"...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."

"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.

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!

"WHAT AM I WORKING ON? I'M WORKING ON SOMETHING THAT WILL CHANGE THE WORLD, AND HUMAN LIFE AS WE KNOW IT..."

Seth Brundle (The Fly)

Ask any film-fan and they'll likely tell you Hollywood is doing noting but pump out remakes and reboots. It's a hard thing to argue, we're certainly being inundated... But, rather than see this as a sign of some on-coming cine-geddon, let's first consider the facts- are remakes really such a bad thing?

Remakes! Remakes everywhere!

Sure, we didn't need another Robocop, or a Total Recall. Godzilla was pointless, and the new Carrie, Friday 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street remakes were gaulingly bad. But- we've not lost the origionals. they're still out there and, who knows, maybe these remakes will introduce a new generation to the classics?
And truthfully, I can think of a whole bunch of films which could actually benefit from a rethink;

IT, Jason and the Argonauts, Sinbad, The Guns of Navarone, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai, Alien Nation (very timely, given the subtext), Beastmaster, The Last Starfighter, Mountain Men, Stripes, Wargames, Name of the Rose, Flight of the Navigator, The Magnificent Seven, Dare Devil, Dune (now that's a franchise opportunity a'la Lord of the Rings in scope!). 

There's more than you'd think. The problem isn't so much that we're inundated with these remakes, the problem is the wrong films are getting remade (rebooted, whatever). I mean, for Christ's sake, Spiderman got rebooted just three years after Raimi's last flick, and now the character is due a further reboot by Marvel.

Lastly... I used to be really irritated with these seemingly endless remakes, the same as everyone else. When I heard Robocop was getting a reboot I was livid in fact. But then I realised, some of my favorite films are actually remakes themselves- proof that this isn't a modern-day phenomenon (and bare in mind that films are pumped out now in greater numbers and faster speed than ever before, with more hype and coverage thanks to the Internet).
Think on it, without remakes we'd have none of these excellent films;

Carpenter's The Thing. Cronenberg's The Fly. Aja's The Hills Have Eyes. 13 Assassins. Ritchie's Sherlck Holmes. Fassbender's Macbeth. Nolan's Batman. The Departed. Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. Bram Stoker's Dracula. Ocean's 11. King Kong. Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Precinct 13. Heat. True Lies. Jackson's Lord of the Rings!

 Is that a world you really want to live in? No, or me...

So, the next time you hear about a remake, or a reboot, or whatever they chose to call it, don't roll your eyes or swear, cross your fingers and hope for the best. The problem isn't that another remake's being made, the real issue is- will it be an improvement?

"DON'T GET SENTIMENTAL NOW DAD!"

Indiana Jones (and the Last Crusade)

Continued from my post on James Bond (see "HE ALWAYS DID HAVE AN INFLATED OPINION OF HIMSELF...")
 

Well, I guess I owe Ian Flemming one small thing at least... As much as I don't like admitting it, without James Bond I wouldn't have one of my favorite films; Raiders of the Lost Arc... 

 

"Yeah, that should do nicely..."

The story goes that Spielberg always fancied doing a Bond film, while Spielberg's friend, Lucas, had wanted to do an old-fashioned serial-styled adventure. Between them they devised a character who would fulfill both briefs- a world-wry adventurer whose exploits could send him across the globe. So So they created Indiana Jones. 

 And we all know that Indiana Jones is a much better character than James Bond... Right?

Aside from this starting point, Indiana Jones and James Bond really aren't that similar. Their choices and the way they tackle their obstetrical is very different, as is their relationship to women. Bond is a habitual womaniser with no real connection to the majority of his conquests; over 50 women, and arguably he only 'liked' three of them. Indiana Jones, however, loved (and probably always loved) Marian. Willy was obviously a relationship going nowhere, but it was never a case of one party using or leading-on the other. Ilsa may have turned out to be a Nazi sympathiser, a typical Bond twist, however her betrayal actually really hurts Jones, while Bond was (by and large) never overly bothered by such things. To say that Bond uses women is an understatement- even when he's defending them he usually only considers them as a means to an end. Despite Ilsa's betrayal, Indiana Jones still tries to save her life during the climax of the film- would Bond have ever done such a thing? He'd have probably coolly watched her fall to her death before cracking a bad joke ("get a grip, dear"?).

Definitely making this up as he goes...

I'll concede, Indiana Jones still has something of an ego, but he's not the psychopath that James Bond is; he has feelings, and much of his posturing is bravado to hide his own short-comings. Jones is usually a few steps behind the plot, struggling to catch-up, unlike Bond- who always seems to be in-the-know. Jones has friendships, and loves, and losses, and weaknesses. All of this serves to make him more human, a person you can warm to and empathise with. Bond, not so much...
And another thing: Indiana Jones makes mistakes! Sure, he comes off suave and he's a good improvisor, but let’s not forget— he misjudges the weight of the idol (subsequently setting off all the traps inside the temple), disguises himself in a Nazi uniform two sizes too small, doesn't bother checking the logo on his getaway plane in Shanghai. The list goes on... He's human. You wouldn't catch Bond screwing up like that. Indiana Jones lived by the maxim “I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go.” Bond, on the other hand, is about wish-fulfillment, about being the best- there's no room for error or pity in those cold blue eyes.

And that, jury, is why Indiana Jones is the superior character. Thank you.

Insert applause. and remember...

"Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory."

"HE ALWAYS DID HAVE AN INFLATED OPINION OF HIMSELF..."

James Bond (Live and Let Die)

Bond... James Bond. Apparently the "world's greatest spy" since 1953, he first appeared in the Ian Fleming novel Casino Royale. The character of 007 has since appeared in 39 official novels (14 by Fleming) and 24 films over the past 60 years, played by seven different actors. With the franchise showing no signs of stopping any time soon there can be no denying the character's popularity- Hell, even the opening ceremony at the London Olympics featured this revered and iconic assassin.

"Hey, Mr Craig, do moody! Excellent, just scowl a little more... Perfect. Do that through four films."

So, with that rather impressive portfolio in mind, why is it that I hate bond so much? Most readers will likely assume I'm intentionally taking a contrary stance to mainstream pop culture, but honestly, I've never liked Bond. Not even as a dumb kid, before all this 'critical thought' nonsense.

Is it that I dislike Daniel Craig? Maybe. While it's true I can't seem to warm to this self-absorbed, grouchy, potato-headed gimp, he's not the reason I hate Bond. Craig has on more than one occasion shown disdain for these films, claiming he'd rather "break this glass and slash my wrists" than play Bond again, which irritates me a little. Perhaps Mr Craig, who, let's face it, is only a household name because of these Bond movies (and not Layer Cake), would like to swap jobs? 

He can support people with learning difficulties full-time for about £900 a month, and I'll start playing James Bond... I'll get paid thousands of pounds for a few months work, I'll get the personal trainers to get me into the shape of my life, I'll do all the interviews and answer the same questions day-in-day-out (in my job there's already a lot of that), and I'll use the success of these films to launch my own career- and I'll be damn grateful for the opportunity! Git.

No, it's not that I dislike Daniel Craig, although that can't help matters. Admittedly my hatred of the character has reached something of an apex during his charmless stint as Bond, but I quite like Connery, Moore and Dalton. It's definitely James Bond I have an issue with...

I hate how he always seems to have a gadget for every possible circumstance, no matter how unlikely. I hate the ludicrous names of the women he comes across (ahem), or how they all seem to find him so dazzlingly attractive (52 women over the course of 22 films, and counting). And I don't like how seemingly immune he is to sexually transmitted diseases... 

I hate the predictability of the films. I know that, following some initial action scene and sexed-up intro sequence (with all the eroticism of a brick in the ear), that Bond will, without fail; disarm the traps, outwit the goons, bed the girls (kill some of the girls), drive a fast car, use a gadget or two, blow up the lair and save the day. I know a sense of danger and excitement is a hard thing to contrive in such a larger-than-life character, but you never get the feeling Bond's in any real danger, and after more than twenty films the formula is very stretched.

But aside from the grotesque sexual politics, or the simplicity of the world-building (I'll concede some effort has been recently made to move away from these two problems, but they still remain deep-seated issues), or the predictability of the action- what I hate the most, what I downright loath about James Bond, is how smarmy the fucker is! He's not human- there is literally no humanity to the character at all! He's just this ugly, unlikable, egotistical psychopath.

Sure, he's a very efficient spy, but to get behind a character and cheer him on for over twenty films I have to at least like the guy a little bit. But no, Bond treats people (all people) as either a tool, a commodity, target practice or a fuck-hole (or a combination of all four), and yet people idolise him- that to me is a little creepy. The films, to my mind, seem to endorse the worst kind of blatantly immature male-fantasy- and I think, even as a child, I was aware of that. "Travel exotic locals, sleep with beautiful women without fear of commitment, and kill people without hesitation- it's all OK because you're the good guy!"

 

Did Flemming realise he would be glamourising a psychopath?

So, in a list that rather pointedly does NOT include James Bond, here's my very own Top Ten of silver-screen spies;

10. Major Smith  (Where Eagles Dare)

A man whose cover was so deep, not even his closest allies knew whose side he was on. The closest Bond ever got to 'under cover' was, well, insert your own joke here.
 

9. George Smiley - (Tinker, Tailer, Soldier, Spy)

Proof, if any were needed, that brains as well as brawn are required in the spy arena. Bond never had to spend much time working out who was good and who was bad- he just looked for a white cat or a black roll-neck.

8. Emma Peel (the Avengers)

A woman with more sass and sex-appeal than any Bond girl.Or Bond, for that matter.

7. K (Men in Black)

A man whose dry, sardonic wit leaves Bond looking like a stuttering moron.The best Bond could manage was a smirk and a pun, we can all do that.

6. Nikita (La Femme Nikita)

A reluctant spy who wanted nothing more than to leave behind the violence and lead a normal life.Bond, by comparison, seems to enjoy his job a little too much.

5. William "Billy" Costigan (The Departed)

In stark contrast to Bond's cool bravado, Costigan proved that to be brave you first need to be scare- but he still kept a steady hand.

4. Harry Tasker (True Lies)

A Bond send-up who was actually a damn site more humble. Tasker also had a woman in his life he actually loved, and while his job required the odd bit of flirting one's left with the feeling he remained faithful throughout.

3. Mr Lee (Enter The Dragon)

Bruce Lee, playing Bruce Lee, simultaneously pretending to be and also being better than James Bond- what's not to like? Bruce Lee wouldn't have struggled much with Agent Grant...

2. Ethan Hunt (Mission Impossible)

What's to say? His stunts are better, his stories are more interesting, and he gets the best results by working in a team.Bond may be the starting point, Ethan is certainly that theory more evolved.

1. Jack Bauer (24)

Probably the most gritty and realistic portrayal of a 'secret agent', ever.

An honorable mention goes out to  Hauser (Total Recall), "Best mind fuck yet", and Marvel's own Nick Fury. Yes, I know Bourne isn't on the list, this is not an oversight, as if I haven't courted controversy enough already in this post, I don't rate the Bourne films. I've not seen Bridge of Spies yet, and I've not counted any 'real' spies, so nothing like Zero Dark Thirty either. What do you guys think, have I missed any?