Review: Iron Man 3

NOTE: It’s REALLY hard to review Iron Man 3 without considering the implications of the spoiler elements on the quality of the film. While I won’t explicitly state what happens, it will be hinted- so be warned.

My memory of the first Iron Man is a great one, despite not having revisited the film since its release and only recalling scant details. It was relatively flashy, not overtly cheesy comic-book feel with slight realistic infusion, but the main draw was the enigmatic nature Robert Downey Jr. brought to the table. Since then, Marvel has introduced the “phasing” of releasing their films; a subset of features essentially mounting towards the next Avengers feature. On one hand, we get the execution of a seemingly impossible project, which is an impressive feat. The downfall is the devaluation that comes with the “Phasing” projects that build up to the main feature.

Captain America and Thor suffered similar afflictions, but it felt like the fatigue was more from the overabundance of origin stories with the resurgence of the Superhero genre. Iron Man 3 proves that it’s a pattern- this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as much as it sounds like one. The film is good fun, allowing audiences to revisit RDJ before The Avengers 2 is released in 2014. But the film feels like a compilation of short issues of a comic book, a fun diversion but relatively ineffectual when put next to counterpart films that feel like juggernaut graphic novels.

Not all superhero movies should be expected to be approached with the self-seriousness of Christopher Nolan; Iron Man 3 shouldn’t be faulted for being emotionally stunted, because it isn’t what it’s supposed to be. But it feels like it tries at times. The terrorist sequences don’t induce panic as they should, and the intricacy of the villainous plot felt underdeveloped. But Tony Stark’s descent into madness, and the resounding effect his new flaw brings to every character is well done. It added a new layer to the character that distinguishes him from Thor and The Hulk- his superhero counterpart is a man. More importantly is the issue of whether or not Iron Man is the suit or Tony Stark, a central theme explored in the film.

The screenwriters have bounced back significantly from the weak Iron Man 2. While the film doesn’t feel like the loaded epic that it could be, it’s got all the elements that make Iron Man a capstone superhero series. It’s funny, thrilling, driving, and is able to have fun both with and without the armor. The addition of Pepper as a hero and not a damsel in distress is welcome- given this day and age, it feels a bit antiquated how helpless women are consistently portrayed in the genre. Her assertiveness and comfort in protecting Tony was one nuance that made the film a step above its Marvel counterparts.

The different reactions to Marvel’s first Phase II feature, Iron Man 3, have been interestingly polarizing. Advanced critical screenings were overwhelmingly enthusiastic, noting a return to form after a tepid second feature, darker tones, and considerable character development in the aftershock of last summer’s epic The Avengers. Fans were furious over a considerable rewrite to a pivotal character that cheapens their effect. In context with the movie, it works- Iron Man has consistently been about engineering tactical elements of warfare, and the film uses the twist to stay true with that and operate within a motif that’s more effective for modern society. Would I have preferred the character to continue in the direction he followed in the comic books? Yes, but the creative decision was attended to that I didn’t bat an eyelash until I left the theater.

The action scenes were pretty great, with some stellar visual effects. Despite the plot feeling a bit undercooked, the blockbuster scenes were what thrill-seeking audiences crave- there’s a bit of diversity to the risk of the situations, and the scope of the climax is theatricality at its best. Some of the more gaping plot holes become evident at the end (how exactly are the regenerating humans killed only at the end?) but at the end of the day, one must consider the drastic suspension of belief required to engage with a film like Iron Man 3.

It sounds like I’m complaining a lot about the film, when in truth it’s a solid way to kick off the summer movie season. It’s a rollicking good time for everyone, a meticulous balance of adrenaline, plot, character, and humor without overdoing any singular elements. If anything, the film is worth it for the still relentless charm of Robert Downey Jr.

Grade: B

Review: Evil Dead

Getting involved in the creation of a remake, particularly in the horror genre, is dooming oneself to making mediocrity. Remakes are seen as they are- a largely shameless cash grab under the guise of “re-imagination”, although it often leaves a longing in recapturing the magic of the original. Horror remakes are a class all on their own, a virtual guarantee that you’re seeing a pile of complete shit; sure, they seem promising, yet end up doing little more than adding Roth-esque gore and robbing the original of a sense of originality. When a remake of the 1981 cult classic The Evil Dead was announced, it seemed downright irreverent, especially considering the tonal shift from a B-grade camp-fest to a gritty teen slasher. The horror community suffered enough with the mutilation of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre; for fuck’s sake, leave the perfected original product alone.

Yet all the prerequisites to make the movie passable were done right. From consulting franchise icon Sam Raimi to omitting the irreplaceable Ash, the creative team did enough to differentiate themselves from the source material while still acknowledging the importance to stay in its creators and fans good graces. Evil Dead is, far and above its industry comparables, its own film- and it succeeds in making itself a splashy, justifiable trip back to the Necronomicon.

The plot rewrites were immediately impressive nuances of horror genius, not only ensuring that the remake is not a shot-by-shot revisitation of the source, but avoiding the clichés the horror genre is rife with.  A group of 20-somethings retreat to a remote cabin in the woods (bear with me) in order to provide Mia an opportunity to go cold turkey from a heroin addiction. After her friends reveal to her brother David a similar attempt had been made before, they promise that they will stay put regardless of what she does. When the group discovers a satanic ritual in the basement, seemingly conducted with a book of the dead, one of the friends reads from it unleashing a demon on the group. Mia is the first possessed, but the group asserts that this is her desperation to get back to continue using, until it’s too late.

Evil Dead establishes itself as a unique hybrid of supernatural, psychological, and slasher horror. It is immediately zippy and chaotic, wasting no time in mounting tension for the audience. If any association could be made, it bears most similarities to satanic supernatural from the 70’s and 80’s, like The Exorcist and Poltergeist. This immediately gives way to a more interesting film, with the terror being associated with a being that can manipulate all the characters by knowing all about them and the relationship they hold with those whom are possessed. While a relentlessly violent new-age style horror film, its supernatural aura is what grabs the viewer and inspires the most terror.

I was especially keen on the re-writes executed to avoid cliché. The group perceive the activity at first as withdrawal symptoms, and the demon’s manipulation of the sympathies of the cabinmates makes the ensuing rife between them understandable. While different from the original, the film still winks at some of the most infamous moments from the franchise- the tree rape, Ash’s chainsaw- genuinely well-executed moments used to please devoted fanboys. And yes, the violence is explicit and gnarly, but because of the appropriate execution of the other elements of the film, it doesn’t feel conspicuously exploitive. It often inspires more terror than repulsion, as it should.

It’s still a remake, though, and doesn’t manage to totally overstep the negative perceptions associated therein. With a release closely following the critical darling Cabin in the Woods, its hard to disregard how the parody so faithfully follows the first segment of that film. The ending feels like a tacked on afterthought to franchise the new Evil Dead; sure, I’m welcoming it enthusiastically, but the ending was lazy.

Horror is a difficult enough genre to impress in. Its “been there, done that” formulaic approach gives way that the bad rep the genre has is merited. But when a good one comes along, its hard not to revel in the giddiness associated with the terrifying disorder of a good horror film. Evil Dead should have been a forgettable mess or mediocrity, but instead is a wild, perverse ride that inspires a healthy number of screams and laughs. While not wholly original, a gripping, engaging ride is more than enough to make it a memorable addition to a flailing genre.

Grade: B+

On Starting Over

Considering how feverishly I attended to this blog in the past year, I admit I’m disappointed I’ve not written a post since a half-assed list of standout records of the year. I’ve been blaming the lack of serious developments in popular culture given the time of year, particularly in film; it may surprise some that, other than Evil Dead, I have not seen a single film released in 2013. Still, this is a lazy assertion; a brilliant Oscar race, Roger Ebert’s passing, new project developments have been announced. In music, Fall Out Boy reunited, we’re seeing a brilliant festival season kicking off, and great releases from Paramore, Iron & Wine, Frightened Rabbit, Lady Lamb the Beekeeper, CHVRCHES, amongst many others. Major video games rebooted, Khaled Hosseini and Lena Dunham have impending books being released. My excuse was admittedly a poor resignation, a pretention that my main industry focal point had slowed so all the phenomenal developments in the arts need be neglected. To the readers I garnered, I apologize for my absence. The true excuse is a clichéd yet loaded one- life happened.

To my readers who know me, I’ve been swept up in the whirlwind of a pivotal crossroads in my life. With graduation looming, I’ve been forced to practicality, applying to jobs not necessarily in line with my evident passions in order to retain my lifestyle. I’ve attempted to find meaning in the classroom but find my time wasted. My energy has gone into reading, and attempting to solidify how I will define myself in the future. I ended a relationship that arguably defined my growth from a child to an adult- a great one, yes, but one in which I was ready to move on from to seek growth in someone who works better with this phase of my life.

I neglected writing because I thought I didn’t need it. I thought the world of film and music closed me out and it was time to grow up, stop wasting time, and put energy into something that would bear fruit. I know now though through distance how wrong I was. This blog surmises my life, even if my career doesn’t reflect that. I grow and learn so much about myself and the world by reflecting on my passions, regardless who is paying attention. I love this, in a way most people are not blessed with a devoted life-long love.

I never do personal posts on this blog, and I apologize if this is a disappointing return to form, but sometimes the importance of passion becomes evident through its conspicuous absense. I’m writing this as an apology to readers, but this blog isn’t nearly as important to my readers as it is to me. Rather, this is an open apology to myself for losing sight of how I define myself. This is my announcing my return to form, and a hope to make this menial little blog into something bigger than it is in its current state.

So, I’m writing again in an effort to instigate a dialogue. I hope you will continue to stick with me as the conversation develops. 

Top Albums/Live Acts of 2012

It’s my favorite time of year! After getting a boatload of free stuff (thanks for the new iPhone, Mom and Dad!) and eating enough food to last me ‘til around February, now I get to pontificate about how well versed I am in the arts and gloat about my choice picks for 2012. I try to create a healthy mix of artists, but obviously, I’m biased. This isn’t the same list you’ll read on Pitchfork or Consequence of Sound, but I’m not necessarily the best person to talk to if you’re seeking strictly indie. And white I enjoyed Jack White, Frank Ocean, and Dirty Projectors, this is MY list of favorites, not a reiteration of what the industry is calling the greatest releases of the year.

Top 25 Albums:

1.) The Gaslight Anthem, Handwritten:

2.) The Menzingers, On The Impossible Past

3.) P.O.S., We Don’t Even Live Here Anymore

4.) Bruce Springsteen, Wrecking Ball

5.) First Aid Kit, The Lions Roar

6.) Yellowcard, Southern Air

7.) Japandroids, Celebration Rock

8.) Of Monsters and Men, My Head Is an Animal

9.) Lana Del Rey, Born to Die: The Paradise Edition

10.) fun., Some Nights

11.) The Weeknd, Trilogy

12.) All Time Low, Don’t Panic

13.) Macklemore and Ryan Lewis, The Heist

14.) Hot Water Music, Exister

15.) Purity Ring, Shrines

16.) Hostage Calm, Please Remain Calm

17.) Grimes, Visions

18.) The XX, Coexist

19.) Alt-J, An Awesome Wave

20.) Stars, The North

21.) Taylor Swift, Red

22.) Crystal Castles, (III)

23.) Foxy Shazam, The Church of Rock and Roll

24.) Beach House, Bloom

25.) River City Extension, Don’t Let the Sun Go Down on Your Anger

Top 10 Live Acts:

1.) Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band

2.) Florence + The Machine

3.) Bon Iver

4.) The Gaslight Anthem

5.) Foxy Shazam

6.) Die Antwoord

7.) Sleigh Bells

8.) Frank Turner and the Sleeping Souls

9.) Robyn

10.) First Aid Kit

EARLY REVIEW: Les Miserables

For some reason, Hollywood and Broadway don’t really mix. With the exception of Chicago, (and to an extent, Hairspray, despite being based on a film originally) they’ve all faltered. Rent was for fans only. Phantom of the Opera was inexplicably dull. I honestly can’t think of a single person who saw Nine. So why all the commotion about Les Miserables? Is it not destined to fail like its brethren, or is the insurmountable stock placed in it with its big budget and assortment of heavy hitters enough to elevate it above the rest?

Les Mis has a cult-like in its following; unfortunately, I never got the chance to see it onstage, despite my family holding it close to their hearts. But the film remained entirely accessible to me, a soulful and impactful exploration through the gutters of 1800’s France and the hope that elevates the characters in a true tale of glory and redemption. The focal point being the French Revolution, the film follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a newly freed man who breaks parole and spends his life fleeing from military man Javert (Russell Crowe). Throughout his adventures, he meets Fontaine (Anne Hathaway), a woman squandered to prostitution to support her child, Cosette (when grown, Amanda Seyfried). The film reaches its height when the revolution comes and Cosette’s first love Marius (Eddie Redmayne) is one of the children of the revolution.

What’s immediately striking is the top-tier actors listed; Hathaway is unforgettable despite only garnering 15 minutes of screen time, Jackman excels as the weathered Valjean, and Redmayne makes his illustrious debut, holding his own amongst the veterans. But even more amazing is the deft ability of Tom Hooper to maintain the opera stylings that shouldn’t work on film, and mesh it with the uniquely epic scope a big budget film can produce. The effect is marvelous and engaging, a nauseatingly-heart-wrenching epic sure to please fans and newcomers.

Les Miserables is certainly an anomaly, but it works because the passion of the fans is translated into every nuance of the film; a perfect marriage between film and Broadway mediums. Most of the film was sung live, and it shows- the heart and soul of the actor’s song resonates throughout their bodies, a shudder-inducing fluidity that couldn’t be achieved without sincere voice. The acting is a difficult achievement, to maintain the theatricality of stage vocals with on-screen realism, but everyone manages to nail it. But what makes it awe-inspiring is that it isn’t a shoddy stage adaptation, it takes advantage of the opportunity that the mobility of a camera can provide. The settings are exciting and echo the barren, destitute spirits of everyone onstage- the colors of the revolution are vibrant, the action is exciting and constant. Hooper didn’t make the mistake of being confined to the staging of the original story, but expanding on the universe that the source material provided him. The result is a lavish and wholly satisfying realization of the extent of the emotion of the stage production.

 Beyond the technical achievement, the literary technicalities of Les Miserables are attended to carefully. The Christian undercurrent is rare in mainstream cinema but approached with accessibility to all passages of faith, a reminder to resist the evils that corrupt our daily lives with the passion and love of a higher being (a message that, unfortunately, is all-too relevant today.) All characters are able to penetrate beneath the surface, regardless of screen time- a combination of effective story-telling, personable directorial execution, and superb acting. I wept for Fontaine seconds upon meeting her character, thanks to the chameleon-like performance by Anne Hathaway. The young revolutionary Gavroche was handled respectfully so, but painful- an afterthought whom serves as a vehicle for the politicization of issues afflicting the innocent youth. Themes of rebirth, redemption, forgiveness, and understanding were gracefully executed without feeling preachy. The film may be produced for the mainstream, but its effective means of reaching individual audience members uniquely is, in short, magical.

And magical seems to be the best way to describe the whole of Les Miserables. While at times it plodded along and demonstrated an overbearing concern to include all source material, it mostly took my spirit on a soaring journey. Moments of triumph felt so vibrant and true, a ringing celebration of the testament that the spirit will prevail in the end. At the end of the day, this movie shouldn’t work. And for some people, the sung-dialogue will derail the ability for them to relate to it. But for the most part, Les Miserables is an emotionally provocative experience that will rightfully shake up the award season this upcoming winter. It’s the kind of film that speaks to the soul and remains in the heart long after departing the theatre.

Grade: A- 

A Call to Arms for the Oscar Race

Fall 2012 is undeniably one of the best movie seasons that we’ve been blessed with in years. Without fault, Oscar season has revved up to a plethora of chatter already as movies are screened and devoured by critics and audiences alike. What makes 2012 particularly savvy, in my opinion, is the number of phenomenal films that are works of art and accessible to the general public. Sure, the new rule allowing for up to 10 nominations including crowd-pleasing blockbuster hits like Inception, Toy Story 3, and The Help has generated lay interest in the Oscars, but it’s been the unspoken rule that these movies won’t win. There are better movies out there, even if they’re relatively inaccessible to a normal film-goer seeking a good time.

2012 is different though. Silver Linings Playbook is the underdog hit already, receiving as much public praise as critical. Argo was one of the most well-crafted thrillers of our generation, solidifying the brilliance of Ben Affleck behind the lens. Les Miserables and Zero Dark Thirty have screened to abundant enthusiasm, as well as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. I have yet to see Life of Pi, but buzz indicates that Ang Lee was able to work a miracle and make the so-called “unadaptable” novel a fulfilling vision. I leave out a list of other brilliant endeavors being considered, among them The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall, Anna Karenina, The Sessions, and This is 40.

It seems that this is the year that the marriage between brilliant film-making and connecting with a greater audience has been fulfilled. So why are we even discussing the possibility of Lincoln as a Best Picture front-runner? Voters, if you are reading this, I beg you to consider avoiding nominating Steven Spielberg’s historical drama for the coveted award in February.

Lincoln is the definition of Oscar bait. A good, albeit not great, expensive period piece helmed by a well-known director with prominent acting talent. Every year these films are thrown into the mix, the predictable nod that will undoubtedly be considered a front-runner until the race is over. Why is there such a penchant for allowing history to define what will be forever known as the most prominent film released in a year?

I’m not devaluing these movies, but great film-making comes from taking risks. Risky source material, creative technique, generating a new voice that resonates with a generation that wasn’t previously present. Lincoln is none of the above, like the period dramas that preceded it; it’s good but safe film. In a year when so many film-makers took risks and created something new, something beautiful that connected with the audience, it’s about time said films started reaping their rewards.

Part of it is the value of the title “Best Picture” and the money it generates once garnered. Greatness deserves to be recognized, and if the best way to earn recognition is by allotting a film an award, so be it. But more importantly, the Academy has served as a way to create films as relics for when they were created. I, like many film enthusiasts before me, make a diligent effort to watch all of the films that have either been nominated for or won the top prize- often, they were the cultural touchstones of a year. Increasingly, it’s becoming a members-only club that isn’t indicative of critical success or cultural relevance. There’s been an outcry against the Academy that’s become more vocal each year since Brokeback Mountain was snubbed to the tepid hit Crash. Actors, directors, screenwriters are issuing a call to arms to boycott the Academy and what it symbolizes. I would argue that it’s the political bullshit, the lack of equality in determining what’s truly “great” and what we hope to define our generation- part of which is held back by decisions like considering Lincoln an actually viable option in a year of so many greats.

So if you truly believe that Lincoln was the cats pajamas of 2012, I can’t fight your opinion (IF IT’S INFORMED!) But to my readers who don’t spend every waking moment in the cinema like I do, give the underdogs a chance this year. I promise you won’t regret it. 

Review: Lincoln

For a Spielberg movie, there’s one thing that’s distinctively un-Spielbergian here; there lacks any monumentous set pieces or grandiose scenes. The film opens strongly with a group of four soldiers, two white and two black, reciting the famous Gettysburg Address to the stoic figure, exemplifying the ubiquitous influence Lincoln had on the nation- but otherwise, no famous speeches are recited by Day-Lewis. Rather, contrary to the all-encompassing title, Lincoln focuses strictly on the president’s campaign to end the war by implementing the 13^th Amendment and the political drama that ensues. Other than the moving introduction exemplifying the power of said historical moment, Lincoln is fairly straight-forward from there on out, for better or for worse.

There’s particular relevance that Lincoln has relative to modern history, one obvious, one not so. The obvious comparison is to the current struggle of LGBTQ (and immigrant) civil rights within the United States and the politicization of human rights being left to be decided by those who are unaffiliated. More interesting is the presence of party politics regardless of personal opinion on individual issues- in Lincoln, it is evident how even the 1800’s there was a sheep-like following to partisan politics not unlike the current political climate of Republicans versus Democrats.

It’s a faithful and reverent retelling of American history, one of the proudest moments of it, and the men and women who were involved. In an era where Spielberg is unreliable as an epic director, Lincoln surpasses most of his recent mediocre work (with the exception of the explosive Munich). But how much of this is the responsibility of Spielberg, and how much relies simply on a dear story and a powerful performance?

While Lincoln dives deep into the layered struggle of the courtroom tension of the Civil War, I felt like I was watching a play. Spielberg’s directorial style is antiquated, to say the least- everything looks and feels like it was shot on a backlot, with actors in tailored costumes reciting bold yet unrealistic pontifications throughout the feature. Many times I tuned out because the dialogue was, to say the least, self-indulgent. This decidedly old-fashioned Hollywood approach that Spielberg takes isn’t in line with how we perceive Hollywood dramas today- sharp, realistic, and immersive. There’s a particular separation, I didn’t feel the spirit of the material, but was captured by the historical relevance of what was at hand.

At first I thought that I wasn’t engaged because of an overwhelming familiarity with the story, but upon reflection, Ben Affleck’s brilliant Argo is spelt out from the beginning- a rescue mission- but was still a taut and gripping political thriller. There are moments when Lincoln rises to the occasion and is entertaining, but nothing as inspiring as the events being told. To be blunt, the sentimentality feels forced.

But Daniel Day-Lewis is without a doubt perfect. The great American actor who only appears once in a blue moon SHOULD be recognized each time he graces the screen because he approaches the material with the dedication of an artist. He was made for the role, and performs it with a breath-taking candor. He conveyed the struggles of the president well, but made it apparent why he was so beloved. The soft understanding in his facial expressions never leaves, but is compounded with a rigorous dedication to achieving justice. Still, no one else rose to the occasion quite like Day-Lewis. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does well as his son wanting his own glory in civil rights, Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens was moving but felt like a Tommy Lee Jones caricature, and Sally Field as Mary Todd was competent. Perhaps the source material allowed for no one to seek depth other than Day-Lewis- the way their relative plot “messages” were forced down the viewers throats in the final act demonstrate so- but I felt that every character other than Honest Abe was negligible.

But I shouldn’t discount the overall value of the movie. It’s a good retelling of one of the proudest moments of our nation that will surely inspire some patriotism within the viewer. Spielberg made the interesting decision to hone in on a specific period, and when he’s within it, the movie works. The climax and the subsequent 40 or so minutes that follow, really detract from the movie hitting home. Lincoln is an old-white-people crowd-pleaser that’s lighting the box office up because of big-studio money, star power, and a phenomenal story to boot which is where a lot of my negativity stems from. At the end of the day, Lincoln is a decent movie- just not the best of what’s out there.

Grade: B-