Iron Man 3 review

Tony Stark: You're not a man. You're nothing more than a maniac. I'm not afraid of you. No politics here: just good old fashioned revenge.

Director: Shane Black
(2013)

Regardless of the quality of the content, Marvels Phase One was a resounding commercial success. Initialised by Ironman (2008) and concluded by the spectacular yet hollow The Avengers, the 6 film series made 3.8 billion dollars across the world, Phase 2 was going to be a thing regardless of what anyone thought. In a move reminiscent of the start of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, this next chapter also begins with another Ironman film with Robert Downey Junior reprising his role as the genius billionaire playboy philanthropist. While there’s little doubt that box office receipts will reach hundreds of millions, it’s a crying shame that Ironman 3 isn’t the experience we were all hoping for.

After the events of The Avengers, Tony Stark is in a dark place. Racked with insomnia and suffering severe anxiety attacks, he spends most of his time tinkering with his creations. His obsession pushes the boundaries of girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) who is intent on leaving him. When Tony becomes embroiled with terrorist The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), he is left isolated and alone, struggling to protect those he loves and cares for. With the help of James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) he sets out to stop The Mandarin while getting caught up in a biological project run by Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) known as ‘Extremis’.

The films biggest issue resides with its story, a dismal blend of underdeveloped arcs and telegraphed revelations. The vast majority of the films plot is given away in the film’s opening flashback, forcing us to wait for Stark to play catch-up for another 30 minutes before events can progress any further. Killian’s motives are weak, Guy Pearce’s best efforts simply can conceal how much a generic villain he truly is. What’s mishandled even more is both The Mandarin and the Extremis plot arc. Kingsley’s villain is an intimidating, fearful character to begin with, his untraceable terrorist attacks and TV hijackings paint him as a more cerebral man than an outright violent one. But soon he is nothing more than Osama Bin Laden minus a turban, committing televised crimes like a cheap Joker impersonator. Soon focus shifts away from Kingsley’s hard work back to Killian, making the film suffer dramatically with a terribly implemented plot twist.

Where the film also falters is in the action scenes, which strive to be functional instead of exciting. The climax to The Avengers would be difficult to top, so Black smartly sidesteps the issue, giving us a large scale conflict that is small enough to remain personal. While it’s initially a joy to see dozens of Ironman suits jetting through the sky, it soon becomes apparent that all we’re really witnessing is bright lights and searing explosions, the decision to shoot the finale in darkness (again) results in some muddled visuals by the folks over at Weta Digital. Instead of emphasising the unique roles of these additional suits, they’re instead used as cannon fodder for extremis aggressors, appearing in frame only to be obliterated just moments later.

Elsewhere the quality of the action is even more temperamental, sometimes beautiful but mostly messy thanks to some tight camerawork and choppy editing. The destruction of Starks house is a prime example of this, the personal devastation of the attack is lost in a sea of loud noises and smeary rubble. The second act set piece involving Starks rescue of passengers from a destroyed plane is more engrossing, primarily thanks to the fact that it was shot by an aerial stunt team.

Extremis is even worse, a facet of the plot that is wholly uninteresting and incredibly simplified, acting as nothing more than a way to avoid having Ironman fight more robotic foes after the suit heavy battles of the first 2 films. The result is a massive waste of Rebecca Hall’s talent, her part in the film is reduced to sexy scientist who spells out the plot for those incapable of putting 2 and together. In fact, it seems there was no point in casting Kingsley, Pearce or Hall outside of a handful of scenes, squandering potential seems to be what Ironman 3 does best.

Of course, these disappointments are alleviated slightly by Downey Junior’s Stark, a role that he wears like a second set of skin. While his comedic timing remains impeccable, the character’s humorous side is toned down significantly, a result of the PTSD that he suffered due to the climax of The Avengers. This additional depth to the character is a welcome one, seeing his massive ego reduced to nothing is a welcoming and strangely affecting, and portraying the fallibility of seemingly indestructible superheroes is the step in the right direction for the Marvel Cinematic universe as a whole. Yet beyond Starks advances, Ironman 3 is a severely unsatisfying experience, marred by a bad story and soulless action. The conclusion is limp, a defect that extends to the now famous after credits sequence which isn’t worth waiting for. Spending too much time reflecting on Phase One instead of paving new ground, this is undoubtedly the first big disappointment of the year. We can only pray that isn’t indicative of things to come.

Short review: Alien 3

Director: David Fincher
(1992)

Even without prior knowledge, it’s easy to see that Alien 3 had suffered terribly during development. David Fincher’s directorial debut was unfairly ruined by an idiotic and interfering studio; the result is a weak link in a potentially brilliant trilogy. By killing off Newt and Hicks just minutes in, Alien 3 sours the taste in the mouth of fans of Aliens, and things don’t improve much from there. The writing and editing is all over the shop with a largely uninteresting plot and characters that disappear with no explanation. The film manages to be hideously boring at times too, rescued by some stellar art and set design that is amongst the series high points. Looking beyond the excitingly impractical climax, Alien 3 lacks the horror and suspense of the original film and the visceral gunplay of its sequel. The result? A total mess.

Short review: Arachnoquake

Director: Griff Furst
(2012)

Even for a SyFy original movie, my standards were still monumentally low for Arachnoquake, a film even more stupid than it sounds. Set in New Orleans, It follows a bunch of bad characters played by talentless actors as the city suffers earthquakes that set loose a load of giant, fire breathing spiders. From here it’s an onslaught of poor acting, beyond terrible CGI, dozens of continuity errors and just plain awful filmmaking. The film lacks any form of logic, I mean, why go to a drug store to get an inhaler when you can use scuba gear instead? Soldier’s fire unloaded guns, baseball players hit spiders like a homerun (complete with cartoon sound effects) and everyone trips over logs that aren’t actually there, you know, for suspense. It’s laughably bad at best, and downright atrocious for the majority of the film. Avoid like a giant, fire breathing spider.

Short review: Night of the Living Dead

Director: George Romero
(1968)

Credited with helping redefine the horror genre as well as the term ‘zombie’, Night of the Living Dead is a horror film that harbours some strong themes and parallels. Following 7 survivors who hole up in an abandoned farmhouse when the dead rise from their graves, director George Romero does a solid job of maintaining an interesting pace for a film that largely takes place in one building. Unfortunately NOTLD hasn’t aged well, and flaws are abundant. Acting is wooden, the writing slack and the zombies and deaths are cheesy. Zombies wrestle with survivors in slow motion, seemingly more intent to hug them than harm them.  Characters have the tendency to trip over while being chased, fulfilling another predictable cliché. These banal events are somewhat redeemed by a strong ending, one that is far more engrossing that the rest of the film.

Short review: Cube

Director: Vincenzo Natali
(1997)

Despite hating Vincenzo Natali’s Splice (2009), I was oddly drawn to his 1997 cult hit, Cube. It puts 6 random strangers into a maze of cubes; each of these strangers possesses a skill that is integral to aiding the groups escape. The characters themselves are almost caricatures, complete with little chemistry and poor performances from the entire cast. Yet this doesn’t detract from the film or the intrigue of the cube itself, its odd machinations and Kafkaesque mystery being one of the finest aspects of the film. The plot unfolds rapidly; each new room offers a new challenge that breaks the group’s conceptions of the maze, causing them to rethink how they will escape. Despite the limited environment (we never leave the cube throughout the 90 minute runtime), Cube constantly thrills; a monumental achievement considering it relies on its audience to gather their own conclusions

The Hunger Games review

Katniss Everdeen: May the odds be ever in your favor. 

Director: Gary Ross
(2012)

Films that are adapted from popular novels always face certain challenges when they hit cinema screens. Fans must be catered to, there's nothing worse than the target audience of said adaptation feeling screwed over. Conversely, appeal to general moviegoers is essential in order to be a big enough box office success to warrant a sequel. For the most part, The Hunger Games has the necessary elements to both camps, and is an involving, entertaining picture for the masses.

Set in a dystopian future of Panem, a broken America that has survived the ravages of war after an uprising against the tyrannical Capitol has failed. In order to intimidate the 12 districts that remain in Panem, the Capitol hosts an event called ‘The Hunger Games’. This yearly event takes 1 boy and 1 girl from each district and forces them to fight to the death until only one remains. After her sister gets selected for the games, our heroine Katniss Everdeen volunteers herself to be entered in order to save her younger sibling.

Right off the bat its clear that director Gary Ross is happy to show us the broken squalor that Katniss has to suffer in her impoverished home in district 12. People live in huts and shacks, scavenge food and wash in tubs. When Katniss sneaks out of bounds to hunt for food the electric fence that barricades her in is without power, yet another sign that they struggle to survive each day. It’s strong stuff, and once we’re whisked off to the Capitol at the end of the opening 3^rd, the juxtaposition is a vast one. The emerald greens and thick browns are contrasted with clean whites and pastel shades that resonate from the quirky clothing of the Capitols residents. In terms of crafting a believable and interesting world, Ross is wholly successful.

While the concept of last-man-standing-deathmatch-with-kids isn’t the freshest idea in the world, The Hunger Games succeeds where others fail for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, we have some strong build-up before the games actually start; allowing Katniss to the get the character development required to be a likeable and fully fleshed out character. We also meet the other tributes and get some backstory on them, adding some small meaning to events that unfold in the arena. This can be accredited to both the strong script from Ross, Suzanne Collins (also the author of the novel) and Billy as well as Jennifer Lawrence’s excellent performance. Every emotion is cast on her face; every action feels grounded and real. She’s the driving force for a good portion of the film, due to her isolation inside the arena. It’s undeniable that with a lesser talent as the lead, The Hunger Games would simply be a weaker film.

After an interesting build up involving mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) Presenter Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) and Gameswoman Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Katniss, fellow district 12 competitor Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and the remaining children are thrown into the arena in a breathless sequence of violence and death. At least, that what I think happens, as Ross’ choice to violently jerk the camera around is crude and often incomprehensible. It’s an understandable decision (to keep the certificate at a fan friendly 12A) yet is ruins action scenes almost outright. What's worse is this erratic cinematography is used constantly in order to give a sense of first person perspective for the audience. When the camera is restless in filming 2 people conversing at a table, it’s clear that the execution of this style was horrendous. The total lack of technical proficiency doesn’t end there, and the editing is also unnecessarily choppy, with shots that don’t mesh together with any impression of cohesion.  ILM’s CGI work is also slack, with muddy textures and animals that merrily skip through the uncanny valley. Considering the 78 million dollar budget, The Hunger Games has a rough and sloppy feel to it.

The Games themselves make up the latter half of the film and are made all the more interesting thanks to the great work that adds weight to the demise of many of the characters. While half of the 24 tributes lack dialogue, the others get some semblance of development, and this causes the vicious murders to have a far greater impact. Some tributes form temporary alliances, teaming up to prey on the weak. Others work alone, staying alive thanks to honed survival skills or just pure luck. The potential monotony of the forest environment is alleviated by cuts to the control room, where the arena is modified to make the Games more exciting, and to Tucci’s commentator, used to inform the audience of events that are mysteries even to Katniss. Both break the films 1^st person perspective, but don’t feel tacked on and add to the overall desperation of Katniss’ situation.

Yet despite said imperfections, The Hunger games is something that is still quite rare in today’s age of cinema; a film aimed at young adults that doesn’t pander solely to its audience. The result is an enjoyable, entertaining feature that is accessible to a wide variety of audiences. It will also do wonders for Lawrence; undoubtedly one of the stars of tomorrow.

Short review: Stake Land

Director: Jim Mickle
(2010)

Beginning with a moody monologue, Jim Mickle’s Stake Land is an ultra serious apocalyptic film, set in a vampire infested America. Martin (Connor Paolo) and his mentor Mister (Nick Damici) are travelling to the fabled New Eden to escape the horrors of the world. Throughout its 98 minutes, Stakeland is content to tick all the generic boxes of its genre, rarely surprising its audience. Hordes of foes? Check. Cheap jump scares? Check. Religious lunatics? Check. A car breaking down at the worst possible time? Oh yes. This rudimentary execution seeps into every pore of the production, from the uninspired acting to the functional fight scenes. Only 2 set pieces- a tracking shot portraying Christians attacking a camp by throwing vamps out of a helicopter and being stalked by an intelligent bloodsucker- offer any modicum of thrills. And even then these are over before they've begun.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind review

Roy Neary: I know this sounds crazy, but ever since yesterday on the road, I've been seeing this shape. Shaving cream, pillows... Dammit! I know this. I know what this is! This means something. This is important. 

Director: Steven Spielberg
(1977)

When watching a Steven Spielberg film, there are certain expectations, no matter how open minded a viewer you are. He's made many great films in his time, and I was sure that Close Encounters was going to be another addition to his good list. While Close Encounters is a decent film, it doesn’t live up to the standard of this great director’s work, both before and after its 1977 release.

The film follows Roy Neary, a cable worker, husband and father of 3. After witnessing flying spaceships in the night sky, he begins his search to understand what he witnessed, at the neglect of his job and loved ones. Richard Dreyfuss is astonishing as Roy, a likable man, seemingly discontent with his drab suburban lifestyle. Soon after his first extra terrestrial experience, he becomes obsessed with a mountain, trying to understand what it symbolises. He isn’t alone with these experiences, we see Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon) drawing the mountain in her artwork; she also shared this bizarre experience with Roy and wants to find answers.

One thing that is a mainstay in Spielberg's films is his frequently excellent cinematography. He really frames his scenes fantastically, and it makes for some interesting visual storytelling. This is seamlessly coupled with some stunning visual effects from the brilliance that is Douglas Trumbull. The first view we get of the alien crafts is a sight to behold, and even in today’s world of CGI, this scene holds up remarkably well. But its nothing compared to what's in store for the climax. The reveal of the mothership is an incredible sight. Its typical Spielberg, every frame drips with magic and wonder, the very same he would apply to E.T just 5 years later.

Roy is a very irresponsible man, though giving him such a title might be pushing it. He’s a big kid at heart and his love for model trains and the film Pinocchio cement this representation. He has a compulsion to figure out the significance of the mountain and his drive to understand the seemingly impossible is certainly interesting, but to neglect his family and job lessens how much we can care about his struggle. What's worse is that his kids are annoying loudmouthed brats and his wife is a total bitch, a poor attempt at making us empathise with him. 

The film is at its best when we witness aspects of suburban life behaving in a strange manner. Record players and TV’s switch on randomly, battery powered torches stop and start erratically and toy cars spin into life. This anonymity gives the first half of Close Encounters a mysterious, almost unsettling vibe, and it’s absolutely engrossing. Events remain sufficiently interesting right up until the final 30 minutes, where we the story is concluded in a fractured and unsatisfying manner. While I admire ambiguity in films, Close Encounters offers plenty of questions, but we get far too little in terms of payoff by the time the credits roll around. For a director so inclined to beat his audience over the head with blatant symbolism and obvious meaning, Close Encounters is happy enough to be frustratingly vague.

By the end, close encounters of the third kind gave me a deflated feeling. It was a fantastic combination of intrigue, thrill and wonder. The answerless ending dulls the entire experience, and the whole experience begins to feel hollow as we stop caring for our protagonist. A film such as this shouldn’t spell everything out to its audience, but a few answers would have gone a long way.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World review

Penny: You're a really nice person. 
Dodge: You are an awful judge of character. 

Director: Lorene Scafaria 
(2012)

What would you do if you were told that everything in existence would end in 3 weeks? Some would do all the things that they wish they could before society collapsed, while others, I suspect, would go on living exactly the way they normally would. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World poses this question to its leads, the melancholic Dodge (Steve Carell) and quirky Penny (Kiera Knightly) as they set out fulfil their final desires before the human race is destroyed by a meteor. What's more important is that SAFFTEOTW is a terrific RomCom, as funny as it is emotionally resonant.

As a radio announcer informs of earths demise in 3 weeks, Dodge sits gloomily in his car as his long-time wife Linda opens the door and runs off. It’s a funny scene, but also a sad one, leaving Dodge to sit out the Armageddon on his own. As society becomes liberated from the shackles of decency and responsibility, he encounters his rarely seen neighbour Penny, for the first time. They're both alone, so decide to go on a road trip, searching for those they love before it’s too late. Dodge wants to find his high school sweetheart while Penny is searching for a plane to get back to England to see her family. The biggest initial surprise here is that Knightly puts in a good performance. It’s not up to that of 2007’s Atonement, but it’s a damn sight better than the majority of her filmography. She’s charming, funny and while her performance becomes borderline hysterical a little too often, likeable. She is overshadowed by Carell though, who delivers another great performance, akin to last year’s superb Crazy, Stupid, Love. Playing an almost serious character in a comedy is becoming his forte, and long may it continue. He’s an empty man, purposeless without his unhappy wife, aptly demonstrated by his attendance of his dull insurance job for an entire week.

The pair sees some odd sights on their journey, from orgies in restaurants to others who prepare for the end of the world by hiding away in bunkers and bomb shelters. This is easily the finest aspect of Seeking, how people are portrayed when facing the end of existence. Some riot, fight and steal. Like Dodge and Penny, some take the remaining planes and busses to find their loved ones. But the most interesting is those who continue doing their routine, almost as if they're unable to process the near insanity of the predicament that they find themselves in. Some of these are funny, Dodges boss offers the remaining employees in the office a promotion to CFO, the money is better, but you’ll be dead before you get your pay check. One man has stuck in my mind since I viewed the film; seemingly content with cutting his front lawn. It’s a split second of footage, but it captures the tone of the film excellently; a perfect marriage of odd, funny and endearingly sad.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World has a good ending, though it’s almost spoiled by being needlessly rushed. An ending can make or break a film, and while this is a successful conclusion to a bittersweet story, it’s ripe with underdeveloped potential. The road trip film of the year, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is a fine example of how RomComs should be done.

Monsters review

Samantha Wynden: Doesn't that kind of bother you, that you need something bad to happen to profit from it? 
Andrew Kaulder: You mean, like a doctor? 

Director: Gareth Edwards
(2010)

Up until I saw Gareth Edwards’ Monsters, I was convinced that low budget films and excessive CGI don’t mix. How could it, CGI isn’t cheap, and the money could be spent in other, more needed areas. But Monsters is a different breed of film, seamlessly combining personal drama and conflict with imaginative science fiction.

Set 6 years into the future, a photojournalist (Scoot McNairy) is tasked with escorting his bosses’ daughter (Whitney Able) from Mexico back to the United States. This rather simple sounding task is made immensely challenging due to the infected zone, a large chunk of northern Mexico that harbours a mysterious alien race. Monsters is very much a drama film at its core, but frequently strays into thriller territory. The monsters themselves are used very sparingly, ratcheting up the tension when they do arrive.

Through grounded characters and a solid script, we truly get a sense of what it’s like to live in a world where the government struggles to contain a dangerous foreign entity. The performances feel real, partially because some of them are, most of the cast are locals or extras. While our 2 leads are solid, Andrew is overly cynical and Sam occasionally has her performance descend into being nothing more than a pretty face. They do become fleshed out sufficiently, and we delve into their relationships and past experiences. Neither of them possesses much of a character arc, but the conversations they hold inject enough intrigue to their journey.

Seeing the effect that the alien invasion had on people and communities is quite easily the finest thing about Monsters. The smoking skylines and ruined hotels, it’s clear this part of the world has gone through hell, and we get to witness the glorious aftermath. It’s a fine example of visual storytelling. Throughout the film there are signs of struggle and encounters, painting another layer onto the conflict. Monster carcasses litter the countryside, ships have been flung into trees by the aliens and plane fuselages litter the river bank. What’s even more impressive is the tiny budget that Gareth Edwards managed to create this world with. The entire production is said to have come in at around 800,000 dollars, loose change to many studio executives in this day and age. The CGI was also created by Edwards, and while it creates an evocative foreboding atmosphere, it looks a little cheap at times. Hardly a fair complaint though, given the microscopic budget and fantastic end result.

While centred initially on the affects the aliens have caused both the USA and Mexico, things take a sharp shift into the land of that of a clear as day allegory. The infected zone stretches from northern Mexico right up to the US border, their method of choice for keeping the ‘illegal aliens’ out is by erecting a massive wall. It’s obvious that this is an extended metaphor for America’s immigration policies, but thankfully this issue becomes less prominent as the film develops and more focus is placed on character interaction and unsettling tension. All this is aided by some stunning cinematography, capturing the Mexican wilderness with a tender beauty. The sunsets are glorious and the forests magnificent, Edwards’s proficient shooting has a profound effect on both our protagonists and us as an audience. Monsters possesses a style that blends the personal perspective of handheld filming with more traditional shooting; a close example being 2009’s The Hurt Locker. This brings the audience along with the characters, but without stifling them by going with a first person perspective such as in The Blair Witch Project.

By its finish, Monsters has taken the audience on an atmospheric, personal journey. While heavily marketed as an action film, we’re given little in the way of alien encounters, and Monsters is all the better for it.

Looper review

Older Joe: I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws. 

Director: Rian Johnson
(2012)

Ah, time travel. Despite being illogical and impossible, it still crops up to mesmerise and confound its audience. And while it often results in a film that has more than its fair share of plot holes, Rian Johnsons Looper is utterly compelling and ranks as one of the better Sci Fi’s of the last 10 years.

The film focuses on Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt) a form of hitman called a ‘Looper’. His job is to kill people that are sent back from the future where technological advances make murder almost impossible to commit. Eventually a Looper will have his future self sent back, who he must kill to retire himself. From here, he has 30 years to live his life before being sent back in time to be killed by his younger self, an event that happens indefinitely. Things go wrong for Joe when he fails to kill his older self (Bruce Willis) he’s hunted by the mob, all while his older self attends to his own future altering agenda. It’s initially a lot to get your head around, but once the logic behind the time travel is understood, Looper is a fantastically enjoyable film.

What isn’t initially obvious is that Looper is very much a drama, there’s surprisingly little in the way of action. Instead, we get a compelling story about time travel and the repercussions and consequence of characters actions. It’s a Smart, intelligent sci fi, the likes of which seem to be a dying breed. The little action that is present is particularly underwhelming. A sprinkling of gun combat is thrown in, but fails to offer the thrills or entertainment of Johnsons riveting script. And that’s exactly what Looper is, riveting. From Joes opening monologue, Looper is constantly developing; its plot gripping and its execution strong.

What aids proceedings are the performances that are solid across the board. Despite having a face mangled by prosthetics to make him look similar to Bruce Willis, Gordon Levitt does a well in his role. His performance in well synchronised with Willis’ old Joe, and through small nuances we really get the feeling that these 2 are indeed, the same. Emily blunt puts in what may be her best performance yet as Sara, a single mother and farm owner. She turns this character, who seems relatively young, into a worn and restless soul. We also get minor yet important turns from Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels which propel the narrative along in the opening third. Much like every aspect of Looper, these characters are aided by great writing, but this shouldn’t detract from the quality everyone's performance.

The biggest failing of Looper is that it doesn't offer a large enough payoff for all of the interesting build-up. While it smoothly sidesteps a dreaded anticlimax, it doesn’t fully capitalise on its potential. It should be noted that the film does manage is to tie up loose ends, rounding off a satisfying film. Time travel is a messy subject for a film at the best of times, but most directors aren’t as deft or focused as Rian Johnson.

Real Steel review

Charlie Kenton: How the hell do you know Japanese? 
Max Kenton: Video games. 

Director: Shawn Levy
(2011)

My biggest complaint of the sports film genre is that if you’ve seen one of them, chances are you’ve seen them all. There are some exceptions of course, such as Warrior (2 protagonists) The Wrestler and Raging Bull (more focus on the character outside the arena/ring). Despite the fact that Real Steel is about boxing robots in the future, it’s still a slave to the conventions.

The film centres on Hugh Jackman’s character Charlie, a robot boxing promoter who seems to always be down on his luck. After losing his money and robot in a fight, he suffers another blow when his estranged son Max (Dakota Goyo) has to stay with him when his mother dies. The relationship between Charlie and his son max is cold and unloving, something of a pleasant surprise actually. Charlie only takes custody on him after his mother’s death to make a quick buck from the boy’s uncle. This initially makes Charlie the bad guy, he possesses more interest in money than he does in the wellbeing of his own flesh and blood. It’s actually a bit of a shame that their relationship does mend through their shared passion of robot boxing, Charlie’s love for cash outstripping his need to look after max made him a far more interesting character. Instead, he’s becomes predictably cliché, something that Real Steel is unendingly guilty of.

This predictability runs into Real Steel’s many fight scenes as well. Fighters will get up as the ref counts to 9 and the underdog always seems to snatch a surprise victory from the jaws of defeat. Despite being well  shot, these fight scenes lack any real bite. These massive metal robots leather the hell out of each other and nothing noteworthy happens, other than some loud clangs. It’s a shame that the punches completely lack conviction, as the choreography of these fights is solid.

Real Steels issues persist throughout, both inside and outside of the ring. The soppy love story that doesn’t go anywhere, the awful product placement intended to ram Microsoft products down our throat and the abundance of clichés aren’t even the biggest problems that Real Steel has. That would go to Charlie’s son max. He’s a precocious, bratty kid with no manners and is dislikeable from beginning to end. While it seems he is intended to grow on us as the film progresses, he still has a loud mouth and a bad attitude. This is obviously no fault of Dakota Goyo, but his character was annoying enough to lower my enjoyment of the film.

Overlooking its dislikeable characters and clichés, Real Steel is an easy watch, with successful pacing of its fight scenes so its 2 hour running time flies by. It’s a shame that it doesn’t do any different to other, better films that reside in this genre.

Battleship review

Cal Zapata: If there is intelligent life out there and they come here, it's going to be like Columbus and the Indians, only we're the Indians. 

Director: Peter Berg
(2012)

 When viewing a film like battleship, it’s only fair to set your expectations accordingly. There is no point a cinematic masterpiece, especially considering pop singer Rihanna is in a starring role. Even with these not so great expectations, battleship is still a poor film, produced solely to appeal to lovers of bright lights and loud noises.

For me, action scenes are as only good as their context. In battleships case, its biggest selling point; an expensive concoction of visual effects and deafening noises falls remarkably flat. The plot is simple; aliens invade the seas around Hawaii, using a forcefield to trap 5 US/Japanese ships to force a small scale war. One of these ships is helmed by protagonist Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who tries to stop the alien fleet. The main characters on this ship have been established previously as annoying and unlikeable; if any were to die in the first minutes of the invasion, I wouldn't bat an eyelid. From here we get lots of meaningless explosions until 2 thirds of the way in where the ships play an actual game of battleships (the board game the film is based off of). It’s here the action scenes change from dull to ridiculous, and still fail to hold any tension or suspense.

Unfortunately, battleship isn't content with just being a dumb action film; instead, it dedicates far too much time to characters that are shallow and poorly written. Rihanna is only present to attract a bigger audience and Taylor kitsch reaffirms everyone’s belief that after john carter he isn't cut out to be a leading man. The only decent performance comes from the reliable Liam Neeson, but his role was over played; he only had 2 minutes of screentime. The plot is brimming with holes, inconsistencies, poor dialogue and ridiculous moments, even considering its genre. The alien ships don’t have bullet proof glass. A man can choke out an alien in a robot suit using his prosthetic legs?? An alien ship can use a sonic shockwave attack which shatters glass windows, but does nothing to the speedboat that is positioned just metres from the initial blast. The final straw is when an alien confiscates a briefcase (vital to stopping the invasion) form an IT technician, then gives the briefcase back to said technician and lets him escape. Like many things in battleship, it makes absolutely no sense.

The madness continues during the films climax that involves using a ship that’s been acting as a museum to fight the remaining aliens. The film goes out of its way to state that the ship is old and has manual controls and targeting systems, yet 5 minutes later Rihanna is using a touch pad control panel to send a barrage of shells towards the enemy. Besides, why would a decommissioned ship acting as a museum still store live munitions? The film is riddled with trash like this, it seems director Peter Berg and co thought the pretty CGI would cover up the films flaws. They couldn’t have been more wrong.