Author: Ben Browne

You wouldn’t like me when I’m angsty: Why it’s time to stop copying from Batman’s notebook

Man of Feels

Like many thousands of other people, I went to see the new Superman flick Man of Steel the other day. Whilst I quite liked it, I had my problems with it. Chief of which was the fact it was the same type of joyless, po-faced, sullen comic book adap we’ve been seeing ever since Chris Nolan reinvigorated the Batman series. I know I can’t be the only one getting sick of how ridiculously seriously these films take themselves.

I’m not saying that I would prefer a Superman film that undermines the comic at every turn, pointing out how silly things are. Not at all. I love it when films have confidence in the comics and strive to make what worked on the page work on screen. Films used to take the attitude of  looking at comic series and seeing what they could salvage, but now they’re mostly interested in being faithful to the source material. I’m also not against dark and gritty adaptations. The Dark Knight trilogy is fantastic and I love stuff like Sin City, Road to Perdition and Dredd. Thing is, dark and gritty worked for Batman because Batman was all downbeat and moody to begin with. The washed-out palette and realistic approach worked because it suited the character and world that he inhabited.

Comic books are renowned for having a multitude of takes on their characters. Spider-Man alone has had so many different iterations ranging from a futuristic 2099 version to a cartoon pig known as “The Spectacular Spider-Ham” it’s hard to keep track of them all. Practically every time a new artist/writer is hired, the series is technically rebooted and some new blood gets a crack at taking on an established character. Whilst 1997’s  Batman & Robin can go drown in a bucket of piss, this is one of the reasons why I don’t mind Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever as much as most people do. As long as the core character traits are kept the same, you can remix the tone, characters and world as much as you want. It’s like Shakespeare- as long as the essence is kept the same, people don’t give a fuck what you do.

What I do have a problem with is when filmmakers artificially grit up a franchise to appeal to the emotionally stunted moody teen demographic out there. It happened with The Amazing Spider-Man and it’s happened again with Man of Steel. Both films were tasked with rebooting a franchise and making the hero relevant and cool again (the necessity of which is debatable). Both films took the “darker” route and I would argue they both sold out their characters to do it.

I’m not the biggest Superman fan ever, but I like the character a lot and have enjoyed my fair share of the comics,  films and TV shows. I even played the craptacular Superman 64 back in the day. When I bought my ticket for MoS, I expected a grittier take on the franchise, but for the basic character to remain the same altruistic saviour figure he always has been. What I got was a mopey, brooding bellend in a skintight suit. Superman’s sincerity and earnestness doesn’t have to be cheesy. They could have made it work. But no, they washed out the colours and sucked out the joy.  Where’s all the protecting and inspiring good in people? Abandoned in his own selfish quest to get to know just who he really is.

This grittification reminds me of comics in the ’80s when many heroes were like huge steroid-abusing bears, muscling their way around swearing, killing and being “mature”. Looking back on them now, it’s funny how juvenile they are. Comics have thankfully got through that awkward phase and are now more diverse and legitimately adult than ever. The film adaptations need to do this too. At this rate, the much-talked about Justice League film will be Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman et al sitting in a room chain smoking, cutting themselves and looking for “deep” pictures to put on their Tumblrs.

I think the reason that people are supposedly connecting with the Nolanised breed of films is an overall weakening of audiences’ imaginations. People just can’t suspend disbelief like they used to. Nowadays you have to explain the fuck out of everything and meet audiences three-quarters of the way. People like to think they’re too cynical and clever for the older, cheesier superhero flicks, but they really aren’t. They’re too fucking stupid to get caught up in the escapism of it all. The Nolan Bat-films worked because Batman isn’t superpowered. All his tech is plausible and only slightly science-fictiony. When you present a realistic take on Superman who, may I remind you, can fly and has laser vision, you’re forced to really think just how he can achieve flight, rather than just buy the concept. I want to believe a man can fly, not just be told it. Same problem with The Amazing Spider-Man. Using the film’s own logic, explain to me how a teenager with no income can afford to bulk-buy crates of a commercially available web-like fluid and isn’t tracked down by any competent law enforcement agency once they find out there’s an outlaw swinging around using the stuff. Over-explanation is a killer. Think of Toy Story. Did you need an explanation as to how the toys could talk and became self-aware to enjoy the film? Would it have been better if you were told that an accident at a toy factory had caused all the voice chips in the toys to work at 40,000% capacity, granting motor skills and AI? Fuck no. The toys talk when people aren’t around. Boom. Done. Let’s get on with the story.

Some people are grumbling about reaching a saturation point when it comes to superhero films. I tell you what, I’m nowhere near. However, I’m not sure if I can take another dour, shoe-gazing version of a favourite hero of mine. Films need to be confident enough in the unique charms of their chosen properties and not paint over everything with the angsty “mature” brush. Basically, they need to be adult enough to have a little fun and not do something because it worked for Batman.

Man of Steel

Hey guys, I went to see one of those “super hero” movies everyone’s been talking about!

Man of Steel (2013)

2006’s Superman Returns has a bad rep. I would argue that most of it is ill-deserved too. For one reason or another, audiences didn’t really connect with it and here we are. After pretty much dining out on Batman for the past 8 years, DC knew they had to step their game up to catch market leaders Marvel. Pre-release, I went back and forth on being excited for Man of Steel, but eventually settled on getting hyped. I rationalised it thusly: DC can’t afford for the film to suck. They still have eyes on a Justice League film and it’s not going to happen if people don’t like Superman. The script is by David S. Goyer, who has  had great success with the Dark Knight trilogy. Speaking of ol’ Bats, director Chris Nolan had taken the producer role this time and had a hand in the scripting.  All the elements are there. Director Zack Snyder has a great eye for visuals, but tends to get a bit carried away with himself (see the visually arresting but offensively shit Sucker Punch) but the down-to-earth duo of Goyer and Nolan would keep him grounded. All the time though I had a niggling voice in the back of my skull. The trailers certainly pointed towards a gritty, more realistic take on Superman. I hate this “grittification” of superhero films. Just because it worked for Batman, doesn’t mean it’s suitable for everything. We learned this lesson with the pandering, shoe-gazing The Amazing Spider-Man, which took all the fun out of Spidey and left us with an angsty chore of a film.

“My son was in the bus! He saw what Clark did!”

Despite everyone and their dog knowing Superman’s origin story, Man of Steel tells the tale of Kal-El (Henry Cavill), an humanoid alien who was shipped off the dying planet of Krypton as a baby by his parents and sent to Earth, where he was raised by the Kents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Whilst on Earth, Kal-El (named “Clark” by the Kents) discovers he possesses superhuman abilities, like super-strength, laser vision and with enough practice, flight.  After keeping his identity semi-secret for decades, it all starts coming undone when intrepid investigative journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) starts digging around following various urban legends about a mysterious man’s superhuman feats. Clark is forced to come out of hiding when fellow Kryptonian and war-mongering bastard General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his group of thugs threaten to commit planet-wide genocide unless Kal-El gives himself up. Reading that back, I realised Man of Steel‘s story is solid. It’s a fresh take on the familiar and it works. The cast are all great too. Cavill is a brilliant lead, Adams nails a tricky role and Shannon is a fantastic villain. Star of the show for me though was Kevin Costner as Jonathan Kent. The Kents are integral to the Superman story as they give him his morality and understanding of the human race. Costner gives some wonderful speeches to the young Clark that manage to be genuinely affecting. I want him as my dad.

The film’s opening didn’t give me a lot of hope for the rest of it. We see Supes’ dad, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) arguing with the council over Krypton’s future, then a takeover attempt by Zod. Jor-El takes it upon himself to steal this thing and blah blah blah. There’s an awful bit where he calls a big CGI dragonfly/bat thing and rides it amidst explosions and all sorts of shit. It was a CGI nightmare akin to Attack of the Clones-  just packing the screen with as much CGI as it can handle. It all goes a bit Avatar with the flying beast, then a bit Matrix as we see babies in pods. I felt my heart sink. Was this it? Thankfully, the film pulls it round, but it was a scary 20 minutes, I tells ya.

I suppose the two main criticisms of Superman Returns were its retro cornball approach to the mythos and lack of action. Both of which are answered here with varying degrees of success. The film takes on Superman’s origins as a course of solemn duty more than anything else. It takes itself very seriously and I think that’s my main problem with it. I also think by taking this approach, DC are just confirming the misconception that Superman is a boring hero. Yeah, he’s practically invulnerable and has nearly all the powers, but he has the weight of humanity on his shoulders. He can punch a meteor into dust, but he can’t stop the people he cares for from being endangered or dying. None of that really comes through in the film. Superman’s just another introspective hero douche. I think they rushed the Lois/Clark thing too. I didn’t buy the love angle for one minute and I wish they’d held off until a sequel.

In action terms, things have been kicked up a fucktillion notches. The film can barely go 5 minutes without some big sequence happening and I loved it. The superhuman smackdowns between Zod’s crew and Superman are incredibly well done and injections of much-needed fun. I never got tired of watching people getting punched with the force of a freight train and flying backwards through debris and various shameless corporate tie-in buildings. Superman’s final fight with Zod is a proper climax too. Metropolis gets leveled and it’s genuinely thrilling stuff. I was exhausted and deafened by the time it was all over, but I was still pretty content.

“He will be an outcast. They’ll kill him!”

“How? He’ll be a god to them.”

Man of Steel is an odd one. Instead of a bold step to try and bring DC up to the Marvel benchmark, it’s a strange case of trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. Putting the all-American bastion of good through the dark ‘n gritty filter doesn’t work. It’s all a mite too cynical for me. Levity isn’t a bad word. You can have earnest without being corny. The Captain America flick is a great example. In this film, characters are almost embarrassed to call him “Superman” and that’s part of the problem. Man of Steel certainly isn’t bad. I liked a lot of the elements, but it didn’t hang together as a whole. The tone is also all wrong. For fuck’s sake, it’s Superman! Let’s try and have a little fun when sequel time rolls around, eh?

The Purge

Holy prompt review, Batman!

The Purge (2013)

I’m a sucker for simple high-concept films. Stuff like In Time (time is literally money) and Limitless (there’s a pill that can make you super smart) are like freakin’ catnip to me. So when I heard about The Purge, I was intrigued, despite knowing it’d probably be disappointing and not fulfill the promise of its batshit concept.

“I couldn’t find any quotes for The Purge.”

America, 2022. Unemployment is down to 1%, the economy is booming and crime is practically non-existent. This is attributed to The Purge, an annual event brought in by America’s new founding fathers. Basically, once a year for 12 hours, all crime (including murder) is legal and all emergency services are suspended. The idea behind this being that human beings are naturally violent, hate-filled creatures who need to vent out their frustrations to coexist peacefully the rest of the time. We follow minted home security salesman James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) as he and his family, headed by wife Mary (Lena Headey) secure their house and prepare for the night ahead. However, whilst in lockdown mode, son Charlie (Max Burkholder) takes pity on a bloodied and distressed stranger (Edwin Hodge) outside and lets him into their fortress. Before the Sandins know it, they’re being threatened by a masked gang of murderous posh kids and given the ultimatum to either bring out the stranger, or have them break in and slaughter all in the house.

I really like the premise and have done since I caught a short TV ad for it a while back. For 12 hours all crime is legal? Fuck, the fun you can have with that. Yes, you can blow holes in the concept with your big ol’ cynicism and reality cannons, but I don’t trust people who can’t suspend disbelief. See- this sort of situation would justify having a veritable arsenal in your home. This must be what devout, “cold dead hands” NRA members see in their mind’s eye when they reach orgasm. Important point- this is not the horror it’s being billed as. I know the poster has a creepy mask fella on it and proudly boasts it’s from the producers of Sinister and Paranormal Activity, but that means practically nothing. It’s more of a thriller with jump scares. Really underwhelming jump scares. The cast are all bland as fuck, except maybe the “polite leader” of the mask group (Rhys Wakefield) who is so gleeful in being a bastard it’s impossible not to warm to him. I was disappointed to see Queen Mean Lena Headey fade into the background for most of the runtime. She gets some moments later on, but by that point you’re well past giving a shit about anyone.

The film starts off really well. We have an opening CCTV montage of various violent Purge acts happening around the States, set to Debussy’s “Clair de lune” (although, pleb that I am, I first recognised it as the Peggle Nights music). Coupled with the Stepford feel to the sunny surburban life the Sandins have, it does a great job of building a sense of creeping dread. It reminded me of the start of The Hunger Games, possibility because of the similar idea of government-sanctioned violence and murder. There’s a great little bit where the daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane, kept in a kinky Catholic schoolgirl outfit because of reasons) and her dungus boyfriend (Tony Oller) look out the window pre-lockdown and see a neighbour nonchalantly sharpening a massive machete in preparation for the night’s festivities. The news reports analysing the Purge phenomenon are pretty well used too. There’s a none-too-subtle political undercurrent about how The Purge may just have been a way to get rid of the poor and as a result, caused the economy to not only recover, but come on leaps and bounds.  These are all interesting, compelling ideas. It’s just a damn shame the film then goes about dismantling any intrigue and tension from there.

The first problem is that the characters don’t speak like human beings. It’s like writer/director DeMonaco has heard several humans interacting in his time and just gave it his best shot when it came to scripting. A lot of the dialogue is used to signpost shit later on. There’s one bit where weird kid Charlie has a remote control car/camera thing (made to look like a half burnt baby doll/tank hybrid for some arbitrary reason) and he explains to his mother all the modifications he’s made, including night vision, making it practically silent and the ability to play music. Gee- do you think those attributes will perhaps come in handy later? When shit hits the fan, the Sandins’ dialogue gets disappointingly nail-on-the-head which betrays the potentially interesting social commentary.

There are plenty of things that don’t make sense, but most didn’t bother me. The one (mildly spoiler-ish) thing that stuck in my craw was early on where the family talk about James banning his daughter from seeing her boyfriend Henry because he’s too old for her. This is also signposted to buggery. He sneaks back into the house just before lockdown and tells Zoey he wants to talk to her dad and hash out their problems. The siren sounds, the steel shutters decend and he grabs his gun and takes a potshot at Sandin Snr. I mean, what the fuck? I know murder is legal, but didn’t it occur to Henry that perhaps ending his GF’s dad’s life, no matter how above board would make her not want to see him again? Was he lying about loving her? Just what would he have to gain from murdering Sandin? I didn’t understand and the loopy logic kept niggling at the back of my brain throughout the rest of the film.

Things then take a turn for the action-y as the film devolves into a home invasion film with jump scares. As I said, these scares are also serious weak sauce. I got the feeling the film was running out of ideas as several supposedly tense altercations are solved by someone off-screen shooting the attackers. Fucking yawn. Also, CGI blood. A cardinal sin. This goes on for a bit before winding down to an anti-climactic finish. I barely heard the last few lines over my sighs of disappointment.

“Still, most of the dialogue’s akin to a Brillo pad enema, so small mercies, I guess.”

I really wanted to like The Purge, but it felt like nearly every aspect of it was actively working against that goal. This’d be one of the very few properties that I’d like to see get a sequel. Just get a better writer and you could have something really compelling. It’s not terrible, but not good either.

The Hangover Part III

Since loads of people saw this on Wednesday and I finally got round to finishing my Gatsby write-up, I reckon it’s about time to type my thoughts down about Part Trois of  Le Trilogie D’angover as I saw it a few days ago.

The Hangover Part III (2013)

It’s very easy to sneer derisively at stuff like this, with its lowbrow, for-the-masses humour and vulgarity. It’s so easy, I’ve done it at least once before as seen here. Thing is, I’m feeling pretty philosophical about it all. The original Hangover wasn’t for me. I just couldn’t find it funny. Then again, I’m aware different people find different things funny, so whatever. In any case, I have to admit the central idea was fun, but it isn’t the comedy classic drooling wankers hold it up to be. I don’t hate the playa, I hate the game – and that “game” is the audience who think The Hangover is anything more than a dirty little smudge on the proud tradition of cinematic comedy. It’s actually pretty depressing to think we live in a world where there’s a Hangover trilogy.

“We can’t be friends anymore. When we get together, bad things happen and people get hurt.”

So, Dumbus, Bibble and Squit (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis) buck the trend by not waking up from a hectic night’s drinking, but just having to go on a caper involving scary man Marshall (John Goodman), series regular Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) and a fuckton of stolen gold. The Wolfpack have to track down Chow in an adventure that takes them everywhere from Tijuana to old haunt Las Vegas. It seems odd to praise a film for not doing things, but I don’t have much to work with here. I have to commend the film for actually steering away from the formula. What they come up with (an uninspired action comedy romp) isn’t any better, but at least it isn’t the carbon copy the second one was. In a similar vein, thank Christ this wasn’t in 3D. “The Hangover 3D” trips off the tongue so easily I bet there was some serious lobbying for some pointless dimensionalising before and after filming got underway.  Of the cast, I like some of the actors but they’re all slumming it here, especially Ken Jeong who is fucking funny in Schrodinger’s sitcom Community but is just a big old mirthless stereotype here.

As I said, I’ve never found the series funny, but I get the feeling even fans of the franchise will walk away disappointed from this one. There just aren’t enough jokes. The film gets hung up on a buddy movie kick and as a result are the “wacky” scenarios are toned right down. The laughs from the audience were a lot sparser than for the shite Hangover II at any rate. I’d be fine with the franchise switching gears into more of an action comedy, but the setpieces aren’t that good. They just imitate things that have gone before. At the start, Chow escapes prison (in a Shawshank parody of all fucking things) and drops into a tunnel, only to hear a deep rumbling and be chased by a wall of water. Later on, in a hi-larious sequence, Alan causes a traffic accident that ends up with a huge truck jackknifing and spilling its hackneyed payload of massive, all-purpose pipes. I get that I’ve seen more films than most, but I refuse to believe that anyone with eyes has not seen these clichés somewhere before. Sure, it could be a pastiche, but I doubt it. In order to even be considered for something like that, there needs to be at least a sparkle of wit and intelligence to be found somewhere within. The only half decent sequence is a bit where Stu has to pursue a parachuting Chow in a speeding limo. It doesn’t win any bonus points though, because Bond crapflick A View to a Kill had a similar, better sequence 30 years ago.

“Where is he? Leslie Chow stole twenty million from me, and I figure the Wolfpack have the best chance of finding him! Doug is my insurance!”

I’ve run out of things to say about Part III. It was a joyless experience that seemed to be more concerned with slapping any old toss together to make a quick buck than making people laugh. It feels and plays out like a contractual obligation. Fucking dire.

The Great Gatsby

Since Gatsby actually came out before Star Trek, I probably should have covered it first. However, I get the feeling that more people have had the chance to catch it now, so I don’t feel bad having a spoilerrific piece. With that in mind, let’s begin:

The Great Gatsby (2013)

I’m not the biggest Luhrmann fan. I liked his version of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge was alright, I guess, but I find the guy to be a bit too impressed with himself. How can I say this about a man I’ve never met? Well, I’m on the Internet for one, where anyone can say anything about anyone else and it’s apparently fine, but secondly and more importantly, I can just feel it from his work. It’s the same thing I get from Guy Ritchie. They’re all style and no substance. Here’s the kicker- their styles aren’t even that decent. They think they’re being all meaningful and deep, but actually adhere to student film hallmarks when it comes to symbolism and being a no-nothing pretentious twunt. As for the source novel, I have read it, but it’s been goddamn years since. I enjoyed it and I remember the salient points, but I’m hardly a supermegafan. Anyway, let’s take a hopefully ilLUHRMANNating gander at Da Sick Gatz, innit:

“I knew it was a great mistake for a man like me to fall in love.”

The Great Gatsby is based on the classic novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It follows Nick Carraway ( Tobey Maguire), a rookie bond salesman, as he sets up a life for himself New York, renting a small house in the (sadly fictional) Long Island village of West Egg. His humble home happens to be next door to the huge estate of mysterious rich man and apparent recluse, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who throws countless lavish parties for the rich and famous in his mansion.  Across the way in East Egg is Nick’s cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan) and her husband Tom (Joel Edgerton). Everything’s pretty normal until one day when Nick gets a formal invitation to one of Gatsby’s parties. The story is a school-studied classic and rightly so. It’s a tale full of excess, decadence, tragedy and love. I’m not going to start picking it apart, am I? What I can have a go at is the weird framing device that’s used in the film where Carraway is checked in to a rehab centre for alcohol addiction and exhaustion. He then recounts his tale as part of his therapy. It works, but I’m not sure it was entirely needed. The cast are a mixed bag. Tobey Maguire is merely OK as Nick. He’s hardly Mr. Charisma, but then he isn’t supposed to be. However, listening to hours of his particular brand of perpetually pubescent narration may grate. DiCapriSun is decent, but that’s no surprise. My only problem with him was the way he said Gatsby’s famous phrase “old sport”. To me, it kept sounding like he was calling Carraway “Old Spore” and it bugged the fuck out of me. What is a surprise is how flat ol’ Mary Chulligan’s Daisy is. It’s not her fault though, she’s a fantastic actress in other things, just not paid much heed here. I remember people writing entire papers on how complex Daisy Buchanan was in the novel. You’d struggle to fill a postage stamp with what you learn about her from the film. The one part I think was absolutely nailed was the boorish, cheatin’ Tom Buchanan. Joel Edgerton does a great job and is pretty much how I imagined the character to be.

I think the first question most people will be looking to answer for themselves is whether the film is faithful to the novel. Well, to my mind at least, it is and it isn’t. Outside of the odd framing device, the film sticks pretty damn closely to the text. Every key moment and bit of dialogue that I could remember was present and correct.  It even goes so far as having some of the text appear on the screen in an “arty” (read: stupid) kind of way. The film certainly captures the spirit of the Roaring Twenties, with booze filled parties and flapperism. Where it steers away from the novel is in the exploration of deeper themes. It’s a shallow film, confident with visual flair and glamour, but not really able to touch on anything with any meaning. It’s merely a bunch of glitzy stuff that happens. That’s not to say there isn’t some value in that. The visuals are the best thing about the film, with Gatsby’s parties a massive highlight. I liked seeing the Valley of Ashes brought to life too.

Pre-release much had been made of the film’s soundtrack and Luhrmann’s decision to forgo period music for contemporary hip-hop. In theory, I was on board. Nothing encapsulates the world of drug-fuelled excess more than modern hip-hop, so I was with ol’ Baz. In practice, it ain’t all that. It just looks like a massively expensive pop video for the most part. In addition, there are a few period covers of songs like “Back to Black” but again, it’s not that impressive. To be honest, Django Unchained did a better job of meshing rap to its 19th century setting and Bioshock Infinite showed how anachronistic covers of songs should be done. I’m sure it’ll seem like “genius” to some people, but then some people are fucking thick.

“My life…my life has to be like this. It has to keep going up.”

Gatsby‘s a passable experience. I would say I enjoyed it, but once I got past the trappings of the shiny, shiny visuals, I found myself wanting something more significant. It’s not without its charms, but it’s a rather colloquial take on the novel. More importantly, it doesn’t do enough to justify its own existence. The Redford version is better.

Star Trek Into Darkness

I’ve only bloody gone and caught an STID!

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Whilst some nerdlingers and series purists felt it was somewhat of a betrayal, I personally loved J.J. Abrams’ 2009 take on Star Trek. Yeah, it may have replaced the franchise’s hallmark slow, thoughtful science fiction approach with more of a whoosh-boom science fantasy one, but you can’t deny it was a blast. To me, and I suspect many others, it gave the series the kick up the arse it needed after some increasingly terrible Next Generation features. Not to spoil much, but 2009’s Trek ends like it should with Kirk in the captain’s chair, Spock at his side and the rest of the crew raring for a big adventure now they’ve got all that pesky reboot “getting-to-know-you” crap out of the way. By the way, the rest of the piece contains motherhonking SPOILERS, so beware.

“War is coming! And who’s gonna lead us, YOU? If I’m not in charge, our entire way of life is decimated!”

Star Trek Into Darkness (weirdly not Star Trek : Into Darkness) follows ex-Starfleet fella John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his nasty habit of blowing shit up and killing a lot of people. Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Bones (Karl Urban) Uhura (Zoe Saldana) et al. are tasked with tracking down and taking out Harrison, who has taken refuge on the Klingon home planet of Kronos. Into Darkness goes a semi-political route by bringing in notions of morally questionable missions, terrorism, WMDs and war profiteering. If you just rolled your eyes, let me assure you, I’m right there with you. To the film’s credit, these elements aren’t that obnoxious, but it may affect your ability to get lost in the rollicking fantasy of it all. The returning cast all fit their roles like gloves, with Quinto’s Spock again being the one to write home about. Alice Eve’s Carol is so shoved to one side and inconsequential that I just this second had to take a trip to IMDB to be reminded what her damn character’s name was. I’ll come back to her in a minute. The film belongs to Cumberbatch, who is undoubtedly going to become the go-to British villain in films for years to come. He makes for a cracking villain and his performance as Harrison is pretty damn unsettling at times, probably down to that deep, resonant voice he has.

Here’s the thing. 2009’s Trek was unbelievably clever in setting up the whole idea of alternate timelines and stuff. This way, they could take refuge in established characters and the like, but also have free rein to do new stuff as seen with the galactic merking of Vulcan. It was basically a way of having their cake and eating it too. It was a bold mission statement, one which I don’t think Into Darkness delivers on. Harrison turns out to be Khan- the super soldier fella already seen in both the original series and 1982’s Wrath of Khan. This is fine, but they then lean so heavily on the ’82 classic it becomes distracting. I’ve already seen Wrath of Khan, I don’t need to see a shinier facsimile of it. Key scenes are recreated and as a result, the film feels like it has no real identity of its own. The whole film feels pretty pointless as all the characters are in the exact same position they were at the end of the last film. Kirk is reinstated as captain, him and Spock are on the way to becoming BFFs and the whole crew are raring for a big adventure, just like 09’s Trek. Despite all the things that happen in the film, it’s hard to shake the feeling this installment is treading water until the next one.

One of my only problems with Trek ’09 was the constant little nods and references to the series. My main beef being that they weren’t neat little in-jokes, but things even non-Trek fans would know. Same here. Bones is practically a pullstring doll in this one, spouting one ridiculous metaphor after another. After the brazen steps the first one took, it’s a shame to see Into Darkness retreat back under the skirt of big ol’ familiar Mama Trek. As a sidepoint, there were waay too many “fuck yeah!” majestic shots of the Enterprise. Seeing the famous ship rise up from the bottom of the ocean to Michael Giacchino’s excellent “Enterprising Young Men”  is awesome, just like a similar reveal in the first film was. To do it around three or four times in the same film to the same bit of score is fucking stupid.

So, that Alice Eve thing. I don’t normally notice the sidelining of females in action flicks. That’s not to say I don’t care, it’s just that I’m usually more focused on what the film has in the shop window that what it has unfairly shoved into the stockroom. However, Carol is so wasted in the film and seems to only be there to have a needless scene in her underwear- a shot enthusiastically used in the trailers. Co-co-co writer Damon Lindelof has already been taken to task about this on Twitter and rightly so. Star Trek was a pioneering show for many different reasons, one of which was for actually treating women like human beings. Not so here. Uhura gets a bit of language business to do, but she’s mostly there to squabble with Spock.

Into Darkness is an attack on the senses. Whilst the story has been dredged up from the Complete Hack’s Guide to Making Shit Seem Relevant, Political and Deep, Yeah?, you probably won’t notice or even think about it until the credits have rolled and you’re busting for a piss. The film is pacy as hell and has some really well done action beats. The effects are amazing too. The Enterprise really looks and feels like a solid spaceship rather than a load of expensive pixels. The scene where a powerless Enterprise is spinning and hurtling towards Earth is undeniably cool.

“Are you feeling homicidal, power-mad, or despotic?”

“No more than usual.“

I was disappointed with Into Darkness. I still had fun with it, but there were too many elements that just didn’t hang together and I really object to being sold a semi-remake of a film I’ve already seen. It’s aggressive fun whilst it lasts and I suggest checking it out on a big screen if you haven’t already, but you may walk out of there with a slight sense of promises not being delivered upon like I did.

 

How I would unfuck the film industry

It’s been said for decades, but only now do I truly believe it – Hollywood is running out of ideas. Take a look at the endless adaptations, sequels and reboots on the slate for the rest of this year. The thing is, it’s not like there’s less creative talent in the movie business. There’s no shortage of actors,writers, directors, composers, set designers, fluffers etc. it’s just that in general, studios are less willing to stump up the cash for riskier projects. There have been some massive flops recently, including John Carter and the more recent Jack the Giant Slayer to make investors think twice before reaching for their wallets. It’s the audiences’ faults really, when given the choice of something new versus something familiar, they’ll go for the same old toss every time. That doesn’t mean you should exclusively cater to that. However, that seems like exactly what Hollywood is doing. They churn out sequel after sequel and only bet on a new intellectual property if they reckon they can squeeze a franchise out of it. It must be noted that I’m talking about the big budget studio system, not the independent circuit or foreign imports or anything like that. Some have predicted an industry-wide crash. You know what? I wouldn’t be surprised. The amount of money spent on not only the films themselves but the marketing as well is enough to bring tears to your eyes. They’re relying on more and more arses on seats and it’s going to reach critical mass. Soon they’ll need entire continents to pay to see their film just to break even. Huge flops like Carter and Slayer will become more common and then everyone will be playing their credit cards close to their chest. To be honest, I think the film industry is going to be proper fucked in the near future.

I’m just one fella. I have no power or sway. However, given the opportunity here’s how I would singlehandedly save the films I love so much and probably have loads of sexy ladies coming up to me and want to kiss me on the mouth. So, how would I pull off my promising “unfucking”? If I found myself in a meeting with all the studio heads and influentials, here’s what I’d tell them:

1) Stop whinging about piracy

It has been years and they’re still banging the same old drum. I can’t believe that in space year 2013 we still have preachy little adverts in front of our films. If you’re in the UK and just super-duper lucky, you’ll get the double of John Hurt talking about “The Last Cinema” and then some characters from some upcoming kiddie guff reminding you of “moments worth paying for”. Here’s the dirty secret: every mass entertainment industry has to deal with piracy in some form. The music industry in particular has been plagued by it. Think: when was the last time you heard them complaining? It was a while ago wasn’t it? You know why? They adapted. They embraced new technology. They shifted focus onto promoting live shows and tours. Oh, they held out as long as they could with the old business models that had made them disgustingly rich in the first place, but eventually they moved on. iTunes changed everything. Convenience is a huge factor. There are always going to be people who want stuff for free, but I’d like to think that the public at large agree with recompensing an artist for their work. It’s faster and easier to download a single on iTunes than it is to search for a torrent, make sure it isn’t riddled with nasty shit that’ll nerf your computer and then manually change all the track information to put in on your iPod. Plus, with the iTunes route you don’t have to worry about that whole “against the law” thing.

Films haven’t really got there yet. We live in an age where many people have decent home set-ups with big ol’ HD flatscreens. They’ve just got to accept that some people would prefer to watch films in the privacy of their own homes. They’ve got to accept that most kids watch films on their laptops. There’s been a huge societal shift in how people watch their films. Home entertainment sales are ever-climbing and services like Netflix and Lovefilm are booming. Basically, they need to offer choice- and not the sort of choice between paying £9 for a new release or fucking off. Embrace the tech. Several films have done this already. The upcoming Ben Wheatley film A Field in England is being released simultaneously in cinemas, on DVD and on TV. I’m right behind this. Thing is, it needs to be more than quaint Britflicks. We need a Michael Bay blockbuster to adopt this shit. Fuck, get James Cameron in on it. It seems studios will blindly follow everything else he “pioneers”, why not this? Surely they see the benefit of leaving it up to people to choose how they want to interact with the product? Not everyone has a cinema down the road from them, y’know. Christ, more people could end up seeing your damn franchise spawning flick. More money. Fancy that.

2) Make the cinema experience better

This is a no-brainer. If you regulate it, they will come. I adore going to the cinema. I’ve loved it ever since I was a kid. Thing is, most of my cinema visits are marred by the general public. When I went to see Spielberg’s Lincoln, there was a couple of acne-assaulted gorps who talked throughout the entire fucking film. It’s very difficult to pay attention to the softly-spoken Prez when you’ve got that inane shit thrusting its way into your ear. That’s not to mention people and their FUCKING PHONES. I honestly don’t know why there isn’t a plastic box or a locker for depositing your phone as you come in. You get a thing like a valet ticket and get your stuff back at the end. People have proven they can’t be trusted to not check their phones for 90 minutes. It’s not phonecalls that are the problem any more. It’s the bright-as-fuck screens that catch your attention in the dark. I’ve seen what these people are doing. They’re checking Facebook or Twitter or some other such unimportant shit. It’s incredibly distracting. Listen, if it’s so important to text/sext/Facebook/whatever that you can’t spare and hour or so, don’t go to the cinema.

The issue is that people don’t respect the cinema experience any more. If studios aren’t going to let us view how we want and insist that we go to the cinema for our filmic needs, then they need to strive to make it the best experience possible. Don’t just use colourful CGI cartoon wankers to merely tell us that it’s worth paying for, prove it. Very rarely do I have an uneventful, nice trip to the pictures. There’s always some prick spoiling it for everyone else. Plus, there’s the added indignity of having to pay over the odds for one of the 45 super-regular 3D showings because the three 2D showings occur at batshit inconvenient times. Don’t think we haven’t noticed, you sleazy bastards. What I’m saying is, police every screening. Zero tolerance policy. If there’s an usher there, ready to tell people to turn off their phones and chuck out any troublemakers, people will be able to focus on enjoying the film. Hell, it may encourage audience to act like actual adults. “Yeah? Well, the economy’s still a big ol’ prolapsed rectum, so where are we going to get the money for all that from Ben, you smug twat?” I hear you cry. Shut up, I’ll tell you in a minute.

Everyone knows cinemas are too expensive. Thing is, people seem to bark up the wrong tree when it comes to blaming. They blame the cinemas and their ludicrously priced concessions. It’s not really their fault though. People don’t seem to realise that selling stinky hotdogs and vats of watered-down Coke is where cinemas actually make their money. Studios and distributors ask for an insane percentage of the opening week box office with the takings then working on a sliding scale, with the overall share ending up around 50/55%. Studios have started getting greedy though, reckoning they can force cinemas over a barrel and hold blockbusters to ransom, as exemplified with the recent Iron Man 3 debacle that nearly caused the film to not be shown in several big name cinema chains in the U.S. I would suggest that studios allow cinemas to walk away with slightly more of the overall takings, meaning cinemas can lower ticket prices. People will flock if admission is lower, I guarantee it. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve heard someone decrying the high price of popping out to see a film. Either that or make the cinema worth the premium pricetag by getting the studios to pick up the bill for the kick-ass ushers I mentioned in the previous paragraph. Cinema used to be the accessible art form, where anyone could take their minds off their troubles for a while for just the change in their pocket. It’s a shame it’s moved away from that. Time moves on, shit gets more expensive, I get that. However, I think people should be encouraged by the popularity of Netflix and the like. Low monthly prices and a fair selection of films for much cheaper than you can get anywhere else. Plus, it’s legal, so people don’t have to feel like scumbags.

I hate the modern film industry. Its avarice and mercenary nature seems barely hidden any more. There used to be an artifice of wanting to entertain, but that seems like a joke that steadily grows in irony, especially when you have fucking robots like this wax droid in charge of the next greenlighting decision.

Iron Man 3

It’s been a while since I’ve done an honest-to-goodness film review and what better way to break that lazy streak than to weigh in on Iron Man 3, arguably the start of 2013’s summer blockbuster season.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

Circa 2008, the first Iron Man film found itself in a similar position to this year’s Man of Steel, having the weight of not only a franchise, but an entire interconnecting universe on its shoulders. It’s not entirely the same though, as Iron Man was and still is nowhere near the cultural icon that Superman is. As you know, Iron Man did ridiculously well at the box office thanks in part to its snappy dialogue and being a fantastic showcase for Robert Downey Jr., all of which kicked off Marvel’s Phase One (which would eventually culminate in The Avengers four years later) with a bang. Iron Man 3 on the other hand, has Phase Two to launch- a move that will end in The Avengers 2. It’s all go at chez Marvel, I tell thee.

“You’re nothing more than a maniac. I’m not afraid of you. No politics here: just good old fashioned revenge!”

After his traumatic experiences in New York, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) can’t sleep and has anxiety issues. Live-in girlfriend and Stark CEO Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) tries to help Tony with his mental health but is finding herself pushed away by Stark’s suit-building obsession and constant technological tinkerings. Same goes for pal Rhodey (Don Cheadle) who finds himself donning a more jingoistic, red, white and blue version of the War Machine armour dubbed the “Iron Patriot”. Soon, a couple of people from Stark’s past show up, including sleazy businessman Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and brilliant scientist and one night fling Maya (Rebecca Hall). This is all capped off with the terrifying presence of the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), a terrorist leader who threatens the U.S. over video broadcasts and carries out seemingly unpredictable bombings with no trace of any device used. When one of these bombings puts long time bodyguard and friend Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) in the hospital, Stark takes it personally and issues a challenge to the Mandarin. The story is great. It takes Stark back to a state similar to where he was in the first film, alone and forced to rely on his own wits and ingenuity to survive. Tony is genuinely vulnerable in this film, rather than Iron Man 2‘s Stark who was a smug, wackier-than-thou dick who then had a woe-is-me poisoning thing going on which didn’t work. Everyone here puts in a killer performance, especially Downey Jr. who reminds us exactly why he’s an A-Lister. Of the new recruits, Guy Pearce is bloody brilliant. Rebecca Hall is underused in the interesting role of Maya, but she does a lot with what she’s given. It’ll be Ben Kingsley who will set most tongues wagging though. He absolutely walks away with the film tucked under one arm. It’s an interesting take on the Mandarin and I wonder what hardcore comic book fans will make of it.

I had two fears when it came to this film. One, Black wouldn’t be allowed to do his own thing and would be shackled to established canon and genre conventions and two, it was going to end in the same way the first two films did with an uninspired metal-on-metal thumpfest. Thankfully, Iron Man 3 allays those concerns. From the very beginning, the film sets out its stall. It’s clear that this is very much a Shane Black film. The film opens on a very Kiss Kiss Bang Bang note with some unreliable RDJ narration over slow footage of Iron Man suits being torched. Then, the film completely wrong-footed me by scoring the opening credits with one hit wonders Eiffel 65’s  one hit “Blue (Da Ba Dee)”, a song I haven’t thought about in around 15 years. The incredulous, confused reaction this got in the cinema was delicious. This is one of many rug-pulls the film contains and in a genre plagued by predictability and cliche, it’s very welcome. If you pop open the film’s hood you’ll find more evidence of the film’s Black-ness beyond these superficial elements. The dialogue is fast, sharp and packed full of one-liners. The whole film is like a spiritual sequel to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, with the film unspooling like a Johnny Gossamer-esque tale, complete with bombastic and kick-ass end credits (which you should know by now you have to stay to the end of, you douchetools.)

Iron Man 2 isn’t the worst film ever, but it serves as a handy comparison point. Practically everything that IM2 did wrong, IM3 gets right. Where the War Machine angle didn’t really convince in IM2, Iron Patriot works beautifully in IM3. Black and Drew Pearce have managed to finally do something with Rhodey and convinced me to join Team Cheadle after being unimpressed by his performance in Iron Man 2. The Patriot side story runs parallel with Tony’s and is completely compelling in its own right. When the two storylines finally cross, Iron Man 3 becomes the best buddy picture around, with shades of Riggs and Murtaugh coupled with Harry Lockhart and Gay Perry. I loved the third act of this film. It was slightly sloppily executed at times, as most of the suits were red and gold blurs rocketing around, but by gum, is it fun. It’s kinetic with being disorientating and epic without being nonsensical. Basically the exact opposite of a Transformers finale. Plus, most importantly, it’s not a yawnsome suit-on-suit scrap. In fact, a lot of the action is incredible inventive. My personal favourite fight is when Tony has to defeat a large number of hired goons using only one glove and one boot from the Iron Man suit. Also, the falling-out-of-a-plane, “barrel of monkeys” sequence glimpsed in the trailer is truly astounding.

Despite having spunked out all the glistening praise above, Iron Man 3, like so many things in life, is not perfect. I really liked this take on the Mandarin, but I can’t help but wonder what a slightly more faithful interpretation would have been like. Maybe I’m just a massive hypocritical meathead who likes seeing the same things over and over again, but I suppose this isn’t a big concern. I have a feeling both Pearce and Black don’t really rate comics much. The film is based on the fantastic Extremis run of comics (a storyline that both previous Iron Mans borrowed from) but deviates pretty heavily from them. The film does well with it as a framework and maybe it wouldn’t have worked on the screen, but I would have loved to have seen Extremis done justice. Also, I wanted to see more of the Hulkbuster suit.

“Nothing’s been the same since New York.”

Iron Man 3 rocks the shit. It’s the best one of the trilogy and puts part 2 to shame.  It’s funny, the actual act of writing really gets to the bottom of how I feel about a film. Say I saw an underwhelming film. I’ll start off with an idea of a few points I want to make and the final star rating and during the process start feeling incredibly annoyed and revise my writing accordingly like in my Burt Wonderstone review. Here, it’s the exact opposite. I enjoyed the film hugely but was happy seeing it just the once. However, all this talk of snappy dialogue, daring story decisions and cracking action has made me start planning a second visit to the cinema to see it again. If that isn’t a sound endorsement I don’t know what is. Much like nearly all of Shane Black’s back catalogue (especially Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) this is highly recommended.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

So, I found myself with a few hours to kill in a town with a pulse. As I always do in this situation, I shuffled to the multiplex. Hey- Oz is probably still showing, I thought. Or I could catch Danny Boyle’s well-reviewed Trance. After queueing up about 3 or four possible choices in my head, I got there to discover that only The Incredible Burt Wonderstone was showing and would be finished in my allotted time. Goddamn. Still, the film has a decent cast of Steve Carell, Steve Buscemi, Olivia Wilde, Jim Carrey, Alan Arkin and James Gandolfini so I decided to check it out. Urgh.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013)

I’m very wary of films that use superlatives in their titles. Not only does it smack of false advertising and I’m sure there’s someone in America right now trying to sue The Amazing Spider-Man for being sub-par, but film critics go for the low-hanging fruit every fucking time. “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone?- more like The Not-so-Incredible Burt BLUNDERstone, amirite?” Seriously, you make those shit Christmas cracker puns, I lose interest in your work. It could be the wittiest piece around with insights that change the way I think about films, but if you start with something like that, I check out. They’re not clever and definitely not funny. Why the hell are people still using them?

“Nobody cares enough about this film to put any quotes up on IMDB- so this is awkward…”

The premise is solid. Vegas magician Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carell), partner Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi) and assistant Jane (Olivia Wilde) are finding out that their particular brand on glitzy showmanship is being undercut by edgy street magician Steve Gray (Jim Carrey). Soon, attendance starts dwindling and Wonderstone finds himself unable to maintain his gaudy Vegas suite lifestyle and will have to relearn the basics of magic with the help of childhood icon Rance Holloway (Alan Arkin) if he’s got any hope of reclaiming his showbiz lifestyle and impressing hotel magnate Doug Munny (James Gandolfini). The idea of a campy Siegfried & Roy duo being upstaged by a Criss Angel/David Blaine character is a great, if not timely, concept. However, much like with the acting talent, it is squandered. The plot is so predictable and simple, I could have sketched it on a napkin when I saw the poster and have been completely right. Basically, it’s Talledega Nights, Anchorman or any other number of comedies released in the past 20 years. It’s one step behind the “got to do a fundraiser to save the building/worthy cause” plot in “The Complete Hack’s Guide to the Same Old Shit (foreword by Tim Burton)”. A successful man gets his riches taken away from him, has to learn the true spirit of the chosen field (magic in this case) and undergoes a personal transformation, usually whilst getting the girl as a reward and earns his place back on top the honest way. I don’t mind this too much as interesting things can be done with the narrative and a weak story can be overlooked in a comedy if the jokes are funny enough. Look at The Muppets. It has the most hackneyed plot imaginable but it plays around with the tropes and is packed with so much heart and humour that it’s forgiveable. Burt Wonderstone does not have any heart and has very little humour. The cast are all fine, but each of them is crying out for a better script and funnier jokes.

I try to go into films with an open mind. It’s tough sometimes, but doable. I wanted to like Burt Wonderstone. I have a massive soft spot for magic. If this was the Harry Potter universe, I would use my memory of opening up a Paul Daniels magic set on my birthday to conjure a Patronus. That or memories of my first love or whatever blah blah blah. I was completely on board with the film when it showed a young Burt opening up a magic set of his very own on his birthday. I instantly related. Trouble is, after this, the film spools out into an uninspired mess of broad-as-fuck humour. Mind you, it should be expected from the writers of the terrible, I-can’t-believe-people-actually-laughed-at-it Horrible Bosses and the upcoming Horrible Bosses 2, which I’m suuure is going to be a laugh riot. This film had four writers. Fucking four. What’s that saying? A camel is a horse designed by a committee? The sad thing is not one of them knows what a joke is.

Whilst most of the attention will undoubtedly be on Jim Carrey’s tattooed shirtless performance, I think due focus should go to Olivia Wilde. She’s great in everything she’s in and manages to do a lot with what is basically a trophy for Burt to win when he’s a decent enough human being. It’s no secret that female roles in comedies are usually crappy. They’re the eye-rolling foil to the man-children acting like douchebags. However, the character of Jane stunned me with how inconsequential she is. You could take her out of the film and nothing would change at all, apart from the audience maybe questioning Burt’s sexuality. In fact, much is made of Burt’s apparently legendary poon-houndism. He’s got a big ol’ case of the notgays. My guess is all the womanizing stuff was put in later because idiot test audiences started filling out questionnaires asking why the heavily made-up, coiffed, rather camp duo of Burt and Anton were “homos”. If it was an organic part of the too-many-hacks script, then that’s even worse. Burt Wonderstone is designed not to rock the boat and (male) characters are painted with big, broad brushstrokes. Steve Gray, for instance, is “evil” because his street magic is a bit extreme and may inspire kids to try his dangerous stunts. Illusion isn’t the dying art here, subtlety is.

“Then again, it saves me the effort of trawling through the terrible ‘jokes’ once more. Blessing in disguise, I guess.”

As I’ve said time and time again, it is not unreasonable to expect effort in these things. The “just a bit of fun” argument very rarely holds water. We should expect more from everything. Burt Wonderstone is a lazy, mercenary product tossed out to take advantage of the stupid and their shite senses of humour. It’s a tonal mess and the only time I laughed was in the final couple of minutes, which was at a gag that completely undoes and undermines the film’s finale and overall message. I was going to give the film two stars, but writing all this shit has made me realise how much it sucked. This is the embodiment of what’s wrong with modern comedy films. Broad cheap-seat exclusive humour and relying on star power and visuals to make up for void. Fuck this film.

My G.I. Joe: Retaliation retaliation

If you’ve read any of my stuff before, you’ll likely know my position on 3D and all the stuff that goes with it. If not, here’s a quick rundown. It’s a pointless gimmick that can’t die out soon enough. I don’t care if you bring up Hugo or Life of Pi – just because a couple of films work against the odds, it doesn’t justify the rest being a pile of crusty old toss. It’s still a bunch of overpriced nonsense that serves as something shiny to get the magpie public to waddle in to cinemas.  If you disagree it’s because a) you aren’t a film fan and are just interested in surface gloss and visuals or b) you’ve sold your firstborn to get a 3D set-up at home and don’t want to think your partner left you because you bet your chips on a doomed format. I’ve been there, man. I was Team HD-DVD for a while. It’s alright, you can cry on my shoulder. Let it all out big guy. Anyway- that got away from me. That whole thing is a debate for another time.

What I’m really here to talk about is G.I. Joe: Retaliation, which is currently chundering up the box office. In case you’re not aware, Retaliation was originally slated to come out last year and was delayed 9 months in order to post-convert it into 3D. I was one of the three people who saw the first one and it was a colostomy bag of vapid shite, CGI sheen and Transformers wannabe-ism, so hopes weren’t high for the sequel, despite them bringing in Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Bruce Willis.

With the film practically in the can, some coked-up douchebag insisted it be in 3D and here we are. Just because the film isn’t awards material doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a responsibility to its audience. I dare say that there are people out there who loved the first one and couldn’t wait to see where their loveable band of forgettable, barely-there characters went next. “Fuck them!”,comes the booming voice from Olympus, “delay and dimensionalise! Basically, they’re showing open contempt for their audience. It’s being marketed as GI Joe 3D and it fills me with anger each time. I can’t stress this enough,  I don’t personally care about the sequel delay or about the franchise as a whole. What I do care about is what it represents. The depressing fact is that their little 3D-ifying gamble worked, with Retaliation clocking up a $130 million global haul in its opening week. Even taking into account the fact that fewer people may have seen it at higher cost, that’s still an impressive number and I hate everyone who handed that money over willingly. It’s like paying to have your food spat in.

“But it’s just a bit of dumb fun” and other arguments don’t cut it this time. They don’t care about entertaining you. They care about seducing you into a cinema seat and sucking your wallet dry. Didn’t like the film? Tough shit. They’ve got your cash and there’s nothing you can do about it. I would have loved to have seen this film bomb right through the floor because these shitty business practices are ensuring that ticket prices are high and you get less for that premium. Unfortunately, the general fucking public had other ideas. “Less for more” is going to become Hollywood’s anthem in the coming years, trust me. The filmmakers don’t really care about reviews. What they’re going to learn from this is that the public will eat up and pay over the odds for any old shite even if it’s compromised to fuck and been delayed to buggery. The public have taught Hollywood that it’s financially sound to delay a film just so it can be put through a computer. I think it’s fucking disgusting.  If you don’t care about any of this and think I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, fine. Just don’t come crying to me when you have to mortgage your goddamn house to see G.I. Joe 3: Holy Shit I Can’t Believe We Got Away With It.