Iron Man 3 (2013)

Title: Iron Man 3 (2013)

Director: Shane Black

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Jon Favreau, William Sadler, Miguel Ferrer

Review:

Iron Man 3 is exactly what it’s supposed to be when you take in consideration that it’s directed by Shane Black. But who the hell is Shane Black you might ask? Well, most movie buffs will know that he’s the mastermind behind the scripts for such classics as Lethal Weapon (1987), The Last Boyscout (1991), The Monster Squad (1987), Last Action Hero (1996) and The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996). Mind you, I said he’s the mastermind behind the scripts for these movies, not the direction, because that’s what Shane Black’s been doing for a large part of his career, writing awesome movies. By the way, during the 90’s, Mr. Black became Hollywood’s highest paid screenwriter! For The Last Boy Scout he got paid a cool 1.75 million dollars, the highest any screenwriter had gotten paid at the time. Then for The Long Kiss Good Night he got paid four freaking million dollars! And it was a box office failure! After that huge failure, Shane Black retracted from writing anything. Reportedly he wanted to get away from associating himself with big budget movies.  He then resurfaced into the limelight by writing and directing the fast paced action comedy Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) which starred Robert Downey Jr, so it makes all the sense in the world seeing them working together again for this third Iron Man film. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was Shane Black’s first directing gig, and it was a successful one. Now he says that directing is what really gets his panties up in a bunch, he loves it. So, here comes Iron Man 3, his second shot at directing a film, and his biggest project to date, how did it go?

Iron Man 3 picks up right where The Avengers (2012) left off, with Tony Stark dealing with the whole aftermath of saving New York from an alien invasion and traveling through wormholes and all that. Apparently, Mr. Stark cannot deal with the fact that he saved millions of lives and possibly the entire planet from an alien invasion. Wormholes, demi-gods and aliens give Stark sporadic anxiety attacks. The mere mention of anything related to The Avengers or wormholes will get him all panicky. At the same time, there’s a new villain on the horizon. One that wants to destroy America! Will Iron Man be psychologically stable enough to battle his own demons and stop The Mandarin and his minions at the same time?

Staying true to the kind of characters that Shane Black likes to write, this time around Stark is an unstable protagonist. If you’ve seen some of Blacks previous films, you’ll find that many of his stories have protagonists who are unstable psychologically, angry and on the edge. I mean, the best example I guess would be the first film he ever wrote; Lethal Weapon. On that one we meet Martin Riggs, a guy who’s a borderline psycho. A guy who is depressed because he lost his wife. Without her, his life is meaningless, he doesn’t care if he gets shot, or dies, or what. In fact, the guy is downright suicidal! Another example would be the main character in The Last Boy Scout; a private detective called Joe. His daughter hates him and his wife is being unfaithful to him with his best friend! It is sufficient to say he hates his life as well. Bruce Willis goes throughout the whole movie looking all pissed off.  And so when I see Tony Stark having nightmares and getting anxiety attacks, it makes all the sense in the world because Shane Black loves writing characters that are troubled and confounded that way. His characters are always dealing with some terrible issue in their lives that doesn’t allow them to be happy. This is the kind of Tony Stark you’ll be seeing in Iron Man 3. How blue is Tony Stark in this movie? Well, to give you an idea, the film starts out with the one hit wonder by Eifel 65 called “Blue (Da-Ba-Dee)”; that’s how blue!  

This doesn’t mean that Iron Man 3 is all gloom and doom, because let’s face it, this is Disney, and they are not about selling gloom and doom. So what we have here is a light version of a dark and gloomy guy, I know that sounds like a contradiction, but it isn’t. This new Iron Man is a classic Shane Black troubled protagonist, but he’s just not about to blow his brain out. Tony Stark, though unhinged and delicate psychologically, still retains his wits and good humor about him, as if trying to hide all these bad things going on in his head. One of the elements I enjoyed the most about this Iron Man is how it strips the character down completely. The film starts out by having Tony Stark saying in a voice over, “you know who I am” this immediately lets us know what the main theme of the film will be. The dissection of what makes Iron Man; Iron Man. Is it his suit? Is it Tony Stark? Or is it a combination of both? There are many visual indications that what the film is trying to tell us is that it’s the man that makes the suit, and not the other way around. There’s this idea behind the film that without Tony Stark, these suits would just be clunky, clumsy things. There is an interesting duality to this character: the suit represents technology and Tony Stark represents humanity and there’s this clash between the two. They are trying to co-exist with each other, but it’s not a perfect match. Well, at least not in this film. So this is why during this film you will see Tony Stark relying less and less on his suit and more and more on his cunning. This is probably the reason why throughout the whole film, Tony is jumping in and out of the suit.  

Black established a motif, a recurrent thematic element in the film and it’s Stark, the human vs. the Iron Man armor. Though the suits are helpful in many ways, on this film they are also shown to be imperfect, failing, unreliable, a hindrance to Stark; some of the funniest moments come from this. Shane Black decided to portray the suit like something similar to a smart phone, you have to charge it if you want to use it, and sometimes when you need it the most, it’s not charged! Or the battery dies. So be ready to see one of these movies that turns its main character around. It turns its once indestructible protagonist into someone vulnerable, confused and disrupt. They used the same formula that was used for Skyfall (2012), in that film the filmmakers took James Bond and made him a vulnerable mess. In Iron Man 3 they  took the character, who is usually indestructible and stripped him of all his gadgets and powers and left him with the bare essentials, no additives, no preservatives, just pure unadulterated Tony Stark. This might prove to be a bit shocking to those who expect to get their usual indestructible version of Iron Man. In fact, you’ll see more of Tony Stark then you will of Iron Man himself. Sometimes Stark will only use parts of the suit instead of the entire suit. Or sometimes he’ll be working the suit from afar, from remote control. Point is, Mr. Black purposely drew a separating line between Tony Stark and his armor.

But is the movie any fun? I say hell yea it is. Shane Black might want to show us a darker, more disrupt version of Tony Stark, but he still has to deliver the goods on the action and “wowzers!”  department. So does Iron Man 3 deliver on the action? I say the film delivers a fine balancing act between being character driven, and exploring Stark on a deeper level while also delivering the show stopping action. Case in point: the scene where they blow up Starks mansion is a real grabber. So is the one that takes place in and out of Air Force One, then there's the climactic scene that takes place on an oil rig. We get The Mandarin as the films major villain, and though he might not be what comic book fans might expect, I thought he was still cool. I would have named him something else other than The Mandarin, because he isn’t The Mandarin from the comics. Its obvious Black was playing with our expectations of the character. I don’t know why he chose to deviate so radically from what the character is supposed to be, but for some reason he avoided The Mandarin’s oriental origins and completely eschewed the ten alien power rings that he’s supposed to wear on each finger.  They didn’t even include his superhuman martial arts abilities, though he does fight good. The only thing that’s left from the comic book version of the character is that he can slice Iron Man’s suit with his bare hands; so everything in this movie is pretty much in order, save for the way they decided to portray The Mandarin. But hell, if you don't follow the comics, never mind. Then he's just a cool super villain. 

In my opinion, Iron Man 3 is the best written of the three films. It does a good balancing act between exploring what constitutes Iron Man and heavy doses of awesome action. There’s a couple of new additions as well, for example, they went the way of RoboCop 3 (1993) and added a homeless kid into the story. The kid becomes Iron Man’s sidekick for a spell; which I thought was a good idea; it gives all the twelve year olds out there a character to identify with, and at the same time, it gave Tony Stark the chance of becoming a father figure. There’s more interesting developments and surprises, but I don't want to spoil them for you. Just make sure you stick till after the credits for a little extra scene/joke that was pretty funny. The film might disappoint some hardcore Mandarin fans, maybe the film will disappoint those who want to see Tony Stark inside of the armor for 95% of the film, but for those who want to get to know what makes Iron Man tick, for those who get more of a kick from watching Robert Downey Jr. doing his thing, well, then you’re gonna love this Iron Man flick.

Rating:  4 ½ out of 5   

  

Prometheus In-Depth Analysis

Prometheus was one of the most anticipated films of the year for me and many film lovers. A Ridley Scott film, in my opinion is always a major event, he is after all one of the most important filmmakers of his generation. As you might have gathered from my review for Prometheus, I love Ridley Scott films for many, many reasons, still, I have no problems in pointing out a disappointing one if I ever see one. For example, the last Ridley Scott film to underwhelm me was Robin Hood (2010). I enjoyed it, but wasn’t floored by it. Though well made, I found it boring. I wasn’t a big fan of G.I. Jane (1997) either. Point is I don’t blindly love Scott’s films. No filmmaker is free of making a dud or two; but Prometheus wasn’t a disappointment in my book. I recognize that it isn’t perfect film though. Some characters do pretty stupid things when they should be acting more professionally; like that guy who starts playing with a potentially dangerous alien life form like it was a cute little teddy bear or something? The idiot! But can that scene really be considered a major flaw? Not in my book, there are a lot of idiots out there, that guy happened to be one of them.

The interesting thing about a lot of Ridley Scott’s most recognized films is that at first they weren’t big hits with the masses. Two good examples are Blade Runner (1982) and Legend (1985); both huge flops when they first premiered in theaters. Yet right now they are both considered some of the best films within their genre. Now here comes Prometheus, again, a film that a lot of people have felt disappointed by. It was not a flop in theaters, or a failure in the true sense of the word (it’s still making money around the world) the problem with it was that even though there was a huge hype surrounding the film, it didn’t make as much money as expected. I think people were expecting another film like Alien and Prometheus was anything but that. Alien was a straight forward horror film, Prometheus isn’t. Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979) was a far simpler film than Prometheus. Alien simply wanted to scare, while Prometheus aspires to explore deeper themes about life and the universe we live in; we can’t blame a filmmaker for wanting to go in a deeper and more cerebral direction with his new films. But this shift in tone was not received well by the masses. The masses wanted people running from Aliens and shooting guns, what they got was a film that wanted to explain the origins of humanity. The result was a smaller intake at the box office then expected. Still, that’s fine by me; I don’t consider Prometheus to be a film for everyone. It doesn’t have mass appeal. The masses love stupid films, Prometheus was not.

The following article aspires to analyze Ridley Scott’s Prometheus. If you haven’t seen the film, then please don’t read this article because I’ll be analyzing major plot points and themes. If on the other hand you have seen it, and want to read my thoughts on the films themes, then continue reading my friend!

  

ORIGINS OF MAN - WHO MADE US?

The questions of who made us and where do we really come from have always been a major issue for deep thinkers. The thing is that once you eschew the many teachings religion has to offer  about the origins of man, then you are left with zero answers. The scientific mind will rarely acknowledge anything related to religion because scientists by nature need proof. That’s what science is all about, making a hypothesis, and then proving it. If you can’t prove it, then it’s just a hypothesis or a theory. In religion, when something can’t be proven, it’s called faith. For scientists, religious explenations are closer to fairy tales than anything else, for the philosopher, this holds true as well. Truth of the matter is we still don’t really know who made us; the perennial question lingers on.

Prometheus is an interesting film because it’s one of those films that dares to give explanations for the origins of man other than the explanations that Christianity teaches. The daring part is that the film doesn’t tell us that humanity was created by Christianities ‘God’, the film tells us that it was other beings known as ‘The Engineers’. The idea that maybe aliens designed us and that we are somehow linked to them is not a new one, for example, it had been explored before in films like Brian De Palma’s Mission to Mars (2000) and Alex Proyas’ Knowing (2009). Mission to Mars actually has many similarities with Prometheus, watch that film again and you’ll see what I mean. The same themes are touched upon.

The alien beings in Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars (2000)

Prometheus starts out with these amazing vistas of Planet Earth. We see mountains, waterfalls, cloud formations, basically, planet earth at it’s most glorious. The idea being that maybe the Planet was here long before any life form came to it. Then, a huge spaceship leaves an albino, bald, and extremely muscular alien being behind. The alien seems to be wearing ceremonial clothing of some kind, leading us to believe that maybe this whole event has a religious connotation for the alien beings. The being takes a sip of something that begins to degenerate his body, soon, the being falls to the water as his body continues to disintegrate in the depths. Then, the camera does an extreme close up and focuses on the beings DNA which appears to be disintegrating and forming itself back again; we are looking at the origins of man. “Big things have small beginnings” a character says at some point in the film, this was the small beginning of man.

 

So this is a brave film, because according to it, we weren’t created by the Christian idea of ‘God’, it was beings from some other planet. But of course, the question still remains, if they created us, and they are ‘The Engineers’ of humanity, then who created them? There is always something bigger behind everything. Who is that one final being who created everything anyways? I love it how the film attempts to answer some questions, but makes even bigger ones. 

   

 THE QUESTIONING OF CHRISTIANITY

The films protagonist, a scientist by the name of Elizabeth Shaw is a Christian. According to her, Christianity is what she’s chosen to believe in because it’s what her father believed in, and therefore, his beliefs where passed on to her, which is something that happens to a lot of people. You probably ended up believing in Jesus because that’s what your parents taught you, but does that mean it is right? Or even real? Maybe, maybe not, but like Elizabeth Shaw, when one is confronted with the validity of their beliefs, the answer is sometimes “because it’s what I choose to believe”, not because you have proof, or because you know what you are believing in is right, but it’s what you’ve chosen to help you get through life.

This is another theme that the film addresses, the idea that we got to believe in something even though we might not be entirely sure if it’s true or not. For example, my belief system is a bit more grounded in reality. I personally believe that we don’t know the truth about anything, that the universe is the biggest thing out there and that there is a lot we don’t know. If it was by me, we would have sent out a spaceship to explore the universe a long ass time ago, Star Trek style.  I personally just accept the big mystery until that fateful day when we’ll finally know THE REAL TRUTH.

But Prometheus is a film that questions Christianity a lot. For example, when the scientists in the film are finally gearing up to meet with the alien beings, Charlie tells Elizabeth that she should throw away her cross, alluding to the idea that maybe Christianity is all fairy tales and that what they are about to meet out there is the real deal. I found it interesting how Elizabeth Shaw never throws away her cross. Maybe it’s because it belonged to her father and it reminds her of him so it has more to do with sentimental value than beliefs, either way, the cross Elizabeth Shaw wears through out the whole film is an important symbol. It means that until she finds some real answers, she’s not willing to let go of the beliefs she grew up with. After all, that’s exactly what this movie is all about, finding answers to the big questions in life and until Elizabeth finds them, she’s sticking to Christianity. But I like the fact that her search is never ending.

Elizabeth Shaw never looses her faith

At one point in the film, the character of Peter Weyland says that because of all we have achieved so far as a race “we are the Gods now”. Somebody created us, but we can also create life ourselves, even artificial life. Right now, we can create computers and robots that think for themselves, but how long  before we can create androids like the ones presented in these films? In Prometheus, humanity has reached the point where they can create androids that live forever (!) and are almost indistinguishable from man! In the film we are similar to Gods in the sense that we can create. According to Biblical and Greek Mythology, the gods don’t like it when we are like them. It’s the reason why they punished the god Prometheus and sent him to Tartarus; a.k.a. HELL. According to the story, Prometheus shared the secret of fire with man, in this way bringing us closer to Godhood because of it. The idea being that knowledge is power, and ultimate knowledge has made us Gods. What drives the characters in this film? The search for answers to the biggest questions; its that thirst for god like knowledge. Mans thirst to KNOW, which strangely enough is considered a sin in the bible. In the tale of Adam and Eve, when they take a bite from the tree of knowledge, they were expelled from paradise! So to the Gods, no matter what religion, knowledge is not something they want us mere humans to have, knowledge is what makes us like them.  

   

 WHY DO OUR CREATORS WANT TO DESTROY US?

In Prometheus The Engineers of humanity have now turned into the would be destroyers of humanity. The big question that arises in the film is why? Why do they want to wipe us out? One scene has Elizabeth Shaw confronting The Engineers, asking them why do they want to destroy us? This idea of Gods destroying their creation is not new at either. If we go back to the bible itself, God was once so displeased with humanity that he wiped it all out, save for eight people he thought were good enough to save. I’m speaking of course of the biblical story of Noah’s Ark and how he and his family where saved from the worldwide deluge that God sent humanities way. This is the idea that we are presented with in Prometheus as well. The Engineers have created a deadly life form that they intend on releasing upon humanity. When David, the android of the film finally discovers how The Engineers computers work, he learns that their final destination was earth and that their deadly cargo was destined for us; what they really wanted to do was destroy us. The idea being that our creators are ashamed of us, same as God was ashamed of having created humanity in the bible.

This idea is an interesting one when we take in consideration how messed up the world truly is. So many shameful things happen ever second of every day on our planet, that if  alien beings were watching us, analyzing our behavior, I wouldn’t be surprised if they decided to wipe us out. Let’s see, nuclear weapons, child slavery, rapes, violation of human rights, despotic governments, greed, murder, war, famine, you name it, if it’s evil, its happening on Planet Earth!  If there is a God, and he’s watching what’s going on down here, he HAS to be ashamed. I would have pushed that restart button a long time ago; as one of the characters in Prometheus says: sometimes, in order to create, one has to destroy.  

 ACCEPTANCE OF DEATH “EVERY KING HAS HIS DAY, THEN HE DIES”

It’s interesting that one of the main characters in Prometheus is an android who will live forever, way past the lifespan of its own creators because this film is all about humans wanting more life. Same as the ‘replicants’ in Ridley Scott’s own Blade Runner (1982), one of the humans in Prometheus is after more life. I’m talking of course of Peter Weyland, the owner and founder of The Wayland Corporation, the company in charge of space exploration in the Alien universe. You see, in the film Peter Weyland is dying, but before he dies he wants to meet The Engineers in order to ask them for more life, same as the replicant Roy Batty in Blade Runner wanted to meet his creator to ask him about: “Something a little more radical…death” If you remember that scene, Batty then picks up Tyrell and tells him “I want more life fucker!” I found it interesting that the need that the androids of Blade Runner have is now the need that humans have in Prometheus. Basically, we don’t want to die. As I said in my review for Prometheus, I think it’s fitting that Scott, now 74 is asking these questions. He must feel like Roy Batty or Peter Weyland himself; getting close to death, and not wanting that day to arrive. 

Rutger Hauer as replicant Roy Batty in Ridle Scott's Blade Runner (1982)

All these great things we see and do, they all fade away as soon as we die, sometimes forgotten forever. How many lives blink out of existence, never to be thought of ever again? The character of Roy Batty said it very poetically in Blade Runner: “I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-Beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain…time to die.” Of course, since this is a film that addresses big questions and themes, the theme of death could not be left out. It is mans greatest enemy and one of the grandest themes one could address in a film, which is why I appreciate a film like Prometheus, it touches upon so many important themes, leaving them there for us to ponder and think about after the film is over. On Prometheus, the final thought on death is mentioned when the character of Meredith Vickers tells her father Peter Weyland: “A King has his day and then he dies” That is the truth about death, we have our days on this earth, we better make the best of them because then we die, and the ride is over. 

THE SEARCH FOR THE REAL ‘TRUTH’ NEVER ENDS

Finally, one of the things I loved the most about Prometheus was its ending. When Elizabeth Shaw finds that other ship and takes off towards the planet where ‘The Engineers’ supposedly come from. To be honest, that ending offers up so many awesome possibilities for a sequel. What planet will Elizabeth Shaw arrive at? What discovers await for her out there? Will she find the true engineers of humanity, or something greater? Whatever Elizabeth Shaw’s out come maybe, I loved the fact that her final words were her signing off and saying that her search never ends, that her search for truth continues. This is my goal as well, the never ending search for the real truth. Well, my friends, this has been The Film Connoisseur. I should reach the frontier at some point, with a little luck; the network will pick me up. This is Franco, one of many survivors on spaceship earth…singing off.  

Prometheus (2012)

Title: Prometheus (2012)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce, Patrick Wilson

Ridley Scott’s most recent foray into science fiction -Prometheus- is in many ways different then its predecessors and in many ways the same. As I’m sure many of you know, Prometheus is a prequel to Ridley Scott’s own Alien (1979), the film that redefined sci-fi films and kick started the whole alien franchise. It also happens to be the first science fiction film from Ridley Scott since he made Blade Runner (1982). It’s interesting how Scott denied that this was a prequel for a while, only to later admit that the film does in fact take place within the same universe. That’s right my friends, Scott is playing on familiar ground here. The art design for the interior of the spaceship looks like something that might have come out of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1969) or Scott’s own Alien; you know, lots of white corridors, very cramped, very claustrophobic. Same as all the other films in the Alien franchise, The Wayland Corporation is the company that oversees space exploration; and same as all previous Alien films, every spaceship gets an android to accompany them. So yeah, this film has a certain familiarity to it for fans of the Alien franchise; the question on my mind was what was going make this one different?

On this film we meet a group of archeologists/scientists that are hot on the trail of humanities origins. They are after the answers to the biggest questions in life: Where did we come from? Who made us? And why did they abandon us? Their search begins with  a series ancient paintings they find, in all of these ancient paintings from different eras in human history, the same image is depicted: humans pointing to the same constellations in the sky. So they zero in on this constellation and embark on a journey towards this sector of the universe, hoping to find the engineers of humanity. Will they find what they are looking for?

To me, Ridley Scott is this cinematic god, he makes movies that I end up falling in love with and can watch over and over again; so of course, seeing this movie in theaters was a major event for me! Like the Greek story of Prometheus, Scott’s films feel like stolen fire from the gods themselves. The worlds Ridley Scott creates are so rich and detailed that he can make a fantastic setting a reality; Blade Runner (1982), Legend (1985) or Gladiator (2000), no matter how fantastic the setting, these worlds feel real, complex and intricate. Another thing that distinguishes Ridley Scott’s films is that they have the highest production values. He makes sure he’s working with the best of the best in order to produce a high quality film. This is also the case with Prometheus, one look at the film and you can just tell that the people that were behind the cameras knew what they were doing. For example, the visual effects work in Prometheus is flawless. This time though, I have no idea who the conceptual artists behind Prometheus are; I don’t know who’s handling the visual effects or the make up effects; to me Prometheus is Scott working with a whole new generation of creative talents; which of course is great, if you’ve seen Alien, then you’ll feel a familiarity with this world, yet at the same time, it will feel new and fresh. I love how Scott’s approach towards visual effects is “if you can do it live, do it live”, an advice given to him by fx guru Douglas Trumbull while filming Blade Runner. This is the main reason why Scott doesn’t overdo CGI; if he can build a set, he will. This kind of filmmaking adds a level of realism that is quickly disappearing from today’s films, where sometimes they construct only half a set, or only the floor is real; not so in Prometheus where Scott spent a large part of his budget on good old fashioned set construction. Normally I hate CGI, but I've always said that when it's done well, it really, really works. Im glad to say that Prometheus is one of those rare occassions when CGI is done right.

Both Alien and Prometheus have certain similarities, but the differences are evident as well. For example, while Alien was a straightforward horror film and for all intents and purposes a monster flick, Prometheus is more of a philosophical film. Like many of the best science fiction films, this one explores the bigger question that humanity asks itself like for example: where the hell did we really come from? And therein lays the crux of this film. It questions religion; it questions the existence of god. Should we believe in life after death? Why are there so many different beliefs on the matter? Could it be that no one really knows the answers to these questions and so we simply choose to believe what we want about the after life and God? This is the main reason why I loved this movie so much; it asks these big questions and actually attempts to answer them. Prometheus basically summarizes where humanity stands with regards to these questions. Yet the film doesn’t eschew the Christian angle of things, actually, Christianity is represented through its main character Elizabeth Shaw as played by Noomi Rapace. Interestingly enough, I wasn’t expecting for Prometheus to touch upon some of the themes that Blade Runner plays with, namely, why we die. This is the reason why I love Blade Runner so much. It has its android protagonists ask their creator for more life. Prometheus also plays with these ideas, which I found fascinating considering Ridley Scott himself is getting pretty old. I’m sure this is a theme that matters to him as a filmmaker now more than ever; so he touches upon it yet again on Prometheus. This is probably why we have characters addressing the issues of life after death, or characters simply wanting, searching to elongate their lives, this once again, and same as Blade Runner, is a film about accepting death. “A King has his reign and then he dies, it’s inevitable” says Meredith Vickers to her employer Peter Weyland; by the way, to me, Scott expressed a lot of his concerns about death through the Weyland character. After all, Scott was 74 at the time of making Prometheus! My admiration goes out to Mr. Scott for making such an amazing film in his golden years. 

Ridley Scott made Prometheus at 74, that's what I call one tough cookie! 

The great thing about Prometheus is that even though it tackles all these philosophically heavy themes, it does not forget to entertain. We get some awesome looking aliens and creatures on this one! Fun stuff! A bit gruesome at times, but then again this is probably why the film earned (thankfully!) its “R” rating. Yet, when compared to Alien, Prometheus feels sometimes a bit constrained on this department, you can tell times have changed, there’s not a lot of blood on this one. But things do get gruesome, and gory believe it or not, the film plays a fine balance in my book between showing you just enough mayhem. Finally, I will say that I was not one bit disappointed with this film. I don’t get why people are saying that it’s flawed? Flawed how? I guess comparing it to Alien is the reason, but we have to remember, that even though Prometheus is obviously linked to the Alien universe of films, it’s still its own beast. It’s obvious that Scott was aiming for a film with its own personality and uniqueness, not a film that felt like it was walking on tired ground. Maybe the scientists don’t act professional enough at times and get themselves into peril too easily? Almost as if they were asking for it? Maybe…but then again, we have to remember this is also a horror film; characters have to put themselves in peril! Highly recommend it, in my book this film was nothing short of epic, amazing, thrilling…top notch, cutting edge filmmaking at its best. This is Scott showing us he’s still got it! I can’t wait to see what he’ll do with that Blade Runner sequel he keeps talking so much about. Prometheus gets the highest possible recommendation from this Film Connoisseur!

Rating: 5 out of 5

Lockout (2012)

Title: Lockout (2012)

Directors: James Mather, Stephen St. Leger

Cast: Guy Pearce, Maggie Grace, Peter Stormare

Review:

I love films that take place in space because space always has this aura of danger to it. In these kinds of films you have to deal with the idea that humans were not made to be in space, it is very obviously not our natural habitat. Not only that, space is quiet and lonely; I’ve never been up to space, but you kind of get the idea that if you float a couple of hours up there in all that darkness, you’ll end up feeling disconnected from humanity. To me, it’s that quiet, that isolation, that imminent danger and risk factor that makes it such a great setting for a movie to take place in. Plus, space is the great unknown, we know next to nothing about it except that it’s vast and seemingly never ending. That mystery surrounding space is what pulls me in to these type of movies. So it’s no surprise that once Lockout was release I was there as soon as I could to see it. How was it?

Lockout tells the story of a guy named Snow. He is wrongfully accused of a murder, so he is being sent to this super jail in space called MS-1 where he will be held in suspended animation for 15 years to pay for his ‘crime’. At the same time, the presidents daughter, a young lady be the name of Emilie Warnock, is visiting MS-1. She’s making sure that the prisoners are being treated correctly and that the process of cryo-stasis is a reliable one. Rumors are running around that turning convicts into popsicles has secondary effects on the inmates. Supposedly when unfrozen from a long sleep an inmate can suddenly suffer from space dementia or a bad case of the shakes. Others say that you can have nightmares while under cryo-stasis. Imagine having a nightmare that lasts for 15 years! Problems start when every single one of the inmates in MS-1 is unfrozen are released! Now all the loons and psychos are running free through the ship. First order of the day? Kidnap the Presidents daughter as ransom for their demands! So now, instead of being turned into a Popsicle himself, Snow is going to MS-1 to rescue the presidents’ daughter! Can he pull it off right smack in the middle of a major jailbreak?

Guy Pierce plays the super tough Snow, a guy who takes a licking and keeps on ticking. You try and punch out a confession out of this guy, and he’ll spit a one liner for every punch you give him. You tell him he’s going to be frozen for the next fifteen years for a crime he didn’t commit and he tells you he’s looking forward to it. That’s right boys and girls; this is the kind of movie Lockout is, like something straight out of the eighties. Which means this is not a movie to be taken seriously at all, and if you didn’t get that from simply watching the previews, well then I’m telling you, this movie is brisk, fast paced and quick with a one liner. In fact, after a while you kind of get the feeling that that’s the only language Snow speaks, not a single line of dialog from this guy is serious! He is a non stop barrage of jokes and sly remarks. Guy Pierce as the wisecracking Snow is part of what makes this flick a little more watchable then it should be, other wise, had it starred someone like Mark Wahlberg, I don’t think I would have enjoyed it as much.

This kind of film is tailor made for me; I’m the audience that studios targeted to merchandise this film. I was raised on a steady diet of 80’s action films like Die Hard (1988), Commando (1985), Lock-Up (1989) and Escape from New York (1981). So of course I was going to go and watch this one. I mean the previews hailed it as a mix between Blade Runner (1982) and Escape from New York! But of course, previews will tell you anything to get your butt inside the movie theater. And that they did because this film is nothing like Blade Runner, I don’t know where they dug that one out of. But it is a lot like Escape from New York, so I guess they only half lied on their advertising campaign. Same as Snake Plissken in Escape from New York, Snow is a guy who’s treated like crap by the system. He’s going to be the scapegoat to pay for someone elses crimes, he’s the guy the system loves to stump with their boot. Until the day they need him. When they need him they quickly change their attitudes. They offer him a full pardon, give him all the weapons and gadgets he needs and send him on life threatening mission. What producers won’t tell you is that this film is also a bit like Escape from L.A. (1996) because it’s also about having to go into a dangerous penitentiary to rescue the presidents’ daughter. Lockout also has elements from films like Stuart Gordon’s campy and gory prison break film, Fortress (1992), but if I’m to be even more accurate I’d say its closer to Fortress 2 (2000) which takes place in a maximum security prison out in space. The point is that this film is not very original, at all. Expect no surprises. This is a compilation of a lot of films that came before it.  

    

But so what, while watching Lockout you’ll notice that it’s obvious these guys knew the kind of b-movie they were making. They wanted a film filled with wise cracks, fast action and a happy ending. It’s a film made by French guys playing the Hollywood game note for note. Luc Besson knows what American audiences want to see and he’s giving it to them. It’s not unlike what the Italians did back in the day with films like 1990: The Bronx Warriors (1982), which by the way also has some similarities with Lockout. Another way to look at Lockout is that it works just like The Transporter films. You know they are not the best action films ever made or ground breaking or though provoking on any level. What The Transporter films do is play with a pre-established formula for an action film; but who cares right? Because it’s always cool to see Jason Statham driving fast cars and kicking some ass. Lockout is the same type of picture; originality is not a priority, this film is simply playing with the genre, which of course can be fun. Believability is not the main concern here either; the filmmakers’ main concern is that you have a good time at the movies. They want you too laugh and say “cool!” every five seconds. Unfortunately some of the effects work won’t make you say “cool” every five seconds. There’s this completely laughable and terribly achieved effects sequence that has Snow stealing a futuristic motorcycle and ensuing on a high speed chase. The whole sequence was computer generated, but not in a good way. I nominate this sequence for worst computer animated sequence of the year. I mean, this one is right up there with the crappy aliens from TheDarkest Hour (2011). Worst part of all is that the filmmakers chose this terrible sequence to open their movie with!

   

I respect Luc Besson as a filmmaker. When the guy is on, he makes films like Leon: The Professional (1994) and The Fifth Element (1997). Currently he keeps directing European films that never see the light of day in America, and produces many others that do. As a producer, he doesn’t really care about making quality films; he cares more about making money. The Transporter films are a good example of this. Not the best films in the world, but they make a pretty penny, and they also allow new upcoming directors to stretch their artistic muscles and learn a thing or two about filmmaking. Lockout is one such film. It was directed by a duo of Besson protégés called James Mather and Stephen St. Leger; two guys with not a lot of real filmmaking experience in their hands, save for their short films, but hey, that’s how many great filmmakers start out, so maybe these guys will be the future. For now, we get their first steps in filmmaking with Lockout. Final words on Lockout: I love space faring adventures as much as the next guy (and this one had its moments) but some of the effects work on Lockout are amateurish! At least the quick action and the numerous one liners will keep you entertained. Unfortunately this is the kind of movie you forget as soon as you leave the theater. It’s a quick fix for sci-fi junkies like me self, but not a full course.

Rating: 3 out of 5 

The King's Speech (2010)

Title: The King’s Speech (2010)

Director: Tom Hooper

Cast: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce

Review:

The King’s Speech was the big winner on Oscar night 2011. It won four Academy Awards: Best Actor (Colin Firth) Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler), Best Director (Tom Hooper) and Best Film of the Year. I thought it deserved the awards that it got, because it is a good film, with excellent performances and a well written screenplay. Personally, I was rooting for Darren Aronofsky to win the Oscar for Best Director for Black Swan, but whatever, as it turns out The King’s Speech was the big winner of the night. You know how The Academy loves an inspirational film with characters conquering their fears and achieving their goals. Black Swan was probably too dark a movie for The Academy, who we all know likes their winning films to be happy, shinny and up lifting. The King’s Speech certainly fits those prerequisites.

The King’s Speech is a film that focuses on the pressures and stress that fall upon a political figure. You and I (read: the common man) can’t really grasp what it means to suddenly become such an important political figure for a whole nation, so the movie does a wonderful job of doing it for us. It’s interesting to note that King George VI (played by Colin Firth) became king only when his brother, King Edward VIII (played by Guy Pearce) renounced the thrown. When King Edward VIII inherits the throne, moments after his fathers death, the first thing he does is burst into uncontrollable crying. At first we think he is crying over his fathers death, but it soon becomes clear that he is crying because he doesn’t want all the responsibility that comes with the title. Apparently, all King Edward VIII wanted to do was have a good time through life, partying, falling in love, he didn’t care about being a King, which is why after a short tenor as the King of England, King Edward VIII renounces the thrown and hands it over to his brother King George VI. Problem is, King George VI has a speech impediment, he stammers and the stammering gets worse when he has to addresses the nation. Enter Geoffrey Rush, speech therapist, to help him with his problem.

The most interesting aspect for me about this film was how The King of England has to come down from his royal palace to meet with a common man to help him out of his dilemma. Geoffrey Rush’s character Lionel Logue isn’t a high class aristocrat, nope; he is just a common man who is good at what he does. He doesn’t even have a degree! Yet here he is; the kings’ last hope. The film constantly questions the seat of power; it literally tries to bring the high and mighty King, the ultimate representation of political power, down to a more human level. Lionel Logue constantly tries to humanize The King, begging for him to come off his high horse. I think the movie quite cleverly squeezes these themes in the film, sort of reminding governments, hey, you know, you wouldn’t be up there if it wasn’t for the help of the common man, the poor guy who has a family to feed and does an honest days work. And I really liked that about the film. It’s the king actually listening, spending time, and thanking the commoner for his services. I liked that idea, because it’s something that those in power sometimes forget: that the governed are real people, with real situations, they aren’t just statistics. So kudos to the movie for that.

It also questions the power that a political figure actually has. I mean, just how powerful is a King or a President of a nation? In certain cases, and this holds true for the United States as well, the King or the President is just a symbolic figure, the big honchos making the decisions are really back stage, while the king or president is just there to talk to the people. One scene has the King saying: “If I am King, then where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because the people think that when I speak, I speak for them” There is another scene where Lionel sits in this royal chair where only kings and queens have sat in. The king gets his panties all up in a bunch over this telling Lionel to get off the chair, that he is trivializing everything. Lionel tells the king: “I don’t care how many Royal assholes have sat on this chair, its just a chair.” I liked this aspect of the film because sometimes people tend to deify political figures and forget that they are just humans, with fears and limitations, same as you or I.

I enjoyed the film mainly because it’s a film that begs governments to show a thread of humanity with its ‘loyal subjects’. It bets for governments to treat their subjects, however common they maybe, with the dignity and respect they deserve. Because who knows, maybe one day they might need us for something. It’s a movie that gives value to the common man as an important part of society. I loved the performances; Geoffrey Rush plays such an adorable, goofy and candid character. I love it how he confronts the king, brings him down to a more human level. Colin Firth starts out as a stubborn guy who hates himself and his stammering, a guy who is filled with anger. He slowly, with the help of Lionel, learns to deal with his anger, conquer his speech impediment and finally addresses the nation in the proper way. It’s the reason why the film won four Oscars, it’s an uplifting tale, where a man goes through this whole evolution, and conquers his fears. In the process, he learns a thing or two about humility, sympathy for others and true friendship.

Speaking of conquering ones fears and all that, the screenwriter for The King’s Speech, David Seidler also stammered when he was a child, and King George’s story motivated him to over come it, so the film has a bit of authenticity to it when it comes to the whole psychological process of overcoming a speech impediment. Another Interesting thing about David Seidler is that up to this point he had been working mostly on writing straight to dvd and television films like the David Carradine vehicles Kung Fu Killer (2008) and Son of the Dragon (2006). His only brushes with theatrical releases were his scripts for Tucker a Man and His Dream (1988) and an animated feature film called Quest for Camelot (1998). He’d always wanted to write a film about King George VIII, so he started working on the screenplay which he’d always had in the back of his head. Low and behold, years down the line he ends up winning an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and the film itself is the big winner of the night! Seidler isn’t exactly a young pup (he’s well into his seventies) yet here he is in his Golden Years, winning an Academy Award. When he received the award he said “My father always told me I’d be a late bloomer!” He gave a great acceptance speech at the Oscars, without a bit of stammering to be heard! Hooray for late bloomers!

Rate: 5 out of 5