Film Review | Iron Man 3 (2013)

Iron Man 3 sits in a unique, perhaps unenviable, position in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first Marvel franchise to release a third installment (whilst Captain America and Thor gear up for their first sequels and Hulk waits for yet another reboot with Ruffalo in the role), Iron Man 3 is not only a sequel to the previous two Iron Man films but also to last year's critical and commercial favourite Avengers Assemble. It's also the first film in "Phase 2" of Marvel Studios' establishment of their Cinematic Universe, "Phase 1" having been wrapped up through the previously mentioned assembling of The Avengers. Robert Downey Jr.'s fourth outing as Tony Stark therefore had a huge amount of expectations to meet from several different angles.

There's plenty here to like, thanks in part to the elements already firmly established through the original film and its sequel, as well as Avengers Assemble. Downey Jr. is once again strong as Tony Stark providing a pleasing centre for everything else to orbit around. Gwyneth Paltrow returning as Pepper Potts also does well, although her relationship with Tony doesn't go anywhere new and the character doesn't get much of interest to do until towards the very end of the film. Don Cheadle is another welcome familiar face as Rhodey, although his role here never goes beyond a combination of plot device and foil-cum-sidekick to Downey Jr.'s Stark.

New additions to the cast also vary in their success. Guy Pearce crafts potentially the most successful villain of the series in Aldrich Killian, with Ben Kingsley also doing well as mysterious Osama Bin Laden-a-like The Mandarin, delivering a mid-story twist about which the less you know before watching the better. Less successful is Rebecca Hall as Dr. Maya Hansen, who is given precisely nothing interesting to do after the first ten minutes of the film; and Stephanie Szostak and James Badge Dale as two of Killian's subordinates, delivering well in the action stakes but whose villainous motivation is decidedly unclear.

Shane Black takes over directorial duties of the franchise from Jon Favreau, as well as co-writing the screenplay with Drew Pearce, and on the whole does well. This is a notably darker and more stripped down Iron Man movie to what we've seen before. We see Tony at his most vulnerable since he was imprisoned in a cave in the first installment, which provides some fresh moments of humanity for Downey Jr. to explore within the character but also makes this at times the least humorous entry into the franchise yet. Despite being roughly the same length as the previous two Iron Man films (and a good fifteen minutes shorter than Avengers Assemble) Black does feel as though he's padding things out at times here during the film's second act, especially after the film's pacy opening. The way in which Black moves the character of Tony Stark on in the film's final moments also feels a little too underdeveloped, almost like an afterthought, to resonate as much as it should.

In the end, Iron Man 3 is a mixture of successful and less successful elements, evening out into an enjoyable but flawed action film. For a third entry into the series it holds up perfectly well, certainly better than many threequels in other film series, but also feels as though it doesn't really move the franchise as a whole on to bigger and better things like it could have. Yes, there are some things that are done better here than they have been done previously, but there's also too much that feels like it's just been allowed to trundle along as it always has. Maybe it's because it's the first Marvel film to follow Joss Whedon's multi-superhero spectacular, but Iron Man 3 feels good - occasionally very good - but never great.

7/10

Film Review | A Good Day To Die Hard (2013)

There aren't many film franchises that go beyond three installments without the quality deteriorating significantly. After the first two sequels, things usually go downhill pretty quickly if they haven't already. Good fifth installments are even rarer. In fact, as I write this, I can't actually think of any film series that has managed a worthwhile fifth film. Sadly, A Good Day To Die Hard won't make answering that question any easier.

The Die Hard franchise is regularly held up as one of the strongest and most influential in the action genre, with the first film widely regarded as one of the most important action films ever made. Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Die Hard With A Vengeance both have their detractors, but are generally considered worthwhile continuations from the original. Die Hard 4.0 divided opinion further. By far the most throwaway of the series at that point, some enjoyed the high-octane thrills it provided whilst others derided the film for tarnishing the respectable Die Hard name. Which brings us to A Good Day To Die Hard, a film which not only feels like the greatest departure from what the Die Hard films have always been about, but which is also just really quite bad.

Bruce Willis as John McClane for the first time in the franchise actually comes across as bored in the role, and no wonder. Aside from a few semi-decent action set pieces scattered throughout, Willis is given very little of interest to do, and certainly nothing that feels particularly like McClane. The script gives Willis very little of the sharp-tongued humour seen in previous Die Hards, instead having him yell "I'm on vacation!" at regular intervals. Not only does this not make sense - McClane is in Russia to track down and bring home his son Jack (Jai Courtney), which at no point is ever put across as a "vacation" - but it's also a pitifully poor substitute for McClane's usual quick wit and smashmouth utterances of "yippee ki-yay motherfucker!" (mumbled halfheartedly at one point by Willis, and cut short again as it was in Die Hard 4.0 to help secure the film's 12A certificate).

Not that McClane has a great deal to crack wise about. A Good Day To Die Hard is a stiff and humourless affair from the start, taking itself way too seriously and missing almost every opportunity to lighten the mood. The relationship between John and son Jack is for a large part of the film genuinely hostile. The insults traded between them come across not as banter, but as acrimonious and really quite uncomfortable, akin to seeing a couple arguing in a supermarket. When father and son do inevitably end up on the same page, the previous sourness coupled with the lack of chemistry between Willis and Courtney means the relationship never rings true.

This is by far the shortest of all the Die Hard films by around half an hour, but it's certainly the most tiresome to get through. The plot is unnecessarily complex from the start, tying itself in more and more knots as things progress to the point of becoming nonsensical, contradicting earlier happenings through badly thought out twists. This is also the first time a Die Hard film has lacked a clearly defined central antagonist; what could potentially be seen as a bold decision actually turns out to be poorly considered meddling with the Die Hard formula that just goes further in making the whole thing feel carelessly and disparately constructed.

A Good Day To Die Hard therefore gives you very little to like about it. There are some good action sequences, but even these feel CGI-heavy and don't really offer anything that hasn't been seen before. There are also two or three moments which feel as though they're trying desperately to link what we're watching to the franchise's legacy, but these are too few and far between to impact on the film as a whole. In the end, A Good Day To Die Hard suggests that the time has come for Bruce to hang up the dirty white vest for good. That said, talk of rounding the Die Hard series off with a final entry in a second trilogy has already surfaced. Should that end up being the case, the best that can be hoped for is that number six will be a considerable improvement on number five, allowing John McClane to go out with some dignity and not as a shadow of how he started.

3/10

Film Review | Wreck-It Ralph (2013)

Walt Disney Animation Studios has had a chequered recent history. With the "Renaissance" of the 1990s well behind them, and 2009's The Princess And The Frog marking the end of their traditionally animated big screen output for the foreseeable future at least, the studio has focused solely on refining their computer-animated movies. After lacklustre beginnings at the turn of the century, more recent offerings such as 2008's Bolt and Tangled in 2010 - whilst never reaching the heights of computer-animated master craftsmen Pixar - have felt decidedly more successful in both scripting and animation. And whilst Wreck-It Ralph also falls short of Pixar's incredibly high benchmark, it's the closest Disney (or arguably any other studio) have come to reaching it.

Previous non-Pixar CGI films have fallen short in at least one area: sometimes the animation isn't up to scratch, although this is becoming less and less of an issue as technology continues to progress; much more often it's the writing or direction that simply don't cut it. Thankfully, Wreck-It Ralph doesn't fall significantly short in any of these areas. The world that Ralph and his fellow video game characters inhabit is crafted beautifully through Disney's finest computer animation yet. It's also one of the most original ideas from the studio in a long time, with echoes of Toy Story and Monsters, Inc. in the way Ralph's universe is realized and presented to us. The realm of the arcade has a warmth and tangibility that many computer-animated efforts fail to achieve.

The script is for the most part shot through with both humour and heart, although the dialogue doesn't zing with wit quite as often as you'd like; a few juvenile jokes clearly aimed squarely at the kids in the audience will more likely induce tutting and eye-rolling from mums and dads. The story has a pleasing complexity to it, developing from a deceptively simplistic opening concept to bring together several threads pleasingly during the film's climax. Ralph is impossible not to warm to immediately with John C. Reilly's understated vocal performance fitting the big friendly juggernaut's personality superbly. His character arc, despite dealing with well-worn moral lessons, has satisfying notes of subtlety throughout. Sarah Silverman's Vanellope initially threatens to grate and at times feels a little too one-note, but once she finds her groove with the character the results are pleasing. The supporting turns from Jack McBrayer as Fix-It Felix Jr. and Jane Lynch as Sergeant Calhoun are strong with both developing characters of depth and humour as well as sharing marvellous chemistry in the film's best subplot.

Wreck-It Ralph's main flaw is that it sets itself up with more than it's able to deliver, even in the two hour running time the film has. After introducing us to a host of characters and settings, the bulk of the film's plot takes place within the realm of video game "Sugar Rush". Whilst this works in terms of the story being told, as well as allowing for regular moments of sharp sweet-based observational humour, it would have been nice to explore more of the places where the film only affords us a relatively brief time. The references to retro video games also feel underutilized beyond the film's first act, where they are genuinely charming. After seeing many a familiar face from classics of arcade and console, it's a shame that these aren't worked into the plot more throughout the film's entire running time.

Wreck-It Ralph ends up as the finest output of Walt Disney Animation Studios yet, surpassing more recent Pixar efforts but not quite matching their finest. With other rival animation studios seeming increasingly happy to churn out middle-of-the-road movies and lazily squeeze every last penny out of their franchises, Disney deserve high praise for creating a film of such ingenuity and quality. The gap between their Pixar and non-Pixar efforts is shrinking; if Disney's films continue to improve in quality the way they have been over the past five years, the studio could very soon have the market cornered and once again rightfully claim themselves as absolute top dog in animation.

8/10

Film Review | Django Unchained (2013)

Promoting Django Unchained in an interview with Playboy Magazine at the end of last year, Quentin Tarantino was quoted as saying that "directors don't get better as they get older. Usually the worst films in their filmography are those last four at the end. I'm all about my filmography, and one bad film fucks up three good ones". Ironically, if there is any contemporary director whose output disproves this theory, it's Tarantino himself. And if Django Unchained ended up being his last hurrah, then what a spectacular way it would be to sew up Tarantino's beloved filmography.

Django Unchained in many ways feels like the spiritual and natural successor to Tarantino's most recent previous work, Inglourious Basterds, with the two films in conjunction feeling as though they hail a renaissance in the director's career. Tarantino is no longer the young upstart on the scene, the indie filmmaker who reshaped 1990s cinema with the one-two combo of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. That's not to say that his films no longer have the impact they once did. Quite the contrary in fact: Inglourious Basterds was so bold in its execution, so finely mastered by the man behind the camera, that it couldn't help but redefine war films for the modern era. Django Unchained does the same for the western genre, arguably with even greater success.

This is hands down Tarantino's finest story yet. From the opening scenes to the final moments, Tarantino the writer knows exactly where he's taking Django as well as every other character involved; Tarantino the director assuredly takes you along with them every step. This is intoxicating cinema, both brutal and beautiful - Django Unchained shows that the jawdropping cinematography of Inglourious Basterds was no one-off. Tarantino may beg, steal and borrow from his encyclopaedic passion for cinema when crafting his tales, but nobody can deny that he is one of the most artistically proficient filmmakers making movies today.

Tarantino's skill for drawing out the very best work from his actors is as robust as ever here. Jamie Foxx as Django is intense and immeasurably cool, developing the character over the film's effortless 165 minutes without putting a foot wrong. Alongside him is Christoph Waltz's dentist-turned-bounty-hunter Dr. King Schultz. It's almost unfair to compare Waltz's performance here to his enigmatic turn as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, so I simply won't. Waltz is once again superb, immediately creating a captivating curiosity of a character who you can't help but warm to. Waltz regularly makes Schultz a genuinely funny character too, relieving some of Django Unchained's inherent heaviness with a perfectly timed quip or a charming demonstration of the Schultz's gift of the gab. The chemistry between Foxx and Waltz is palpable and rich, two fine actors on top of their game brilliantly glancing off one another wonderfully throughout.

If the film's first half belongs to Waltz and Foxx, then its second is firmly in the joint possession of Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson. DiCaprio's incomparably vile plantation owner Calvin Candie is a villain for the ages, with the actor imbuing his creation with a heady mix of Southern hospitality and monstrous cruelty. Matching DiCaprio in detestabilty is Jackson as Stephen, Candie's aging Uncle Tom of a house slave. His is a performance as captivating as it is ire-inducing, the actor's finest since his last major role in a Tarantino film as Ordell Robbie in 1997's Jackie Brown.

Django Unchained comes together brilliantly as Tarantino's most mature work yet. The director strides assuredly and masterfully into his third decade of filmmaking with fresh ideas and increasingly impressive cinematic style and craft, whilst at the same time making clear that same burning desire and unbridled passion for every element of every moment of his films seen since his earliest work. During the same interview referenced earlier, Tarantino suggested that he may stop directing after his tenth film. If he follows through with this plan, it means we've got three more films to see from him yet. And if Django Unchained is anything to go by, we've potentially got some of the finest cinema ever created to look forward to.

10/10