we see everyone (including Killian) usher in Trevor like he was the real big boss not allowed to make eye contact when he arrives and starts filming. But we establish as well that he actually lives in that mansion and seems to be locked in so he doesn't get found out. So where exactly was he coming from? Maybe they had to shoot on location somewhere in the middle east, but given the technological capability of Killian's company, can't they just use very high quality green screen and CGI to do those outdoors videos? It seems really risky to fly Mandarin around for the shoots. But who cares, Ben Kingsley nailed portrayed that character perfectly as the story required, and I loved him both as the fake actor and as the ideological figurehead. :)

3. In the second/third act it is revealed that those henchmen of The Mandarin/Aldrich Killian are actually crippled soldiers who volunteered for the Extremis program to be cured of their disabilities. But then why are war veterans participating in terrorist activities for Killian? I guess Killian could have brainwashed them during the procedure, but wouldn't their family members have noticed or reported their disappearance or change in personality at some point? Also Pepper didn't seem to be affected despite her already being infected and transformed by the virus.

4. How did Killian control the Iron Patriot's suit? I mean Jarvis is the background control right? Later in the film James gets to use it again so it's seems to be very confused how they were able to use the suit to kidnap the President.

5. How on Earth did Happy Hogan survive the explosion at Stark Industries when the wooden stall he was hiding behind incinerated into nothing as did everything else within the 50 feet radius?

6. Just before the climax, The movie reveals that Stark's underground shed of older suits survived. If you actually count carefully when they reveal Tony's underground stash of Iron Mans there were about 8-10 suits per level and 6-7 levels altogether, so at least 48-70 suits should have been available. But since he also had 6 on the experiment level that makes at least 56 suits, despite his current one being Mark 42. Maybe some of them were duplicates, or Mark 42 wasn't his newest one. (yes I know, this is a really nitpicky nitpick)

6. Where exactly does Jarvis' mainframe reside? We establish since film 1 that he is an AI assistant, which is uploaded to each suit, implying his main presence must be somewhere unaffected by all the destructions to his home. This isn't a plot hole in the story but I'm just curious. Three movies and I think of all the creations of Stark's the most advanced one has to be his strong AI sidekick who can coordinate a small war on his behalf while also making witty remarks. So as a computer scientist I'd like to meet him eventually :)

Review - The Croods

Dreamworks has done it again. After a weak(ish) effort that was Rise of the Guardians, this unexpectedly quick follow up film is not only effective entertainment with strong character designs and character interactions, especially between the main characters, it is a very watchable and rewatchable family film with thematic layers deeper than I expected for a film targeted mostly at children (I will discuss these themes in the spoiler section). In fact, I think some of this story speaks even strongly to parents, especially dads.

There were lots of memorable scenes, the dialogues were funny, pointy and very quotable. The visuals are strong although I wouldn't say it's anything groundbreaking. It is the good quality animation Dreamworks has been producing with regularity in the past few years and I am glad that they've still got new ideas coming out of their warehouses.

I'm not very big fan of prehistoric settings in films, films like The Flintstones, 10000 BC, Brother Bear, Year One and to a lesser extent Ice Age are all in my bad books for various reasons, the only two films with this type of setting I enjoyed are Jurassic Park (which is technically not prehistoric anyway) and The Land Before Time (as a kid). The Croods may be my first positively rated prehistoric film, although it does suffer from too much modern day references, it isn't distracting to the point of forgetting that they are neanderthals.

The romance between the main romantic couple isn't shoved down your throat. While their connection is more fixated on a shared dream than on each other, you don't get the sense that the screenwriter is forcing you to accept their love, but rather they know you've already accepted it as the story unfolds.

And most importantly, we finally get a great father character in animation! In the form of Grug, we finally get to see parenting issues from the father's side; not where he has to juggle between his work and home, not because he is also a king or superhero, not when he's having a mid life crisis, but where his only job and goal is to protect and provide for his family. The story explores his beliefs, values and motivations in a very brisk manner but you can definitely see strong character design and development that went behind every one liner and over-the-top expression.

So if you haven't seen this film, I definitely recommend a watch. You won't get much more out of it from the theatres or 3D, so feel free to wait for the DVD, but it is definitely one of the stronger films I've seen this year, animation or not.

Story: A- | Characters: A+ | Originality: A- | Revelence: A | Entertainment: A

8/10

Spoilers ahead!

The Father, The Guy and Eep

Like I mentioned earlier, the strongest thing about this film are the characters. In particular three: Grug the father, Guy the...guy, and Epp the daughter/main character. While it is debatable whether Eep is technically a lead heroine in this story, as much of the first act focuses on the narrative of the Croods from her perspective, I think that she only takes the limelight at the beginning. The focus is passed around a bit, mostly with her father Grug. Guy is stronger than your average Disney prince, but only slightly as he doesn't really develop much as a character. It is however quite fun to watch him interact as his more sophisticated, educated neanderthal with the more barbaric violent family, who on multiple occasions almost kills guy just by being rough to him.

One of the main themes explored by these three characters are respect for wisdom of the past (Yesterday) versus the risk-taking courage to embrace what the future my bring (Tomorrow). We see this contrast most profoundly through their story telling in the middle of the film where Grug is very grounded in his beliefs that new things are bad, and we must tread carefully when doing or trying anything different. Guy obviously believes you should live life trying new things and new ideas.

However these two beliefs are not polar opposites because their drives are different. Grug applies his philosophy out of concern for his family (as well as a bit of ego since he likes to be proven right), while Guy applies his philosophy because he's already lost his family, thus we do have to be careful when taking the message out of context to our real world.

You would think that the story would center around Eep trying to choose between her father and Guy's way of life, but no. She clearly has already chosen Guy's adventurous, future-looking lifestyle, but the issue is more that she wants to win her father over to the other side and not just run there herself. This in a way helps glue all the characters together. Evidently Guy would've been fine if only Eep believed him and joined him on their escape from "the end", but for Eep she needed her whole family to come along.

The film also avoids addressing Eep's personal relationship with Grug fully for most of the film. They hint at a few scenes that she does feel guilty she has to argue with her dad about the right course of action every time, and during the climax of the film, you see Eep does in fact love her father very deeply underneath her frustrations and discontentment of his overbearing and outdated ways, when it came time to say goodbye she wasn't ready to because she realise there's so much they have yet to reconcile.

The sacrificial decision the father makes at end was also a very powerful and redemptive moment which I thought is much stronger than most main characters in other recent Dreamworks and Pixar films in terms of role models. At the end of his character arc Grug accepts that he is not able to become like Guy, but he finally believes that Guy can and will protect his family at least as good as he did, perhaps better, which is why he is willing to leave his family in the hands of guy when he threw all of them over the canyon and (presumably) giving up his own life. While I didn't tear up over that scene, I did remember thinking to myself "this is the best way they could have ended his character arc". But of course being a children's film they have to make sure he makes it too for a happily ever after.


Using your brain the right way.

A secondary theme that is touched on through most of the film is on the nature of invention. It gently walks us through man's discovery of fire, to the invention of more modern clothing, to use of objects as instruments of sound and music, surprisingly most of Guy's inventions are shown in the order they were historically discovered by humanity as well, so there you go, some accurate depiction of our past!

Then there is also Grug's set of inventions which he drafts up out of jealousy of Guy's new-found respect from his family. You can sort of tell that they are not as helpful to their journey to escape armageddon, which implies that not all new ideas are good or necessary. If you pursue new things for the sake of newness (as Grug tries in a desperate bid to regain his family's respect), they don't have the same weight as inventions that are functional and needs-driven.

This debate of self-improvement vs self-indulgence in innovation is a very relevant issue in today's society: the contrast between Grug and Guy's creations are allegorical to modern technology like smartphones vs. smartphone accessories. How you want to take their proposition is up to you but I think best to refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs to decide when technology can afford to be more frivilous.



Lastly, The Nitpicks

Unlike most other films where I am being generous when I call gaping holes in a bad film's plot a nitpick, this film was surprisingly well scripted, paced and almost everything is explained in a coherent, logical manner. So the nitpicks here are really just nitpicks and they don't affect my enjoyment.

1. Too much mother-in-law jokes. I don't understand what's with the mother-in-law hate in America. Then again I don't have one yet so guess I may find out some day!

2. How come Guy still communicate well with the Croods? If he's been an orphan for so long and seemingly absent from other humans, and given the lack of written/recorded language back in the day, it is very likely he either forgot or evolved his language skills, or that they don't even speak the same language/dialect.

3. I don't agree with Guy's plan in the middle of the trip when he wants to split up to try more paths. Given that the Croods have actually been in a cave for so long, their new found curiosity but lack of experience could have easily gotten them killed without help or support from each other. I sit slightly on the conservative side of the risk taking spectrum myself so I'm might be biased. Also, how they all ended up in the same location at the end of that little trip through the maze was really lucky!

4. The Emergency Idea Generator employed by Guy to get out of the tar which he said not two minutes ago "nobody gets out of this"...seriously...that was just mood-destroying. I guess that would've been too dark a way to end the character arcs if they died there, or have some random outside event to pull them out of the situation which would've been too cheap. But all the depth and drama in the previous scene (where Guy tells Grug his tragic backstory and they reconcile their differences) was glossed over so quickly I almost felt it undid some of what made this film almost great. Having said that, it was a very fun scene which lets you forgive its sporadicity.

5. The 'idea' that Grug comes up with at the very end also pushed my disbelief a bit. I guess by this point if you're willing to buy all the fantastical creatures in this world, how invincible the croods are surviving falls from hundred meter high cliffs, you'll suspend your disbelief that little bit longer so they can have their happy ending.

6. Occasionally some more scenes in the film were pushing it too far with modern day references (especially when Grug tries to hip it up). But then again this isn't the only film which tries to recreate modern day concepts and tools using what's available within different settings.

7. While The Croods are cavemen and spend very little time outside at night, I do have my doubts whether they have never encountered fire before Guy came along. I mean, surely there's some occasional bushfires they must have seen while 'hunting'?

Review - G.I. Joe Retaliation

I did watch this movie. But this movie was so weak and flawed and stupid it's not worth my time to properly review it. There's at least 100 things wrong in this film but even if they fixed every one of them I doubt I'd enjoy the film any better. If I see another reviewer compile a list maybe I'll share the link instead.

Next Movie.

Review - The Host

When I saw the trailer for this movie and did some research on the book, I developed some expectation for this film. Despite knowing that it is by the same author as the Twilight series, I thought this film had a shot of becoming something more than its source material. This film had a lot going for it; a visionary director Andrew Niccol (who directed Gattaca, The Truman Show, S1m0ne and The Terminal), an actually talented rising star Saoirse Ronan to play the title role, and a sci-fi story I honestly wanted to see done in a big budget film.

The idea of extraterrestrials invading Earth by possession of our bodies and minds is nothing new, but I really like this premise, and to me the defining work for this sub-genre was Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you haven't seen the latter film I highly recommend you check it out from the video rentals (not sure if they'll stock it though). I loved this film though I only watched it 30 years after its release, and I really wanted to see this concept revived and explored in the psychological dimension I hoped this film would explore it while using the invasion aspect to keep me in suspense.

Well, the movie does try, and fail miserably. From a movie sense, I would argue that this was far worse  as entertainment than Twilight, and amongst the worst in terms of character driven stories I've seen on the big screen. But its biggest sin was not stupidity, plot holes or unconvincing character. It offended me the most because it took everything great about Sci-Fi films and sterilized the script till it became nothing more than a backdrop to present a soap opera played in slow motion.

A few people already warned me against seeing it but I really wanted to experience the film myself before I can dismiss it. I would say regardless of whether this film turned out good or bad or to my taste, I needed to see it anyway to end my curiousity.

An interesting world abandoned for uninteresting characters.

(spoilers alert...sort of)

As I type this I literally deleted 5 paragraphs of my draft because I couldn't elegantly explain what a betrayal this film was to the Sci-Fi genre. So lets try to do this as simply as possible.

Science Fiction genre films invite us to explore a world constructed from an author's creative interpretation of where science could one day take us, and placing characters in those worlds we hoped to see (or never see) become our reality, but has not yet come to pass. This is why Science Fiction has been saturated by ideas about our future, about the possible, the probable and the plausible. In the sub-genre of Apocalypse and post-Apocalypse, the stories are almost always about seeing how the human condition can endure in the harshest living conditions, against the mightiest and deadliest of foes, and come out on top through ingenuity, courage and sometimes, simple faith.

The Host invites us to enter a world where an alien race has invaded Earth by assimilating into humans, bringing with them their technologies far beyond that of Earth's, and providing an easy indicator of who is human and who is not. However the scenes showing a changed world counts for less than 20 minutes of the 2 hours we sat through, where the other 100 minutes we're trapped with Wanderer/Melanie in the desert cave and talking with other people and talking with herself.

The first 10 minutes where they spew out expositions and character back stories, and the last 10 minutes where you start seeing how Wanderer changes sides to help the humans, is probably the only "Sci-Fi" bit of the whole film. In between we get 1 car chase scene using Earth technology, we get a few small talks about Wanderer's background, and a small reveal about The Seeker's motivations for finding and subduing the human race. Then it's more sitting around, strolling in the cave, farming and avoiding detection from the helicopters overhead.

We are presented the opportunity to explore a post-invasion world where humanity has been bettered by the removal of humanity itself. And it is pushed aside so that we can have a 'character'-driven story. I say character quote unquote because there really isn't much character in this film. The interactions between Wanderer, Melanie and The Seeker has a few (very few) good moments, the rest of the humans and Souls are completely forgettable and unimportant to the story. The romance Wanderer/Melanie shares with Ian and Jared is unconvincing, the uncle is cool but he doesn't really develop much as a character, and the younger brother, well, he's not that bad an actor is the only positive I've got. 

Andrew Niccol manages to get his hand on a fairly decent cast and does almost nothing with them. Nothing substantial happens in most of this film. There really isn't much tension, there isn't much at stake, and even the climax lasted less than 2 minutes, then we drag on the resolution for another 20 minutes before the film ends on an unsatisfactory note. The scene where Melanie tries to kill herself at the beginning is arguably the most profound decision made by the character, perhaps the most effective scene in the whole film, and it was glossed over as a flashback just to get the story going. Seriously I think the trailer was a better film than the film itself.

And it is perhaps a worse offense for Sci-Fi films to be unsubstantial than to be filled with plot holes and inaccuracies. This film has no plot holes because its plot is very thin, and not much of the world it takes place in is explored, explained or even hinted at. We never learn where the Souls really come from, we never learn how they found or chose Earth, we can't really tell them apart from normal humans because of the 'personalities' we see in Wanderer and The Seeker, and the way Souls can be removed from the Host safely, is just plain weak. 

The Annoying Inner Voice

For the most part, you get a feeling that the aliens are very hygienic, orderly and sterile in both appearance and the way they interact. Perhaps it was designed for contrast, because Melanie's inner voice is so annoying and, for the most part, juvenile. I'm all for the concept of the resilient mind surviving in the occupied mind, but most of the time her vocal mannerism is so immature and simplistic, she behaves more like a parasite inside Wanderer than a duality of being. 

The way she talks and reacts to situations often removes any character depth built by her other half, who in my opinion wasn't done that badly, but it any atmosphere the choreographer tried to create through the set design, colors, lighting, soft lens and fairly effective use of angle shots is quickly killed once Melanie talks.

In a way this 'portrayal' of Melanie makes the film more realistic, but disrupts the tone (albeit a really slow, melancholic and empty tone) and reduces the film to sounding almost like a Saturday morning Disney show in a few dialogues, particularly as Wanderer humanizes.

Also it is kind of boring that we never 'see' the real Melanie talk with Wanderer the way people with multiple personality disorders might through the reflection of mirrors. Granted a visualisation of their dialogues wouldn't really improve the film much but as it stands, this film has been fairly lazy and budget conscious.

I think I'll just go to the nitpicks

I really don't like this film, but I realise that the more I try to think of reasons why I don't like it, the less I'm coming up with. Perhaps it's because this film is essentially a blank slate. It provides you with a shell, with underdeveloper characters, unclear rules and a larger universe that has yet to be shown. In a book this would be effective but again in film adaptations we expect the director to populate the world for us to some degree, so that whether we like it or not, at least we can see our ideas of the world realised in some form or another.

I think my main complaint for this film ultimately is lack of substance. The film was two hours, but I felt like I was fed maybe 20-30 minutes of actual content, yet it's so draggy in most scenes I felt like I've been watching for a thousand years. I learnt nothing, felt nothing, remembered almost nothing (especially the expository scenes), and now expect nothing of its sequels (if they ever get produced). And even the worst of Sci-Fi films like Battlefield Earth, as stupid and flawed as it is, at least was entertaining to laugh at. The Host, is not only complete failure as entertainment, it also fails in providing any thought-provoking ideas for Sci-Fi lovers, and I believe even for most of the general audience, they should be refunded.

The Nitpicks

Most of my nitpicks are related to things not explained in the film. Maybe they are in the book but I'm going by movie logic:

• The film says that Souls can only exist by bonding with another lifeform, and that they cannot survive without a host. So...where, when and how did Souls exist in the first place? Did they exist in another entity but then lost their physical form? Explanation wanted/needed!
  
• If the Souls' only purpose in invading was to survive by bonding with hosts, then shouldn't invading one world be enough? What's the point in invading every world? Are there that many Souls out there that need a home?
  
• It doesn't look hard to disguise yourself as a Human or a Soul; just need to wear contact lens! After all the only way both sides check your terrestriality is with a torch light.
  
• After Melanie tries to kill herself to avoid capture and assimilation, one of the Souls says that she is still alive despite all her critical bone and organ damages. Then he says that she must have a strong reason to live. Wouldn't she have a stronger reason to die? I don't know, in retrospect it seems like she might be weaker than the Souls think since she wanted to die but failed to commit to it.
  
• Wanderer says she's at least 1000 Earth years old and have seen 8 different worlds, and she fell in love with Ian? It's not as creepy as Edward and Bella but still doesn't digest well. Also they have like no chemistry anyway.
  
• How does the Soul-occupied Earth operate economically? As far as I can see Souls get free medical care and can visit shops where you don't need to pay. If this is a moneyless society that actually works, I want to learn more! See what they are doing right that we can use. Not explained!
  
• Towards the end of the film, Wanderer teaches Doc that a Soul can be safely removed from a Human host, thus restoring the original Human mind without harming the Soul. But at the start of the film it is explained that most humans "fade away". So...what happens if you safely remove a soul from a Human who has faded away? Do they wake up like from a coma or do they stay faded away? No explanation either :(