Wednesday 16 March 2016

"...I FINALLY HAVE THEM. THE WORST OF THEM."

Amanda Waller (Suicide Squad)


Honestly, how many of these characters had you heard of before the marketing campaign?

So, just in case you hadn't heard already, DC are sneaking out a little film called Suicide Squad. The premise is simple, and may ring alarms for any Manga / Anime fans among you for its similarity to the Cyber City series. Amanda Waller, a shady government agent, has rounded up "a task force of the most dangerous people on the planet", hoping to coerce these villains (an assortment of DC's rouges gallery) into carrying out high-risk black-op missions in exchange for reducing the length of their incarceration. As a character by the name of Lawton / Deadshot surmises: "We're the patsies. We're some kind of suicide squad".

Precise plot details are still withheld.

It's an interesting idea. Does it matter that we haven't heard of most of them? No, in fact that leaves more space for interpretation- which is ideal. Captain Boomerang? Flag? Slipknott? El Diablo? Enchanteress? Not that I'm a huge DC fan, but have you heard of these? Could be some of these won't survive. Obviously, we get some DC big-guns to bolster them up; Joker, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Katana (I thought she was a hero, not a villain?). It's a choc-o-block roster, I'm concerned they may not all get a chance to shine.


Most of my reservations with Suicide Squad are purely aesthetic. I don't mind the trailer-park cyber-punk aesthetic, but here it just seems, I don't know, forced? Something about it doesn't feel sincere. Might be because everything else with the production is so glossy. It's a small nag. Although...


Hold on- what???

What the BLUE HELL are they doing with the Joker? I mean, I get that they need something that hasn't been done before, a hundred miles away from the Iconic Heath Ledger interpretation? But this? Grill teeth, tattoos, a gym-buff bod, purple leather overcoat and a silver cane- it's all very 'pimp'. Sure, it's different, but... Different isn't necessarily good. Good casting (excellent casting in fact), shit design. Maybe it'll work out in the film? Possibly, I don't have high hopes though. I try to be optimistic before cinema releases, but I do have limits. Just feels a little, er, desperate. A little try-hard? I got Joker as a dandy, I got Joker as a hobo, but pimp-my-ride Joker? This may take some adjusting on my part.

It's becoming something of a catch phrase but, let's wait and see...


Tuesday 15 March 2016

"...TITS AND DRAGONS!"

Ian "acting's boring" McShane 

A larger-than-life character.

 “You say the slightest thing and the internet goes ape... I was accused of giving the plot away, but I just think get a fucking life. It’s only tits and dragons!”

And with these words (which deserve to be added to the annals of 'all time great disparaging remarks') self-confessed 'jobbing actor' Ian McShane set the internet ablaze. Hilarious. If there's one fandom you really have to tread carefully around it's got to be Game of Thrones.

This quote comes in light of Ian's (yet to be aired) guest spot on an episode. He made the following unguarded comment...


“So I have this group of peaceful, sort of like a cult, a peaceful tribe. I bring back a much loved character everybody thinks is dead.”

This confirmed a popular fan-theory and unfortunately caused an inter-web melt-down for its spoilerriffic content. McShane, ever the diplomat, responded with "tits and dragons". Oh well.

Anyway, to celebrate McShane's humorous turn of phrase, as well as his unwavering dedication to freedom of speech, here's how McShane, given the opportunity, may well spoil some other much loved films.

It's all a bit of fun. Let's see if you can work out what he's talking about? If you get stuck, all of these have featured on the blog at some point...

    "Biceps, baby oil, and a bunch of guys in pants beat up deformed foreigners."

    "Funny masks, a giant teddy bear, a talking football, and some kid stabs his dad."

    "Jump-leads on nipples, and some daft cow marries the wrong guy."

    "Some bloke in leather falls down a bath plug."

     "An old man and some midgets get their ring destroyed."
               "She's got about 200 names and they all start with M" 

               "Is that the one where all those goth guys have the long nails?"

               "Blood, incest, oh, and a guy eats a live squid."

                "Elvis and JFK fight a zombie!"

                "That bonkers one where they all live in the same dream, or something like that"

And finally...

                 "Tits and Nazis."



Friday 11 March 2016

"EVERY GAME HAS A WINNER AND A LOSER..."

Dick Jones (Robocop)

OK, as you should be able to tell by the pictures accompanying, this isn't a Robocop post, but it's an apt quote...

Looks more like a computer game graphic, right? But no, this is the MCU Spiderman. Official.


The internet has recently been set ablaze by the new MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) interpretation of their favorite son: Spiderman. The response has been overwhelmingly positive from what I can tell. I've been meaning to write about this since I heard the casting, but to be honest life's been a little bit hectic.

Months ago, Marvel announced Tom Holland as their replacement to Garfield in the role of Peter Parker / Spiderman. "Good choice" I thought, "it will make a nice change to have a character of genuine (or near as damn it) high-school age." And Holland looks the part as well; unassuming, a bit nerdy, and not the too-cool-for-school good looks of Garfield's Parker. Also, after the last two failures, I was actually glad to hear that MCU had cut a deal with Sony to get the character back on home turf. "If anyone can do that character justice, it's Marvel" I thought. After all, superhero films may be ten-a-penny these days, but even the worst of Marvel's output has generally stood head and shoulders over most other action films (and let's be honest, what's a superhero film if not an action movie where the hero wears a tight suit?). So, rather excitedly, I waited for the 'grand reveal'...

To get right to my point, I watched the new Captain America: Civil War trailer today. I'm not the biggest Avengers fan, but Civil War looks to be a cool film. Rather than the typical hero vs giant threat, Civil War turns hero against hero (before DC jumped on that particular bandwagon as well) and I'm confident it'll be one of Marvel's most dramatic and most exciting yet. But... To be absolutely frank- MCU's Spiderman is SHOCKINGLY AWFUL!

It gives me no joy to fly in the face of public opinion on this one. I grew up on Spiderman, and it never crossed my mind the MCU would botch this, but they really have dropped the ball. What we got was some of the worst CGI I've seen in  a major blockbuster for the last 5 years (perhaps even 10); little definition or texture, no weight or physicality. Sam Raimi's much criticised CGI in the first of his Spiderman films is by far superior.

On that note, where possible Raimi opted to use a 'guy in a suit'. Oddly, the MCU revealing final shots could easily have been enacted with a 'guy in a suit'- so not only is the CGI for MCU's Spiderman poor, but worst of all, also poorly employed! I hope the character won't be entirely rendered this way, but sadly this may be the case!

...And as seen in The Amazing Spiderman 2.

As for the design? It's the worst Spiderman's ever looked! I felt like, what with the MCU Spiderman essentially being bank-rolled and kitted out by Tony Stark, at least that nagging "how did he make a suit like that at home?" issue would be nicely sidestepped, but it's a hideous suit! It's so bland with an almost military aesthetic (the V design near the shoulder like a soldier's rank, the design of the pouches on the belt). That may be in keeping with the Avengers setting, but I dislike it immensely. But going back to "bland", compare the fine detail to characters like Ironman, Thor, Cap, Antman- their outfits are all beautifully textured and detailed; leathers, rubbers, belts, buckles, straps, padding, armor, etc. Spiderman's outfit is just, well, plain ol' spandex...

And the eyes? What the fuck is that all about? Animated eyes that change shape, used to employ expression as in the cartoons (and, more recently, the Deadpool film). I'm sure Stark will have fancy 'tech talk' as to why Spiderman's eyes do that, but it feels so at odds with the an aesthetic that leans towards realism whenever possible; Ironman, Thor, Cap- all of them have a faithful yet gritty re-imagining for the silver-screen. Spiderman, by comparison, looks like he was designed and rendered by a teenager in his bedroom. I was so underwhelmed on first seeing the outfit my first reaction was "must be another fake". Holy shit, it really is official. Whatever my complaints were about the Amazing Spiderman 2, I have to admit that was one hell of a suit! It's a poor start for the MCU Spiderman if my first overwhelming thought is "the Amazing Spiderman 2 design was better"...

Still, judge for yourselves, but for my money- a rare miss for the Marvel camp.

However, for every loser, as Dick Jones informs us, we must also have a winner.

Enter Ben Affleck's Batman.

It's like a goth version of the YMCA

I still insist his inclusion in a Superman crossover is a bad idea, but credit where it's due, Affleck really impressed me in the trailers (I imagine he's shut down many of the neigh-sayers by now), and his suit is a gorgeous bit of design reminiscent of the Frank Miller material. I've already said as much, but I really prefer this stripped-back look to the Nolan / Bale armored design. And the way he takes out the warehouse full of thugs in the final trailer? Well, it actually has me excited enough that I may risk a trip to the cinema for it. I hate to pat myself on the back (who am I kidding, of course I do), but if you reread some of my earlier posts concerning Batman, and what I wrote in the review to Oldboy, this really is a Batman like I said it should be done...

Nolan's Batman was so armored that he looked like a Goth take on Ironman...


On a final note, when the Hell did Batman Vs Superman Dawn of Justice become a film with Aquaman and Wonder Woman in it? The absurdity is mounting. My concern is this, the MCU pulled of its cross-over by sheer force of spectacle, novelty-value and a healthy dose of good humor. Also, every main character was given their own lead-in movie... Comparatively, the DC cinematic universe (DCCU?) is doing the whole 'muture thing' (read: dark and sulky), takes itself waaaaaay too seriously, and is piling in at least 4 big characters alongside Superman before any of them have their own film to shine. Pulling off an 'Avengers Assemble' with a cast full of scowls is probably going to be unintentionally hilarious, but unlikely the effect which DC will be hoping for, and the whole project has a whiff of jealous desperation about it.

To my mind, in both the comic world as well as the cinematic one, DC has always been the stiffer entity, muddling along in the footsteps of it's more lively and energetic rival, and I say that as a big Batman fan (although I can take or leave most of the other DC characters). The crossovers worked for Marvel (worked very well, actually), and now DC wants to prove that it can have the same success... And I always thought the green eyed monster was supposed to be the Hulk?

Anyway, we will have wait and see, won't we?

At the end of this round: Spiderman 0, Batman 1.

Tuesday 8 March 2016

CHILDREN OF MEN; Full-Tilt Review

"Julian? I haven't seen you in twenty years. You look good. The picture the police have of you doesn't do you justice" 
Theo 
 
"What do the police know about justice?" 
Julian 

Clive's bedroom won't be winning any design awards.

Synopsis:

In the future humanity finds itself doomed when it becomes clear that women can no longer conceive. Unable to find any explanation for this catastrophe, and resigned to inevitable extinction, society finds itself on the brink of collapse amidst political upheaval and anarchy. Activist turned office-nobody Theo finds his hum-drum existence dragged into turmoil when he's forced to act as guardian to an illegal immigrant who also happens to be the first pregnant woman in almost two decades.


Script: 2/2- perfectly judged, weighty but never preachy

Pace: 2/2- thrilling without ever feeling rushed

Acting: 2/2- everybody brings their A-game

Aesthetic: 2/2- so gritty that it feels like a news-story

Intention: 2/2- a mature science fiction which asks important questions


Final Word: 10/10


Directed by Alfonso Cuaron (a man who can claim a creative credit in such films as Pan's Labrynth and Harry Potter, and who also went on to direct the critically acclaimed blockbuster Gravity), based on a book by P.D James, and written for the screen by no less than 5 separate writers (including star Clive Owen having some input), you could be forgiven for believing that too many cooks would surely spoil the broth? On this occasion you'd be very wrong. Children of Men is not only a perfect science fiction adventure, but also a perfectly judged exploration of themes including faith, hope and redemption. Cuaron brings his European outsider's eye to bare on the state of English politics and where we could be headed. Clive Owen plays the role of his career as the every-man sucked into this Earth-shattering conspiracy, while the standard sci-fi trappings are put to one side in favor of a gritty and frighteningly accurate portrayal of future-Britain- the unique set-pieces are no less exciting for the lack of explosions and flying cars. Children of Men is not only science fiction done right, but a triumph in direction, storytelling, cinematography and creative process. Julianne Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Caine also shine as Owen's co-stars. If you haven't already, watch it!