Iron Man 2 - Rubbish Physics

When I told my housemate the other day that I was going to see Iron Man 2 he warned me to not "... get annoyed by the physics". "Silly Housemate" I thought to myself, I sat through Paycheck and survived, why would a Marvel superheroes adaptation - in which the laws of physics are routinely bent - irritate me so? Well, we shall soon see.

Iron Man 2 is - obviously - the sequel to Iron Man, in which Robert Downey Jr plays an eccentric arms manufacturer (Tony Stark) who gets held as a POW in Iraq and develops a powerful suit - the Iron Man suit - to allow himself to escape. In the intervening period between the films, Stark has used his suit to "privatise world peace". The US government are not happy about this and demand that he turn his weapon over to them. He doesn't want to play ball, and so premise of the sequel is set - a film that explores the relationship between the rights and responsibilities of the individual, corporations and the state. Or so I had thought.

After only 20 minutes you can tell that there's going to be no subtlety in this film, no grey areas or layers of plot - just robots smacking each other on the head and far too many A-list stars setting up future Marvel superheroes film franchises. We see Mickey Rouke suiting up and trying to kill Iron Man. Why? Who knows, but he's got a Russian accent so he's probably evil. We see Sam Rockwell as the head of a rival arms firm trying to copy the Iron man suit; he's probably evil too cos his robots are all faceless and gun-metal grey. We see Scarlett Johansson pouting in tight-fitting blouses; she must have some reason to be in the film other than to flirt with Tony Stark and wear tight clothes - mustn't she? Anyone?

The answer is no. There is no point to quite a lot of what goes on in Iron Man 2, no plot, no reason for many of the characters, no motivation behind what anyone does. It is in a film like this that my mind starts to wander, I start thinking about things like "Does the physics of this make any sense?". I decide that I don't want to give the writers a pass when they have their lead character INVENT A NEW ELEMENT to power his chest-mounted reactor core.

Perhaps more annoying than the brazen abuse of physics is the fact that they could easily avoid this by saying that Tony Stark had invented a new compound, or a new crystal - anything at all really, if only the people who made the film cared for anything other than their bottom line.

So my answer to them is no. No more plotless blockbusters. I enjoy battling robots and guns and explosions and lasers as much as the next nerdy 30-something, but I want to see a story at the same time!

Four Lions

Another massive gap in my cinema attendance was recently broken by 'Four Lions'. I first saw a teaser trailer for this on the Internet ages ago and have been well-excited about Chris Morris' latest dagger into the hearts of traditional media narratives. This time he's chosen the War on Terror. Where the mainstream media portray Islamic Jihadists as superhuman warriors who are so dangerous that anyone slightly resembling one needs to be arrested / shot on sight, Morris has chosen to paint them as a bunch of bumbling morons who have brainwashed themselves into believing that blowing up sheep is 'an attack on the infrastructure'.

Morris is doing nothing new here, it has been a long comic tradition to lampoon your enemies to demonstrate how ridiculous they are. Morris' band of muppets is nominally lead by a white guy who has converted to Islam ("I'm the most Al Queda one here!" - he exclaims at one point), a family man whose wife and son urge him to "... blow up the Kaffurs", a rapping jihadist and two other complete numpties who provide a wealth of slapstick humour. Why should anyone be worried about this lot?

The question is answered towards the end of the film as Morris allows his Jihadists to go on their suicide mission; as moronic as they are, you only need a moron to walk into a shop and detonate a bomb strapped to his chest. More than just lampooning the stupidity of the bombers, Morris goes further and applies the same logic to the security services, he fills their ranks with bumbling jobsworths who concern themselves more with covering their own backs than protecting anyone from harm. With this Morris has made the Jihadists seem more terrifying - and funnier - than ever.

Election Debates

I know this is supposed to be a film and TV blog, so I was wondering how I could get away with posting something about the election while staying on topic. I've only just realised (perhaps rather stupidly) that the majority of the electioneering in 2010 has taken place on the television, so in fact I'm perfectly-placed to comment.

The strange thing about the debates was how they dispatched with the idea that the new media had taken over from television as most people's way of consuming news and entertainment. This was supposed to be the election in which Twitter and Facebook were ruling the roost, instead we have good old-fashioned television 'changing the game' in favour of a lesser party.

The rise of Nick Clegg via the first televised debate has put to rest any remaining question about the ever-present power of the media in modern politics. Anyone with any serious interest in politics has been aware of Clegg for years, I guess that for the majority of Brits with a passing interest every 5 years the concept of a credible third party came as something of a revelation. Sadly for Clegg, the mass realisation by Britain that his party exists has coincided with what is sure to be the closest election since 1992, and as such the surge in support that he saw following the first debate has since ebbed away as people in marginals realise that they need to vote for one of the 'old' parties to keep the other out. Had the Lib Dem surge happened in 2001 they could easily have squeezed the Tories into third place. Now it seems that they will once again end up a long way third in the Commons.

Personally, as a resident and registered voter in Wokingham (current incumbent: John Redwood with his complete joke of a massive Tory majority), my vote (for the Lib Dems) will have literally no influence on the national scene. I have a council vote too, looking through the history of voting in Wokingham the council has traditionally swung between Tory and Liberal, so at least there's some comfort in having an influence locally. I'm voting Lib Dem partly as a tactically vote (they are the second party in Wokingham), partly as their public spending policy favourably impacts my job (they have promised to maintain the Highways Agency's research budget at present levels) and partly due to a number of policies (scrapping trident, immigration amnesty, increasing lower rate tax allowance); but mostly because of their opposition to the Iraq war.

Presently I am literally terrified about waking up tomorrow morning, turning on the television and seeing David Cameron's smug face in front of Downing Street. Labour deserve to be thrown out of office for their waging of a war abroad against Iraq and at home against civil liberties, but please don't let's allow Cameron and George Osborne (what even qualifies him to be chancellor?) to get in. Bring on the hung parliament with the Lib Dems demanding Vince Cable be chancellor as their price for a joint administration, that'd be nice.

The Spy Who Loved Me - opening scene

The picture round at the pub quiz on Monday was James Bond themed. You had to guess the pictures of the Bond villains and the films they were in. We got most of the films right but struggled with the names of the bad guys (anyone else really bad with character names in films? - I certainly am). That got me thinking about Bond films, which got me thinking about my favourite scene from the series.



I got into Bond films while at university and found them an excellent revision aid; you know, something to stick on the TV that's familiar and not-too-distracting while you work. The Bond series is an odd franchise, ranging from superb action to genuinely bad self-parody and stupidity. 'From Russia with Love' and 'You only live twice' are great action adventures, 'Octopussy' and 'The World is not Enough' are properly silly.

'Casino Royale' is a fantastic film, but it is more of a re-invention of the franchise than a continuation. Gone were the quips and the raised eyebrows, suddenly Bond was an alcoholic psychopath - a much more interesting character, but hardly part of the Bond tradition. As such, I often exclude the recent Daniel Craig films when thinking about the Bond series - and my favourite Bond film remains 'You Only Live Twice'. Best scene? Well, it has to be the opening to 'The Spy Who Loved Me'. People will rightly point out that it has bad blue screen special effects and stars the hammiest actor to grace the silver screen, but it's a scene that embodies a lot of what the Bond series is about, silly stunts, Bond shagging his way through the cold war, useless henchmen and above all a misguided sense of British patriotism. Also there the fact that the stunt performed at the end of this clip was real and not CGI - a stunt man actually skis off a cliff. He also nearly dies when his ski collides with his parachute. You don't get stunts like that these days, the health and safety police would go mental! Literally.

Weird Film Night - Super Cub

A bunch of my mates who are in a band have started having 'weird film nights'. The first weird film night involved the literally abysmal Convoy - which I gave up on after about 45 minutes of watching Red-neck truckers burn up the US highways. Last night's was Super Cub, an unknown Japanese movie about an ace biker who loses his license and has to take a job delivering noodles while trying to save his best mate from a cartel of European / Chinese(?) bike thieves.

There's a very good reason why this film is generally unknown, long may it remain so. I stuck it out till the end as it was only 80 minutes and I wanted to hang around near the TV so that I could watch the Champion's League Semi Final when it came on. Apparently it's meant to be a spoof on the 'Fast and Furious' series. No, it's just rubbish. The entertainment was provided almost entirely by laughing at the subtitles; a gang member tells his mate to "Buffle[sic]" the police at one point.

Next time there's a weird film night in my house I'm picking it. 'Weird Film' does not have to imply 'Shit Film'...

The Infidel

I was a little bit disappointed by this new British comedy film written by David Baddiel. I was hoping for more, but when I think about the film's premise I wonder why I ever thought it could be more than it turned out to be.

The premise is thus: a Muslim man discovers that he is adopted and that his birth parents are Jewish. Queue up plenty of opportunities for gags about bagels, bar mitzvahs, Tottenham Hotspur and how to shrug properly. It's funny in places but loses out as it feels even more contrived than the premise suggests - if that's even possible. The plot revolves around Omid Djalili's son and his efforts to charm a girl who's new step father happens to be a wahabi nutcase. Djalili's character now has to prove how good a Muslim he is (such as reading the Koran and accidentally burning an Israeli-themed skull cap) while at the same time trying to find his Jewish roots.

I was going with it despite the contrivances until the final scene, in which the wahabi nutter is revealed to be something completely ridiculous and our hero is able to win the day. I was even going to overlook the pretty dire acting of Amit Shah, who plays Djalili's son, but that ending has made me feel somewhat ungenerous.

One big plus point was the casting of Richard Schiff (off the West Wing) as the Jewish cabbie who has to teach us about what it means to be Jewish. I guess Baddiel was trying to write a film that was part comedy and part heart-warming tale about two cultures that aren't really that different. In the end I think he's laid the schmaltz on a little too thick and hasn't really had enough of a go at the extremists on either side. I'm now looking forward to 'Four Lions' to really stick it to the jihadist weirdos.

Saw III - I give up

Having watched the second of the Saw films on a recommendation I decided to check the next one out. I didn't really enjoy the second one, but I thought it would be nice to be able to complete the set. No longer though. I have now given up on the Saw films after watching Saw III last night.

Saw III opens with a scene of a man trapped in an underground bathroom; he has to smash his ankle off in order to try to escape. Then we get a man in a room connected to lots of chains, he has to pull the chains out of his skin in order to escape. This is all sick, but not nearly as sick as the fact that none of these events seem to ever have any connection with the 'plot' of the film. In fact the whole of Saw III is one long excuse for people to come up with ridiculous ways of murdering extras using medieval torture devices.

None of this makes any sense. The logistics of setting all these traps up without anyone finding out about it is mind-boggling; none of it can possibly be based in reality. If there was any sense left in this series then was finally all lost in the scene half way through Saw III in which someone performs brain surgery - which we see in grisly detail. This is not one of Jigsaw's many traps, nor is it torture, nor does it turn out to have any important impact on the plot. It's just brain surgery, which we get to see 5 minutes of purely because it's nasty and will make people heave up in a cinema.

I have no problem with disturbing imagery in film, but while the original contained that too, it also contained a story. Saw was an original thriller with a great twist as well as being visually horrible. These spin-offs have turned out to be nothing of the sort, and I will not be watching any more of them.