Iron Man 2 - A Review

If you've read other reviews of 'Iron Man 2' and have come here looking for a different opinion, I'm afraid you're wrong. I was naturally skeptical about Empire's and even Culch.ie's review - they weren't able, I thought, to grasp the inner complexities or the textures that a good comic-book film should have. This latest craze of saying "Oh man, I love comic books" is prone to giving films with this heritage an unfair advantage or disadvantage. Reviewers seem to either overly berate or unduly praise a film because of it.

In this case, it didn't do it any favours and it didn't help its case. No pun intended. As a true and avid lover of the entire Marvel universe, I was sold on this from the get-go. I was going to see it, no matter what the reviews said. They are all, by the way, correct in their opinions. Without spoilering the shit out of you, I will say the following -

• Nick Fury has a somewhat big role in the film.
• There is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it piece of film from another Marvel property.
• The infamous Captain America shield makes an appearance. In a comedy scene. No, really.
• There is an after-credits sting. It's worth staying put for.

And that's all I'll say on that front. The film is glorious in its spectacle. There are tons of explosions, over-the-top choreography, zingy one-liners and Scarlett Johansson getting undressed. That alone had me forking over a tenner. Favreau goes out of his way to make sure that there are few dark areas in the film. Too often, the sequel is seen as the 'darker' film - meaning that the third has to be twee as fuck. Look at 'Return Of The Jedi' - it had Ewoks. While this didn't have Ewoks, it did have glitter. But that's half the charm of the Iron Man series. It's a suspension of disbelief, brainless entertainment - there's no hidden messages or even a deep and labyrinthine plot.

It does, however, suffer from crowbarring in too many elements into the plot. I get that Favreau and Theroux - who deserves most of the blame - have a duty to fit in pointers and references to the future Avengers film and so forth. It's frustrating - there are some scenes that are quite brilliant. Sam Rockwell's slimy greaseball character in Justin Hammer pretty much steals the show on the villain front. Mickey Rourke, who I personally hate, doesn't really get up to much. At least in the last one, Jeff Bridges made an effort to glower and roar at people. Here, Mickey looks half-bored and blubbers on in Russian for a few scenes before being offed by Iron Man & War Machine.

Despite all these faults, it's still good. The action scenes are brilliant and ScarJo and Gwyneth Paltrow are both engaging and Favreau's role is beefed up somewhat. What the film needed in order to make it better was a more finely-honed script. Theroux's not exactly a dab hand at this. I'm not saying somebody like Brian Helgeland was needed - but someone with a bit more experience. The overall story just feels like they were trying to fit in too many elements. A veteran screenwriter would have caught this and either excised the bullshit or make a bigger film. As such, Theroux simply puts everything in and doesn't allow you to connect to the story.

Then again, it's not that kind of film. It really is a case of all sizzle and no steak. But that's the charm of it. If you poke at it long enough, it will seem shit. You have to take it at face value for what it is - a big, dumbass summer film. And enjoy it for that.

Video - M.I.A 'Born Free' (NSFW)

Watch the video first and then come back to me. All done? OK, so. Epic, I think, is the word you're looking for. I don't consider myself a fan of MIA at all. In fact, I didn't dig 'Paper Planes' at all - I couldn't get why most people did. I did, however, like the DFA remix of the song, but that's another post. The reason why I've posted this is because I'm curious to see what your reaction is. Normally, I don't ever bother to read the comments underneath a video. Purely because it's usually filled with people berating one another and so on and so forth.

This time, however, I did. And the results were interestng - some people found the video funny. As I think back, I can see why - at the time of watching, I didn't. I get the symbolism of the film; minority being attacked by overzealous authority, futile attacks by the free, etc. What I liked most about the film is just that. Too often nowadays, music videos are shortened and big topics are eschewed in favour of a personality-driven video. This dares to be different. I'm aware that MIA is known to court controversy and she's definitely out there. In fact, this video was banned from YouTube. It's easy to see why - it's pretty graphic. And comparisons at the final scene are drawn to the Iran-Iraq War where children were sent out to clear landmines.

The director, Romain Gravras, should be commended for his work. It is daring and shouldn't be considered as a music video - it should be considered as an art film.

Roger Ebert - An Open Letter

Dear Roger Ebert.

I will admit openly and say, first off, that I find your review of 'Kick Ass' to be nothing short of wrong. Completely wrong. But, that's not why I'm here at my desk scrambling to focus my thoughts and align my words. The reason I am here is because of this. Perhaps, Roger, you are unfamiliar with the term "trolling". Indeed, if you are familiar with the term, I would be highly surprised. I imagine you aren't. Therefore, I will explain it to you.

"Trolling" is simply another word for baiting someone. It is the act of deliberately and forcefully saying something for the purposes of a reaction. A negative reaction. The etymology of the word comes from a description of the person who partakes in this - a "troll". You are, Roger, a troll. Why do I label thee with such a mark? For the simple reason that your statements in the aforementioned article are nothing short of deliberate. You are going out of your way to incur the ire and wrath of a community.

Logic would suggest, nay demand, that if one is to criticise an artform, one must sample it. I have never seen a painting in real life by Andy Warhol. I am somewhat familiar with his work, but I would not class myself as a follower of his art. Now. Were I to begin wildly chastising his artwork, calling it boring, useless, unworthy of its status as iconic and so forth, I would - I hope - be asked as to whether or not I have seen any of it. The same goes for cinema. You can't, in all good conscience, deride a film without seeing it. The same is to be said of video games. It has to be experienced and sampled.

Art is about making a connection with the viewer. In its simplest format, it is saying "I have an idea - here it is. This is my idea." That is the very core of art - a question to the viewer; what do you think? Video games offer a similar question. I have watched the TEDTalk you referred to. Personally, I would have chosen different games to use as examples. I would direct your attention to Halo 3 : ODST. I enclose the trailer for this game. This game follows the story of a trooper searching for his fallen comrades in an urban landscape. It deals with such topics as loss, anger and retribution. Having sampled this game myself, I can tell you that it illicits emotion.

But you wouldn't know that. It is your refusal to sample this is what is most infuriating. You wouldn't dare to review a film without having first seen it. So why do you choose to deride our noble art when you haven't even played it? You, Roger, are doing this just to piss people off. I am sure of it. There is no other logical explanation. Perhaps, in your age, you feel that you have lost touch with the current generation. Indeed, you may feel that they are not listening to you. I tell you, Roger, if they're not listening to you, it's because you're talking bullshit.

You have become the old man at the porch, screaming obscenities and nonsense at people walking by. You are, simply put, not worth listening to.

Signed,

Brian Lloyd

What is on his mind...

"A man only curses because he doesn't know the words to express what is on his mind."

- Malcolm X

I have always disagreed with this. From an early age, we are thought to believe that bad language is, well, bad. Very bad. So bad, in fact, that it warrants education. I vividly remember once when I was in 2nd Year in Secondary School. My German teacher, Ms. Kiernan, had ordered me to write out some passage ten times as punishment for mistranslating the piece. As I slumped back to my desk, my friend Phillip Kelly asked me what happened. My words were, "I have to write it out ten fucking times." I'll never forget what happened next. "Mister Lloyd, see me after class - you're in big trouble."

Of course, she wailed on me for about ten minutes and vowed to report to my Year Head. Which she did. Of course, I never cursed in her presence again. The reason this sticks out in my mind is because, even now, I think she overreacted. I mean, I can look back on all the disciplinary decisions that were made on my part and admit with hindsight that it was for the best. This, on the other hand, I can't let go of. Who does "bad" language hurt? I'm not talking about derogatory language or racial slurs. I'm talking about usage of the word 'fuck' as an adjective. It adds texture to language. It heightens the exclamation attached to whatever it is you're describing. It is, to my mind, the most versatile word in the English language. If you haven't see the documentary 'FUCK', I would implore you to see it.

Back to the topic. A particular woman I know goes absolutely batshit whenever someone uses the word 'cunt'. That happens to my favourite curse word. It's so visceral, acerbic - I love it. Say it to yourself now. The heavy 'K' sound just makes it all the more rougher and guttural. Now, I would rarely - if ever - use it to refer to a woman's genitalia. Nor would I use to describe a woman. The term is, to me, asexual and can be used on both men and women. I am, however, aware of the connotations it has for women. But is it not a case of women making the fuss? Is this woman simply making an issue out of this word?


Let's look at Josh Homme. He was reprimanded severely for using the word 'faggot' onstage when someone tried to throw a bottle at him. Like anyone would, he lost his temper and screamed expletives into the crowd at the man. The gay community went berserk and branded him as homophobic. Now. Give me a minute to sidestep any land-mines here. I know, for a fact, that gay people refer to one another as faggots. Now, this may be a case of them using the word to negate its negative connotations. In fact, I barely know anyone that uses that word as a derogatory term. It has no effect. Precisely because gay people use it to describe one another. I don't think Josh Homme is homophobic. I think he used the word in a mindless fashion. Now, if the gay community wanted to take umbrage with him over using the word to describe a bad person - then fair enough. It'd be like trying to take on a wave of piss by whipping your dick out and adding to it. In other words, ultimately futile. So why do it? Why go after them? Incidentally, he came out (no pun intended) afterwards with a huge letter, apologising profusely for using the word, refuting his status as a homophobe and so forth. And no more was mentioned of it.

The reason I use this case is because I find people that take offence to language used often have an agenda. In other words, they add the negative connotation to the word. They, personally, find it offensive. And they are attempting to impose their own views on the word on you. Now, I'm not advocating cursing in front of children or whatever. But what I am suggesting is that we basically take a liberal view of it and realise that they are simply words - and nothing more. We make the negative connections.

Slick Bastards...

That's right. A list of slick fucking bastards. Check this shit out:

Ray Winstone Ray Winstone is pretty much what I want to look like when I'm 50. A few love handles, but well 'ard. The man's acting may be a bit, well, shit - but when he's in his element, i.e. beating the shit out of people or being a complete bad-ass, he's amazing. What I also like is the fact that he comes across as completely down-to-earth. He hasn't lost that working-class charm.

Steve McQueen

The man needs no introduction. Before you were born, nay, a dirty thought, this fucker was going around being the legend he is. The crazy bastard even got arrested for, wait for it, doing his own stunts. In the 60's. It wasn't even required for him to do it. This was long before Harrison Ford was putting stuntmen out of their jobs, let me tell you. AND! He knew how to dress. Oh yes. Sit down and watch 'Bullitt' and come back and tell me he isn't suave as fuck. Brad Pitt likes to think he's cool as Steve McQueen - in reality, he's just nowhere near his league. He isn't even playing in the same sport. Nobody is. That's why he's Steve McQueen.

David Bowie

OK, this may seem like an obvious choice. In fact, they all may seem like obvious choices. But I'm sticking David Bowie in here not for his fashion sense. Or his musical abilities. I'm sticking him in here for the fact that his godlike ability to reinvent himself. The dude's basically a chameleon. There was the Ziggy Stardust-era, the Berlin-era, the Thin White Duke-era, the Heretic-era. They were all fucking amazing-era. He is deserving of your praise and admiration. You don't even have to dig his music, but you are required to respect his ability to be consistently relevant and entertaining. Plus, he's screwing Iman on a regular basis. That alone deserves honourable mention.

Muhummad Ali Not only could this man beat the shit out of you in the first round, he was also able to knock the crap out of the US Government at the height of Segregation. The sheer amount of chutzpah this fucker showed in standing up and rejecting the Draft is absolutely unspeakable. It was completely unheard of; he made himself into a pariah. Now look at him - he's considered a living legend in sports circles. And rightfully so. If you've ever seen any of his matches, the skill the man possessed makes him one slick bastard. The thought and preparation, studying every part of his opponent, and then dispatching them with ease is nothing short of astounding. Plus, the smack talk - he was a king of it. He knew how to get into his enemy's mind and weaken them. He was, simply put, the Greatest.