Collected Impressions of Heroes: Fugitives

It was a while ago when I last mentioned Heroes on the blog.  Since then, the shows recieved its lowest ratings to date and the ‘critical reponse’* has been consistently downbeat.  There were a lot of people who expected NBC to off load the show and not renew it for a fourth season, but alas, they did renew so expect this to be more of a general overview rather than a post-mortem of the show.

As always, when I see Heroes,  I want to look for the best in the show rather than the worst.  In this sense, Heroes: Fugitives, the fourth ‘volume,’ is a disappointing ‘come-back’ thus far.  However it would be wrong to dismiss the whole when considering the occasional moments where the show and its characters do indeed shine.  Yet like always, the show is a thing of disappointment.  For starters, it must be said that Fugitives has a great premise.  Not an original one – for Heroes has never had any points for originality -  but a solid one different from what we’ve already encountered: Nathan Petrelli calling the shots on a Government backed containment plan for controlling superpowered individuals.

Now that’s a strong approach.  But its execution for the most part has been a bore and while a lot of it is due to clunky dialogue meaning the dilemma’s facing Nathan are not particuarly well versed, there are also larger elements that fail to hit the right notes.  Nathan’s antagonistic second in command, the ruthless Danko with his ’stick’ to acquiring Heroes, is an interesting character but one who really hasn’t come to fruition yet.  Similarly, the effect of the containment plan has not been seen on a scale wider than that of Claire Bennet’s dating options.  The show shows promise but fails to deliver.

And let us not forget Luke, the other half of the Superpowered Psycho Buddy double act.  His partner in crime is of course Sylar on a spiritual search for his father.  I pine for a time where Sylar’s psychology revoles around things a little more complex than these daddy issues.  Of course, Luke, a walking microwave with cringeworthy teen attitude in abundance, becomes Sylar’s personal psychologist during their road trip, giving us a cross-examination that Season One’s overused baddy not only willingly listens to, but one that actually affects him.

Not all is bad news however.  For example, the latest episode, Shades of Grey, had some nice moments where the show looks confident for once, with Christen Rose’ matriach Angela Petrelli relishing her dialogue to a degree where I have half the mind to declare her two lines of performance the best of the season so far.  The power play of running the bagging-and-tagging service between Danko, Nathan and Noah Bennet (yeah, he’s back again) becomes interesting once Danko suspects Nathan himself has an ability*.

The idea that Nathan’s commitment to the plot is compromised because of personal involvement is a strong one, but the notion that the operation will be removed from Nathan’s grasp has already been criminally glossed over in an earlier episode, when Nathan appeases a foxy government advisor within one episode, rather than a drawn out relationship that would better the volume as a whole.  Nathan’s position as a young, determined Senator is another factor underused in the show.  The man attends to no duties other than his little programme of mutant hunting and it would be nice to see the inner machinations of his office a little more.  After all, Adrian Pasdar remains one of the best parts of the show.

As always, Heroes has the ideas and potential, but it never comes to fruition.  There are moments when you nod your head, expecting a masterstroke from the writing staff, but instead you find the situation turning away into something ill-concieved or – and this word is used too frequently and without meaning – rushed.  The pacing of Fugitives is a lot better than that of Villains, but it still cannot deliver upon its promise.

*Read Robert Canning’s reviews of the show at IGN.com to enjoy his amateur journalism and/or the comments for his reviews, which are almost universally hysterical in their disagreement.

*I’m starting to loathe the overuse of  ‘abilities’ in much of the dialogue.  The idea of calling them ‘abilities’ demystifies the entire concept of these powers and the way in which the show first showed themselves in the characters.  Some of the worst dialogue of the season yet has occured when Zachary Quinto (Sylar) reflects on the ‘abilities’ he has stolen.  The show needs to step back and defamiliarise itself with superpowers.

Who Will Watch The Watchmen?

After recently seeing the adaptation of Alan Moore’s comic Watchmen (dir. Zack Snyder) my mind became a stewed mess of half formed opinion, bittersweet reflection and indecision. I don’t think I’ve been stumped with a dilemma so arresting for a while.  And considering this was a big budget Warner Brothers blockbuster, I  had the startling thought that perhaps I’m starting to go soft.

I enjoyed Watchmen. I have to say it. Or I think I did. Sitting there, watching panel after panel of Dave Gibbon’s artwork recreated on the silver screen, I was content.  Yet after the screening, when I had left the theater, even when I went about my daily business for the next few days afterwards, I felt the nagging feeling of unrest within. This unrest caused me to become East Anglia’s most accomplished mute for the next couple of days.  The unrest was really quite disturbing. After all, it was just a film, adapted from a comic book.  That’s okay.  That’s normal.  I can speak about that surely?

Apparently not.  People wanted to discuss the film.  I couldn’t join in.  People wanted a recommendation for the film.  I couldn’t give an answer.  Even conversations with those I saw the film with became strained and incredidly brief.  I could not help explain why the Comedian was killed.  I could not agree nor disagree when my compadre’s discussed the changed ending Snyder and co. devised.  Not wanting to burden them with the engima burning inside my head, I kept my silence.

Until now of course. Let me explain my dilemma. It is probably simpler in concept than deliberation. My dilemma is this. What exactly is this film? Many have gone on about Synder’s faithfulness to the original novel.  Great.  I agree.  Snyder’s taken the bullet and made a competent version. It’s all well and good and the faithful argument stands, justified and validated.  Good for Zack Snyder.  Good for David Hayter, the screenwriter.  Good for all the other fans.  Good for Warner Bros.  Good for everyone; have a pat on the back.

But I’m not interested in the fidelity of the graphic novel.  Sure, it’s a nice bonus.  But I’d much prefer a ‘Watchmen’ film, not an audio/visual companion.  That sounds more malicious than intended, but the point still stands. What could there possibly be in the film that justifies its existence, production and marketing in a way that the graphic novel couldn’t deliver? Well, moving images probably, but that’s missing the point slightly. Of course, if you pretend the novel is a flick book: voila, moving images.

No.  The one thing on my list I wanted the adaptation to tick off was that this film be an open invitation to the uninitiated; something to entice, intrigue and garner interest from those who would either be unwilling to buy any comic whatsoever or to those who have not even heard of the Watchmen.  You could say I want it dumbed down, that I want it tame, commercialised and generic.  I do not want those things, of course, but it must be understood that these things are simply the results of adaptation conducted incorrectly.  Synder and co. went the other route, and while they may have pleased the ‘Faithful’, they have pretty much baffled the rest of the world.

The film is a closed piece.  It’s an exclusive movie.  It’s great for fans of the comic to see it on a big screen, but Watchmen was made to be a graphic novel, to push that medium as far as it would go, and the inspired flourishes within the comic simply cannot be replicated in any other medium.  Perhaps that means a ‘true’ adaptation was doomed from the get go and that if one was to ‘open up’ the world of Watchmen to a wider audience, the things that truly make Watchmen “Watchmen” will have disappeared. But still, my point stands: this film turns people away.

And its a shame because the effort and determination that went into the films production deserves more.  The film’s a mess, but its a good mess.  Dr. Manhattan’s ‘origin’ – for lack of a better term – is fantastic as a self contained story that manages to capture a sliver of the novel’s rhythmn, even if the links tying it together with the rest of them disrupt any chance of the facade-like plot taking precedence. The majority of the casting is simply inspired: Jeffrey Dean Morgan IS the Comedian; Jackie Earle Haley Is Rorscharch; Patrick Morgan Is Nite Owl.  The film looks gorgeous, from every little detail to every large brushstroke.

There’s alot to be desired when it comes to the choice of music in the film, for instance Simon and Garfunkel was a poor choice in the light of day for the Comedians funeral, but we can forgive a little; Snyder was obviously given a little too much free reign and hopefully his musical choices will be reviewed a little more thoroughly next time.

Less said about the juvenile violence the better.

Point is, where do you stand? Amongst the ‘Faithful,’ with their bright ‘at-least-it-wasn’t-awful’ attitude and treasured receipts for a pre-ordered Extended Cut DVD? With the disenchanted, who relish the chance to claim for their own whatever ‘in vogue’ comic Hollywood takes next, and then ridicule the resulting adaptation? Or with the confused, baffled majority of the public who may wonder, forever even, what Watchmen was ever really about? It’s a missed opportunity, but time will tell.

I’m a little of all of them by my own admission. Though I must say, rebooting the Fantastic Four is the worst idea ever in the History of Botched Adaptations, second only to making the Fantastic Four into a film in the first place. All the Pretty Horses comes close.

Kevin Smith Is Shite

I rest my case.

The Mist

One of the best horror films I have seen in years. But then I don’t watch or even like alot of horror films.  In fact, with the exception of the odd Carpenter film, or Alien, I wouldn’t say I own any “horror” films on Dvvduh or VHS.

Yet the film (an adaptation of a King novella by Frank Darabont) succeeded, in my opinion, at drawing on a great number of archetypes and investing them with enough plausability, gravitas and humanity so as to really kick off an enjoyable film.  I continuallly see Thomas Jane in sub-par films performing sub-par material yet he is always, always top notch.  Someone should really give the man some higher profile roles.

The direction was taught, yet interesting and ever engaging, providing us with both our “hate” figures (a local evangelacist at the forefront of them) and the redeeming small-town stock characticures.  I remember reading an interview with Darabont a while back, and he mentioned his fear of being branded the industries premier King adaptor.  Well, he is.  But I see nothing derogatry about that when considering The Mist; for certain this is different from Shawshank or the Green Mile, but it is a well crafted adaptation.  It also has a spectacular ending.

Revenge of the Nihilists?

Recently, yours truly rediscovered Squaresoft’s (Square-Enix, beg ya pardon) Final Fantasy series.  I last enjoyed the delights of Final Fantasy IX, which I must admit is my favourite FF – it had the fairytale premise, the lovable characters and the stunning visuals and sound.  It was a tour de force in storymaking for me at the time, and although signs of veritable age leap onto the Playstation 1 cycle of games now, it still evokes fun memories.  I had not played an FF before FFVII, yet have since enjoyed the re-releases of those games on the PS1 format.

I loved the plethora of anachronistic design, story-telling and scale of FFVII, got a little confused and distracted by FFVIII’s system (and a little disheartened at the premise, which did not seem inherently interesting at the time) and recently purchased the great FFXII title on the PS2.  I completely missed the cycle on the PS2 at the time and am only slowly rediscovering it now, having reached the latter stages of FFX – supposedly one of the best in the series.  I’m very impressed with it to an extent – the gameplay is fantastic and really improves on the turn based mechanic that lets my replays of FFIX down (and it also makes combat in FFXII a little “cheap”) – but I am noticing the distinct pattern of archetypes within the series.

I have no problem with archetypes.  Thiefs, Summoners, Black Mages and Honourable Knights are stock Final Fantasy, but I must admit to being a little disheartened at the the frequency of FF games to use a Nihilist as the main antagonist.  I understand that the majority of the game has the player experience the wonderful world and its wonderful peoples, so much so that the cause is worth fighting for – and this is typical narrative fare – especially against a Nihilist wishing to end it.  But the trait of nihilism seems almost an excuse for antagonism rather than a cause.  No, perhaps I should start at the beginning of my FF journey: FFVII and enter Sephiroth.

Sephiroth is a great character and a great villain.  He is the archetypical nihilist, and much of his angst was conveyed to incredible effect, so much so that I enjoyed the game first time round wishing he was a lone wolf who would eventually join my party.  Sure, it was Shinra firing cannons, but Sephiroth’s story had pathos.  Next up would be the FFVIII villain, but considering I never played past the first few hours, it seems ingenious to consider the antagonist a nihilist when I had no clue for or against.

Then there is Kuja, villain of FFIX, my favourite game.  Kuja wants untold destructive upon the world because he knows he has an expiry date on his existence – he’s part of a project to ferry ancient souls from world to world yada yada.  Yes, FFIX gets weird near its finale, and the existence of another, older planet other than Gaia, is the “big reveal.”  Kuja is nothing too special in himself; if anything, he, like practically every character, is particuarly effeminite, rides a big silver dragon and lives above an Auction House, of all places.  Yet the notion of expiry dates calls into question alot of what the protagonist party in FFIX hold dear, especially Vivi, the toy shop doll/black mage made on a production line.  Maybe he wasn’t enough of a moaning, fatalistic git however, because the FFIX developers tacked on Necron-whatever, a strange being who appears once you do in Kuja, only to state his intentions of destroying the world.  Points for originality.

In FFX however, and this is where my main gripe comes from, we get yet another Nihilist.  Maestor Seymour Guado: a character so feminine and strange looking, simply out of expectation, you know he is the villain.  Similar to all Nihilists, Seymour has a history, a reason for his madness; but to me, compared to Sephiroth’s tragedy or even Kuja’s minor inconvieniance, Seymour’s back story is weak, very weak.  And what I find almost disturbing is the stories reliance upon Seymour’s difference (he is half human-half Guado (bit like an Elf)) as a factor for this nihilism – racial difference no less.  Surely a more responsible – yes, it does matter! – way of dealing with this would be a reconilation with poorly Seymour on behalf of the protagonist, rather than blasting him off to space.  Poor show.  Anyway, here he is.

Basically, all I am saying is that Square, in these games, rely to much on worn formulas.  The Nihilist can make a great character, but continued use of such archetypes can create stereotypes.  Yeah, there may be people who want to end it all, and Square can do the route of convincing us their worlds are worth saving well enough by now, but villains with plausibly attainable goals that are certainly easier to identify with (oh yeah, power, wealth, intolerance) should be the way forward, at least until that cycle wears thin.  Considering though, all I’ve just said is moot because Square went ahead and did it; they made a villain who wasn’t entirely obsessed with global destruction, just global domination; enter Vayne Soldior.

Maybe next time I’ll moan about the plot devices used to tip the whole world on its head:  Genova, Garland, Occuri and Yunalesca, I’m looking at you.

Revised Impressions of Heroes: Villains

It has been a while since I last had the time to post something on here, but now I have the time, I thought it would be apt to articulate my impressions of Heroes‘ third volume – Villains – thus far.  As this is being written, the last episode of this “arc” has yet to air, and if it were not for my willingless to experience a sub-par stream with bad sound synchronisation, I would have to wait another week.  However, I think, as we stand on the precipice of the volumes finale, we can garner some interesting observations on the series so far.

First off, I would like to congratulate myself for noting the haphazard pacing of the season opener, which in retrospect really was the taste of things to come.  Of course, of course, that has since become evident to everyone, but I feel due respect should be given in my case.  Forgetting vanity for a minute, I think it must be said, again, that the leverage of the “fans” really is noticeable on the show; the producers, writers and network seem to cave in to the speculation and wishes of die-hard fans without a fight.  I am not saying that those vocal fans are not accurate or inaccurate in their criticisms and suggestions, but the writers are writers for a reason, the production team working on Heroes for a reason and the network financing it for a reason.

I find following a show so susceptible to fan reactions to be a bit of a pain, especially when it results in often irrevocably dire plot lines and character arcs.  Consider the character of Sylar; a hit, memorable character who is the darling of superlatives the world over – yet because of his popularity with the fanbase, this dodgy fellow has been allowed both survive a sword through the heart (which ultimately undermines the entire first season) and recieve a humanising redemption from the pit of Hell in seasons 2 and 3.  It isn’t that Gabriel Gray (Zachary  Quinto) isn’t a bad villain – in fact, he’s generally played to great effect by the strange looking Quinto – but that Heroes is unable to tell the stories it wants because of the fans incessant whining.

The pace of the season has drfited between flat action sequences, rarely filmed with the kind of visceral verve invested in those of season one or two, and flat discourses between characters with some cringeworthy dialogue.  All in all, if  you had to pick and chose a list of shows in your weekly schedule of “self-time,” on paper, Heroes would not be up there.  However, I continually find an idea, or an enigma to look forward to in Heroes.  It does not matter whether Heroes provides or not – especially when some of the notions you pick up on are so unfounded – because neither do other big, ensemble dramas like Lost, which is driven by ideas, but ideas without explanation.

Heroes is often at its unwittingly strongest when it plays around with the ideas of lineage and misue of power; the whole mythology is more concrete than Lost and all the more fascinating for it.  Again, on paper, season 3 should have this in spades, but instead of the unravelling misdeeds of previous Generations in season 2, we instead find a rather flat character in Arthur Petrelli, the presumed dead patriarch of the Petrelli dynasty, played by Robert Foster.  Foster is a strange proposition; the potentially complex and memorable character of Arthur Petrelli is played with the kind of aplomb that should result in one, yet something feels off about his appearance, his delivery of dialogue and the fact that you can’t help but feel Foster is miscast in a role that would be much more effective if the the budget allowed for a bigger actor.

Foster is no bad actor however; his mincing of dialogue is great stuff, but the notion of respected lawyer and philanphropist does not suit an actor who would be more at home playing the local mob boss.  He just doesn’t have the gravitas to make the role convincing or even threatening enough for the series arch villain, especially one who has the powerful Austin Linderman (a superb Malcom McDowell) in his pocket.  Back to the events of the season itself and great news for those who thought Arthur was an odd fish; the penultimate episode Our Father (and one that got increasingly better as it went on) had Sylar telekinetically launch a bullet into the mans head, killing him instantly and destroying the cells that generate his abilities.  Arthur’s legacy is there, and it seems the wonderful Nathan Petrelli (a chisel-jawed politician with a paradox for a moral center) has taken up his fathers villainous mantle, which hopefully means the cluttered ensemble drama can keep with one clear goal for the next volume, entitled Fugitives.  Or mabye they’ll scrap that plottime when the fans vote in.

Perhaps it is the demographic that a show about normal people who gain superpowers inadvertently attracts that mean a standard ensemble drama is treated in ways not dissimilar from the realms of superhero conventions, pulp fiction and the comic book indstury.  In converse, one could say that Heroes is a superhero story that borrows from the realms of televised ensemble drama.  All in all, following a show in which characters, plot lines and even production staff can be voted off is not a show I want to follow.  I like Heroes, I like its ideas and I like the majority of its characters (and it has a great soundtrack atypical for your standard ensemble) and I hope that Duel, the last episode of Villains goes out on a high.  As a show, it isn’t immensely important as some will have you believe, and if it does go the way of Old Labour, Princess Di and Don La Fontaine, something will undoubtedly arrive in its place, but for what its worth, Heroes is good entertainment.

Heroes Returns! The first 2 episodes of Season 3 reviewed.

Its been a fair old while since I last made a post on here.  Caution to the winds though; the golden afternoons of late Summer are fading and I’ve been driven back inside.  Now, to the point.  Heroes, that big hit of a US TV Show that even made an impression on the British viewing public, is back for its third season.  Following a longer than expected hiatus for the shows creative powers, it returns in the hopes of recovering its dwindling audience, one that followed the first season avidly, yet tapered out with the shows troubled second.  Admittedly, the pacing of the second season left a lot to be desired after the octane fuelled conclusion to the first, but after a while the season began to shape up.

Sadly, the Writers Strike ended an ambitious storyline before it had a chance to come to fruition.  Tim Kring, creator of the show, acknowledged complaints both from critics and fans about the second season, assuring that when Heroes returned, it would come back with a bang.  But here I think is where a potential problem lies.  The second season was evidence of their intent to explore the cast of characters deeper, a slowly ticking character drama with excerpts of adrenaline.  As a result of the poor reception this noble idea evoked in the audience (and viewing figures!), the patriarch of the series went in the completely opposite direction, citing that if the audience wanted Heroes to be a non-stop adrenaline ride, he would see it so.  And so here we have Season 3: Villains.

I think it is here that my problem manifests.  The first episode of two, Heroes: Second Coming, is a over-reaching, sometimes disenchanting affair.  The Present Day (Time seems to shift nightly when, as enjoyable as some are, plot devices require it to in Heroes) seems to have shifted slightly from the last annals of Powerless, the last episode of Season Two.  We are treated to the answer to Powerless’ cliffhanger; the identity of Congressman Nathan Petrelli’s killer almost instantly, rushed through an explaination that really deserves more growth, thrown into an encounter between a demonic serial killer and a cheerleader with again, less of a dynamic than deserved and baffled by the disappearance of the ever-sympathetic policeman Matt Parkman, all in a matter of minutes.  Even fans of the show will have to be on the ball to follow the drama as it shifts, more often than not incessantly, between locales and characters.

The first episode moves at the breakneck pace as promised, but the tension, mystery and drama that made the First Season such a compelling watch seems to have evaporated.  One however, suspects that the baggage acquired during the First and Second Seasons tenure simply had to be shed in order for the writing staff to open on a clean slate.  Mysteries that have eluded us since the First Season are answered without the revelatory direction that the effort made to keep them awarded in the first place.  For fans insistent on answers, the tidbits of information revealed of long suspected truths will be rewarding, if not a little sour in delivery.  For a series that delivered its mysterious cliffhangers so well in the first, and almost in the second, seasons, it certainly does feel that a greater sacrifice has been made to please impatient fans.

The second episode, entitled Butterfly Effect, is a lot more of a grounded affair, if not still a tad shaky at the hinges.  You get the feeling that the rushed execution of the first episode was the wiping of the slate for the writing staff, because that is at least what Butterfly Effect indicates; important moments are handled delicately in contrast to the previous entry, characters are given their dues and we begin to gather a greater sense of the volume, especially considering the omnious titled Villains.  A mass breakout of imprisoned “Villains,” including a rather amusingly named Master of Magnestism, “The German,” seems to spark a rounding up of the troops for the Heroes cast, and we seem to have been provided with an obvious goal for our Heroes to unite against.  Those who have watched Season Two will have noted that unless provided with a conspicuous impediment to the safety of the world (or the USA it seems), the focus of Heroes seems to waver indefinitely.  Like the First Season, obvious antagonism has alerted the Heroes to their respective destinys, and all that boring character-driven nonsense that fans rejected can just be a product of the journey rather than for its own sake.  Just like the First Season.

Characters in Heroes have always proven to have an elasticity to them, a moral ambiguity, and thankfully I feel that this second offering hints that many different paths will open for certain characters.  As for the treating of individual characters, I caution myself to withhold judgement.  For example, those characters in the show without their own CGI-Power budget gaining a  CGI-Power budget will be a big turn off for many.  Its an obvious path, but if you’ve seen the two episodes you’ll know I’m talking about the Peter Parker lookalike.  My revised opnion on the matter, especially concerning the drain the power seems to exert on the character in Butterfly Effect, could lead to an intriguing character arc when he manages to “get rid” of his new perks.

Update! Iron Man Review and Indy IV thoughts.

Hello My-Little-Place-On-The-Net-Devoid-Of-Life.

Been a while since I have taken the time to write or update this blog, but I have been busy enough to warrant an excuse. We’ve reached the point in British springtime when we can divulge whether this is going to be a nice summer or not, and considering the charmingly warm spring we have enjoyed so far, I think it is safe to say that we can look forward to a pretty grim summer. But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can now take off our thoughtful borguois tricorns and leave that arthouse cinema with the pretentious plush red seats and the expensive bar and head on down to the Multiplex, mess with the proles and thoroughly enjoy the mound of ostensibly fun blockbusters that require no appreciation of the ‘fine arts’ other than how to grin at an explosion.

To try and make this a slightly productive summer for myself in some capacity, I am going to try and write a few reviews for the big films I have seen, and maybe the smaller ones I see in retrospect or simply add to my Dvvduh collection. For example, my Iron Man ‘review’ – I prefer to call it a reaction considering my credentials – is now posted in the Eat Me Critics sect and having seen Indy IV for the second time yesterday, perhaps it is ripe to write up my ‘review’ to that. My reaction however, it something of a casual fan glad to see that Indy’s heritage has not been trounced upon. Scathing Cannes reviews were expected of course, but most press reviews have since been positive, although fan reactions remain mixed.

I liked Indy IV. It was familiar territory, led by a familiar old soul, into more familiar MacGuffin territory, through some familiar experiences set in unfamiliar ground. Yes, it is familiar. I don’t care. It is Indiana Jones, and if you take ‘I don’t care, it’s Indy’ as a reason rather than a cop-out, then you will enjoy it. I read Roger Ebert’s review after seeing the film for the first time and am glad to see he liked it. His reviews on films are so-so to me – sometimes I just plain disagree with the bloke – but his writing makes for a fun read and I can hardly doubt his integrity. In his review, he remarked upon a line that a wisened Ford makes; “same old, same old.” He is right of course; it is the same old stuff, and I loved it.

Most of the criticisms I have seen for the film from casual schoolboy critics remark upon certain ’stretchings of belief’ that I feel I am not at liberty to divulge in case of spoiling the film for you. I just do not admire criticism such as that, especially when Spielberg (who I must say was certainly on form during this shoot – it shows) offers an olive branch to bridge the gap between what is happening on screen and the audiences suspense of belief.

Other criticisms fall before the way side of course, because, like any self respecting audience member, I can abide the reason “Its Indiana Jones!” While it has always offered fun and enjoyment to a large slice of the audience, Indy has always been a treat for those who really enjoy film. It is packed so full of cinematic references that it almost runs like a tour through cinematic history. From the exotic adventure films of Errol Flyn and Charlton Heston (’must say, sad that he is now deceased. I wasn’t a fan of his ideals, but he left a lot of friends and his integrity as an actor is undeniable) in Raiders of the Lost Ark, to the musical and James Bond homages (Temple of Doom), the rip-roaring chases and stunts that reminds us of Stagecoach, Ben-Hur et al (evident in all the films) and the appearance of the noir femme fatale in Elsa Schneider, Spielberg and Lucas have packed these films full of their own love of film as a medium and cultural palette. It just offers a lot more than, say, Star Wars in that sense, as well as being undeniably less geeky.

The new film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (the title has grown on me considerably sincd it was announced by the way) is no less choc-a-bloc in that sense. Dealing with a new era, although at first a tad disparaging for devoted fans of the 30s romps, allows for new intertextuality, in-jokes and homages. An American Graffitti reference, as well as a marvellous scene itself, was one of the highlights of the film itself for me. I’m glad that the script (although certainly not the best of the Jones scripts) allows for some cultural references worthy of a chuckle. 50s momism, the nuclear family and the suburban household are all given the nuclear treatment by Spielberg, being obliterated in the opening act with no mercy, as Indy wanders into a Nuclear test site filled with eerie plastic dolls posing as the 50s middle class. ‘I like Ike’ also shows its face with barbed wit from Ford and then as a motif during the nuclear explosion.

Of course, the Soviets rear their head as the pantomime-villains-of-the-era, partly to Spielberg’s admittance that there really is no one else with the villainous credentials. Obviously, this has angered members of Communist parties the world over, particuarly those in Russia, but again, to Spielberg’s defense, he lets us remind ourselves that he himself is of Russian descent. For me, the Soviet’s work to an extent in Crystal Skull. They seem to fit the mould of the Nazi replacement and Cate Blanchett, as usual, is amazing as the dangerous, sexless looking Soviet, Colonel Irena Spalko. But at the same time, I don’t feel the Soviet’s are half as threatening as the Nazi party. Perhaps it takes someone born on the eve of the Iron Curtain’s collapse to make that claim, but the Soviet’s fill the antagonising role in what I have always seen as a ‘grey area’ in history. Admittedly, David Koepp’s script certainly acknowledges this; even while pursued by the KGB on American soil, Dr.Jones, ‘even with his War record’ an investigator states, is under suspicion of treason by the FBI. A spectular chase sequence through the Dr.Jones’ University allows for protestors with signs such as ‘Red is Dead’ to run in terror as Dr.Jones’ (on motorbike) is pursued by KGB agents in cars.

Certainly, there is more to say for the film, its strengths and its flaws, but really, if you take ‘It’s Indiana Jones for god’s sake!’ as a reason, rather than an excuse, it won’t matter to you.

David Cameron you cheeky git!

‘Mend Broken Politics’ – words of a hypocrite.

Am I the only one who finds David Cameron utterly repulsive? The fact that the Tories have the ability to court younger generations of Politicians into their ranks is a scary thought by my book. The party is and always will harbour back to out-dated rhetoric and reactionary squabbling because the Conservative party is and always will be a bunch of moronic toffs jettisoning concern for others in light of “daddy’s” wishes.

But the resurgence of a yuppie culture, of younger politicians spouting the ideas of shabby old Oxford’ites is distressing, if anything because you can see it working. David Cameron is only one of many young Eton lads curbtailing it up the political ladder, as old hats fall off the chain and break down under allegation after allegation, but as leader of the second biggest party in Britain, and concerns over PM Brown’s last few months, it certainly isn’t nice to have him around.

Just the other day, he attacked New Labour’s “systematic culture of spin,” a “culture” he has not only acknowledged here, but fully endorsed. The man’s a walking PR portfolio in him self. Not only in the giving of soundbites (in which he is exemplary), but also in his “getting down with the kids” attitude that, while utterly failing, certainly shows he has some in his PR team who actually know what kids are. That in itself is suprising. Shocking even.

Speaking at a conference on Wales, he even pulled the perfect opportunity dig at Labour; “top-down, centralising control.” Well, way to breach new ground Mr. Cameron. I don’t think I have heard that claim for a good few weeks. Of course, as a relatively close relation to the Royal Family, you can expect a slight strut in his step, but someone should remind “my honourable Cavalier” that he does not own the place.

Again, my dear Mr. Cameron please, please, please leave the political spectrum alone for a while and go and do something worthwhile for a few good years of your life. You can re-enter the Tory charade when you are the expected age.

Robert Downey Jr. Irons out the creases!

While obviously not as well known in some circles as the Man of Steel, the Tin man and of course the Quartz Rotter himself aka David Cameron, Iron Man has had an interesting and illustrious as a Marvel superhero, yet overshadowed by such pop culture idols as Spiderman and Wolverine. Finally, Tony Stark gets his own slice of the summer action!

This blockbuster season, Iron Man opens in cinemas. It’s one of the recent spate of reasonably well measured superhero films, albeit those have come from Marvel’s rivals DC rather than Marvel themselves. The reignition of the Batman franchise and the solid but underwhelming box office success of Superman Returns have shown that the Superhero movie can get some decent credentials on its side and deliver. I can only hope that the efforts shaping up for a summer release begin a lasting trend, because let’s face it, everyone loves a Superhero movie from time to time.

Iron Man couldn’t have got off to a better start than by signing the eclectric Roberty Downey Jr. as main man Tony Stark, while Marvel’s “other” summer release, The Incredible Hulk, managed to snap up Edward Norton. While the basic premise of Iron Man may not refrain critics from sniggering a bit (Rich man lives a playboy lifestyle, rich man gets kidnapped, rich man builds a robotic suit in captivity, rich man exacts revenge) the newly released trailer offers probably the best and least cringeworthy look at the film so far.

While throwaway Metal music still exists in the trailer (which means critics shake their heads and the idiot demographic gets their tits on) the use of AC/DC and Audioslave (used brilliantly in Collateral my Michael Mann) does get a thumbs up from me. Robert Downey Jr. seems a natural fit in the role of Stark, given his heavy dose of charisma and charm, while obviously he is able to handle the more dramatic, plot driven scenes. It’s Robert Downey Jr. for christs sake.

It has been confirmed that the character’s descent into depression and alchoholism (Stark, not Downey Jr.) will not show its face in Starks virgining heroic exploits this time round. Hopefully if Iron Man delivers and warrants a sequel (or makes enough doe) then hopefully we will get to see some of the more human attributes of Tony Stark.

Indeed, his flaws and battles with self depreciation, alchoholism and loss are what makes the man behind the suit relatively more interesting than, to pick an example, The Fantastic Four. Spiderman hit a niche and then a mainstream appeal because of its melodramatic dealings with teenage life; Peter Parker was a normal teenager with normal teenage problems. Iron Man strikes a different cord in itself, wrapping itself in a nervous shell of a grown man with problems that Peter Parker could never dream of. Obviously, Downey Jr. would nail the the more intrinsic, tragic nature of a man trapped behind a suit, welling up inside with self abuse and alchoholism. That is if he signed on for sequels.

The marketing team seem to have come up with a bit of a curious dilemma with the Iron Man title ident though.

Blocky, dullen and square, the ident is not aesthetically pleasing. If this was the 80s/early 90s, I can see where they would be coming from, but the title neither has enough “rust” to make it interesting to the eye, nor shiny enough to evoke a more pleasing reaction. The choice of iron is hardly inspired, yet it could at least hold a greater hook than it does here. However, who am I to criticise an ident, especially if the film is generally good in the end. Let us hope it is.