It is likely that the people who took issue with my review of Planet Terror are probably not going to enjoy what i am about to say about Kick-Ass, a film that currently enjoys a very generous rating of 8.5 on IMDB.

I recently watched Matthew Vaughn’s Stardust and found it to be an extremely entertaining piece of fantasy storytelling. And i read somewhere that Kick-Ass, the story of a teenager who decides that it’s time to stop being a coward and instead decides to help his fellow citizens by becoming a superhero with no superpowers, draws on Vaughn’s ability to build films around a solid storyline with nicely developed characters. Well, that may be partially true but i certainly don’t understand how Kick-Ass is worthy of such praise, or of an 8.5 on IMDB.

And it’s not the amount of gratuitous violence that i found the most disappointing. After all, we shouldn’t give it more credit than it deserves. There is nothing original or interesting about the violence in Kick-Ass. Tarantino precursors, lovers and followers have made sure that we have become numb and desensitized to heads being blown off and people exploding in giant microwave ovens. This type of superficial violence no longer has a meaning and is instead a purely stylistic exercise, and even this statement might be a bit of a stretch. The sad reality is that violence in films today doesn’t even have to enhance or detract or signify. It is just there. The only slight originality with the violence of Kick-ass is that is perpetrated by and on an 11 year-old girl, which, really, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, isn’t very cool.

No, the biggest disappointment for me is that Kick-Ass doesn’t have a soul. The pace moves unevenly from one scene to the next, with one of the most annoying narration i can remember, and the characters are sometimes interesting but for the most part cliche and detached. There are some good moments but even these seem to be overplayed and they drown under a score that tries too hard to carry these scenes. After watching Kick-Ass, i was left with very little, most of these mini-episodes having disappeared from my memory shortly after. Watchmen this isn’t.

For reasons unknown to me, as I tried to recall the various Batman films and their progression over the past 19 years (excluding the 1943 and 1966 versions), I began to draw a very loose association with the James Bond franchise. Not in terms of content naturally, but rather in terms of tone and mood. First came the darkness of Sean Connery, then the silliness of Roger Moore, followed by the suaveness of Pierce Brosnan (I am conveniently omitting two more James Bond, I know) and today we once again have rawness and darkness with Daniel Craig. It feels to me that the Batman franchise has followed a similar path, with Christopher Nolan’s two Batman films picking up where Tim Burton’s left off, and possibly even going further. In between, we had the very forgettable and silly Batman films of Joel Schumacher, which I am sure Clooney and Kilmer are still to this day trying very hard to erase from their memory and filmography.

At my own peril, I will take the comparison between the latest James Bond film (I have not seen Quantum of Solace (2008) so I am referring to Casino Royale (2006)) and The Dark Knight further.
They both try to demark themselves from the legacy of the franchise and try to create something fresh. They both attempt very hard to emphasize human conflict and to marry emotional depth with raw and effective action. And last but not least, they are both extremely minimalist in their approach. While both running at 2 ½ hours, there is little fat in either of them, with the accent being on relentless pace and action. Only the bare minimum of information is given as scenes are trimmed for speed and progression.

Christopher Nolan’s relatively brief career has been remarkable so far. The brilliant and already cult classic Memento (2000), the moody and visually striking remake of Insomnia (2002), the decent but provoking The Prestige (2006) and the two Batman films, all are clearly the marks of someone with a high level of control, skill and understanding of the cinematic medium and of its techniques. Darkness also seems an underlying thread of these films, in visual terms and through their subject matters.

With The Dark Knight, Nolan delivers a very accomplished film that epitomizes the high quality entertainment film. Most aspects of the movie are solid and the result is a non-stop thrill ride. Unfortunately, this focus on pace means that occasionally, the scenes flow from one to the next in a somewhat abrupt and not always logical way, leaving the viewer with some unanswered questions. Like a comic book that has a limited capacity for background information, The Dark Knight jumps from major scene to major scene, leaving out many things in between.
As a closing note, it is worth mentioning the performance of Heath Ledger. His death prompted a wave of calls for an Oscar nomination, with people stating that his performance had been no less than magnificent. I initially took this with high dose of skepticism. However, having now watched the movie, I can say that Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker is indeed spectacular and when considered together with his performance in Brokeback Mountain (2005), hints at what could have become a very very fine actor.

I must be getting old. Everyone seems to be raving about Del Toro’s sequel but I found myself bored at what I consider to be a lame attempt to take Hellboy mainstream.

Oh sure, there are plenty of gore and gross, albeit not in the least scary, moments, but that clearly falls under mainstream these days and does not in any ways grant Hellboy II with coolness or cult credentials. Whereas the first Hellboy seemed content to target a geeky and comic book audience (and that was one of the film’s strengths – that it did not aim to please too many people) and kept the silly one liners to a minimum, Hellboy II just goes way overboard and noticeably goes after the common denominator Hollywood blockbuster crowd. The monsters and creatures come and go as Hellboy robotically blows them to smithereens, removing in the process any type of tension and suspense and leaving us with a feeling of frustration and boredom at this gratuitous spectacle of recycled ideas. Hellboy is no longer the cool, dark and misunderstood fallen devil, he has become simply a circus clown, made to deliver as many ‘comic’ lines as possible for our cheap amusement. And the acting also seems to have taken a step back with Selma Blair in particular being quite excruciating to watch.
However, credit must go to what Del Toro’s and his crews usually excel at: creating fantastical and magnificent decors as well as sublime costumes.
Disappointing for a director whom we know to be much more talented than this.

So here I am, hanging out in the flavellas of Rio de Janeiro, taking some well deserved time off from my busy schedule and hoping to find inspiration for my next screenplay, when, sadly, I come across a film shoot: Hulk número duas.
I observe silently for a few minutes until Louis Letterier comes over, greets me and proceeds to tell me about how this Hulk movie is going to kick some serious ass but also how it will skilfully marry action, adventure, mystery and emotional depth. A new level in comic book adaptation, a work of such intensity that people will quickly forget the mediocrity of Ang Lee’s first Hulk, he says…a portrayal of emotionally troubled creatures who long for the acceptance of the world and the normalness of others…a story of love, betrayal, courage and sacrifice…a timeless piece that, yada yada yada yada…

At that moment, feeling a sudden craving for a Mojito, I pull one of my best disappearing acts, leaving this man behind who is still talking to no one, and knowing only too well that this Hulk film is going to be a disaster of monstrous proportions.

A friend of mine recently commented that, as a child, he couldn’t get into Iron Man because as far as super heroes went, IM was pretty lame. I also never quite got into the exoskeleton-wearing playboy myself, and I must agree that without fancy super powers, radioactive bugs, hammers from the Gods, extravagant nemesis, or mystical origins, Iron Man in fact offered very little to tickle the imagination of young men looking for something beyond what can sometimes be perceived as the boring limitations of reality.

Iron Man in 2008 tries to connect us to the realities of terrorism and war, attempting perhaps to distance itself from the traditional comic book approach and target market. The Man of Steel (of nano fiber would be more appropriate) can help us win the war on terrorism and the world would be a better place if all the greedy businessmen like Tony Stark, Iron Man’s alter ego, would realize that there is more to gain by helping their fellow human beings than by profiting from them. Thus, a weak and overly simple morality angle underpins a film that also happens to have very little action in it. Following unsuccessfully in the footsteps of the Spiderman franchise, Iron Man tries to be too smart for its own good and is filled with cheap lessons about life. Oh and it banks all of its coolness factor on everyone’s latest and most favourite celebrity: Robert Downey Jr.

Don’t get me wrong; I like the guy as much as anyone else. He oozes so much coolness, he ought to patent it. And ever since I watched Less than Zero (1987) eons ago, I learned to appreciate his mannerisms and the overall modus operandi that is so specific to his acting. But I have also come to understand that this is exactly where the problem is with his performances. One is always watching Robert Downey Jr., and rarely the characters that he portrays. Whatever film of his one watches, one can always expect to see Robert Downey Jr. turning up. But because he is so likeable, and now bankable, roles are made to fit around this set of mannerisms. Whether in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005), Fur (2006), A Scanner Darkly (2006), Zodiac (2007), and now Iron Man, the Robert Downey Jr. persona is stronger than the character he is supposed to impersonate, even if this character is perfectly suited to his mannerisms.

There are so many comic book film adaptations these days that each film must find an edge, a unique selling proposition, to make it appealing and marketable. Personally, I think the angles that they found as an excuse to resuscitate Iron Man - current world events, Robert Downey Jr., and possibly the relevance of some of the technology (building such an exoskeleton with the capacity for enhanced strength, vision, communication, endurance, etc…has today nothing to do anymore with Sci-Fi. This is one of the many things that DARPA has been working on for years) on display in the film - are not enough to make this a compelling picture. The characters are by and large poorly developed (which can sometimes be tolerated in comic book adaptations, as long as something else compensate for it), the storyline is fairly weak and predictable, and the action sorely lacking. If one is not going to include much action in such a film, they should ensure that at least other aspects of the film are strong enough to support the overall experience. The end result is that Iron Man is unfortunately a bit bland.

And then, as surely as Luke knew in his heart that Vader was his father, it downs on me that George, who knows a thing or two about silly movies, is right: ‘Spider-Man 3 IS silly’.

The problem with V for Vendetta is that it uses too many ‘fear-of-the-near-future’ cliches and stereotypes to tell its story. There is nothing in its vision of the future that hasn’t been shown on screen before, and better. Still, the film has an overall good pace, some fine British actors, great production design, a few electric action/music moments which the Wachowski Brothers are so good at. And, finally, the film has that Voice. Who wants to see behind the mask when we have that Voice? I still sometimes shout ‘Mr Anderson!’ randomly, just to see if i can imitate that Voice…i could listen to Hugo Weaving all day…

Sin City is a fairly entertaining film to watch, mostly because of its visual aspect. In a truly comic book style, separate stories seem to be taking place in parallel and connect to each other in some way.

Some stories and characters are more interesting than others (Mickey Rourke’s tale is absorbing while Bruce Willis’ is dull and uninspiring) and the violence often becomes too gratuitous.

Film architecture and design has existed almost as long as cinema itself. In 1976, Leon Barsacq argued in Caligari’s Cabinet And Other Grand Illusions that the fantasist sets developed by Georges Melies at the beginning of the 20th century were a considerable improvement over anything that had been done previously in that they created a deeper reality and gave the image a more substantial meaning. He further added that cinema escaped its primitive phase once it moved away from simple backdrops to three-dimensional sets, thereby creating an architectural space within cinema[1]. Post World War I, the German Expressionists fully explored this new architectural space through the creation of sets that attempted to reflect the inner emotions of the characters in the films. And David O. Selznik’s use of the term ‘production design’ in reference to the work of the American director and set designer William Cameron Menzies on Gone with the Wind (1939), finally helped film design and architecture gain the official recognition and visibility that has since become an integral part of the cinematic experience and of the output of most film industries.

Following fairly closely the emergence of production values in the history of cinema has been the rise and acceptance of science fiction cinema. It is indisputable that the two are interconnected and that a process exists where both feed off from one another. Cinema learns from architecture and architecture learns from cinema. As far back as 1926, many architects were said to have been impressed and influenced by Metropolis (1926). Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 (1968) also apparently became a source of inspiration for the world of architecture, with the director himself having sourced a lot of his inspiration from several existing architectural and design trends and concepts. Today, terms like ‘science fiction architecture’, ‘high-tech architecture’ or ‘cyber architecture’ are commonly used to refer to a new and ‘modern’ style of architecture that draws heavily on science fiction and new technologies. For many architects, ‘science fiction is an imaginative form of design’[2], making its visualizations worth studying.

Read more »

I am actually torn between giving it a 3 and a 4. As with no. 1, Raimi tried to avoid making a brainless action and special effects-driven blockbuster and he must be credited for this. The film is in fact a character-driven piece, and Tobey Maguire makes Peter Parker the kind of guy we can relate to and understand. Doc Oc makes a great villain (his metallic tentacles are spectacular) in spite of his somewhat unbelievable quick back and forth between good and evil. However, as much as i enjoyed the morality aspect of the tale, i felt that by the end of the film we had been given too much of it, and, interestingly, i was craving for a bit more action.

This is a fairly solid effort by the director of Cronos and Blade II.

Guillermo Del Toro is an exciting and promising director with an interesting taste for the bizarre and unusual. He also seems to be attracted to stories that combined elements of the surreal with plausible and realistic settings.

Ron Perlman is indeed very charismatic, as many critics have pointed out, in the role of a demon raised on earth and dedicated to fighting the forces of evil that gave birth to him.

The film contains some truly wonderful special effects that make the experience very entertaining.

Yet, the constant deluge of jokes and comic relief moments ruined what could have been a very serious sci-fi flick.

British Science Fiction cinema has always lived in the shadow of its American counterpart, either as a result of a direct effort to emulate an American style to enable the films to reach broader markets or as an indirect consequence of the fact that, since the 50’s, Science Fiction cinema has been associated with America, drawing on its rich heritage of comics and magazines.

But British Science Fiction cinema has in fact a much greater legacy than is often given credit to. Since the beginning of the 20th century, various British directors and producers have explored the genre, often taking it into new directions, pushing its boundaries, and drawing on the wealth of ideas and masterful works which British Science Fiction writers like H.G Wells, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Arthur C. Clarke, John Wyndham and Michael Moorcock have produced over the years.

Read more »