Ashes To Ashes: Everything That Has A Beginning, Has An End - Part 1

Once upon a time, between the mid eighties and the mid noughties, British fantasy on TV was a barren wasteland populated by boring, unimaginative dirge like Crime Traveller and Invasion Earth. Then came Doctor Who's resurrection in 2005, which gave TV networks the confidence to green light not only new SF/fantasy shows, but well written ones too. The first of these post-Who series to hit was Life On Mars, a period set cop show with a twist. The protagonist was from 2006, trapped solving crimes in 1973. What made the show a critical success was the mystery as to how hero Sam Tyler got to 1973. Had he travelled back in time? Was he in a Coma, dreaming? Was he dead, stuck in purgatory? And it was the fusing of these fantasy elements into a popular police drama format that made the series a commercial success.

In 2007 it was revealed that Sam had been in a Coma, the 1973 stories apparently being all in his head. But with the desire of lead John Simm to depart, it was decided to revamp the series to an early eighties setting with a new lead. Thus, Ashes to Ashes was born with Keeley Hawes taking over as out-of-time, comatose cop Alex Drake. With Drake now inhabiting the same universe that Sam Tyler had, the central mystery shifted to why it was the same dreamworld and characters as Sam's.
A greater importance was also placed on the meaning of top cop Gene Hunt in the eighties universe.

In all 5 years of both series, the casting was impeccable, from Marshall Lancaster's confidence-lacking Chris, to Dean Andrews fearless performance as the bullish, politically incorrect Ray. But the enduring icon af Ashes/Mars will forever be Phil Glennister's DCI Gene Hunt, the swaggering, arrogant, hard as nails Police Chief that dominated the show, even if he wasn't in a scene. Many of the greatest fictional characters in TV history have been those with uncompromising contempt for all other human beings. Just look at Blackadder, Basil Fawlty and Al Bundy. Gene was one of those. His insults were legendary...but it was the venom with which they were delivered which ensured the success of the show (which the Americans failed to understand when they were casting, both the inadequate Colm Meaney and Harvey Kietel, in their unfortunate version of Life On Mars). He didn't care who he shot, punched, insulted or hurt; we loved him anyway.

The Ashes to Ashes finale which broadcast recently was pitch perfect. It revealed a powerful mythology behind the dreamworld, moving back-stories for the regular cast and, perhaps best of all, used English iconography illustrate the mythology (the good old British boozer). Moving, powerful and satisfying...the episode was a great end to a landmark British series. Gene might be gone, but it makes you feel safe knowing that DCI Hunt is looking out for us.

Lost: Everything That Has A Beginning, Has An End - Part 2

There's a lot of reasons why Lost was a success. Great writing, with a perfect balance of strong, imaginative plotting supporting powerful, ongoing character arcs, for one. Great casting, from familiar faces like Matthew Fox and Terry O'Quinn...to new actors like Evangeline Lily to Josh Holloway. An Oscar winning composer. A huge budget to effectively realise the scope of the story. An original mixture of fantasy, science fiction and survival drama. And THAT tropical setting. Lost was unique on so many levels, and for those reasons alone, it will be missed as a regular fixture on the TV schedule.

But for me, the overriding reason is it's daring to tell a singular story over an entire series. The only other series to do that was Babylon 5 which was mapped out before hand, before telling it's epic tale over 89 episodes, spanning 6 years. Everybody else just makes it up as they go along, whether it be Buffy (year by year) or The X-Files (which had an ongoing narrative with no real ending). And having watched both JJ Abram's pilot episode and the finale in the last few days, you can see how much was planned right from the start, whether it be the debate over fate versus free will, the character's journeys or the representations of good and evil...it's all there waiting to be paid off.

I also like a show that you have to invest in. Something you have to work at. Where the answers are suggested and implied, rather than blurted out in over-long, exposition monologues. Also, there's just enough information provided to deduce what's going on, rather than a weak, techno-babble explanation of how the smoke monster travels or what the Island's power source is. Like the themes of the series, you, the viewer, didn't need to know certain answers...you just had to have faith in the little information that you had gleened about the Island was true. An like the characters, you could stick to your belief...or question it, as most of them did at one point or another.

The series final episode was typical of what had transpired before, being a perfect balance of character and plot, with both converging perfectly for its powerful, final moments. While I have a prefered theory as to what 'really' happened during Lost, I've seen a couple of other ideas that make sense to me too. Knowing how much Americans hated The Soprano's ending, I'm sure the Lost conclusion is going to go down like a shit sandwich. But the answers I need are all there, if you're willing to look close enough. And every time I look, I see more and more answers.

Some viewers may feel cheated by this ambiguous finale, but that's what art is supposed to do. You don't go into an art gallery to view a sculpture or painting, then complain that there's not an explanation on the wall next to it. You have to work it out for yourself. And if you're willing to put the effort in to following an unusual, complex, multi-layered story over 115 episodes AND spent the energy on working out, not only what's going on, but what it all means as well, then you're in for a rare treat. This is where television comes into it's own as an art form; no longer a knock off of the theatre or cinema; it can spent an extended duration to tell an epic tale with a beginning, middle and an end. And because the story and characters have had many years to build momentum and add depth, it makes the resolution all the more powerful when it finally arrives. Because of that, more so than the other two finale reviews I've written today, Lost will leave a massive hole. The tragedy is that series like lost come along at the rate of once a decade. Let's hope that pace never slips, but picks up instead.

24: Everything That Has A Beginning, Has An End - Part 3

It might have got a bit formulaic over the years (seasons 5 and 6, I'm talking to you) but Kiefer Sutherland's real time thriller series was compelling viewing right to the end. Making a serious, high tech anti-terrorism series was a masterstroke...after all no one else was doing Tom Clancy-style stuff on the small screen. And then they cast Kiefer as Jack Bauer; a bloke who was willing to do absolutely anything in order to prevent terrorist from achieving their goal. Whether than meant law breaking, physical harm or putting his loved ones in harms way, those terrorists never stood a chance.

The real time dynamic of the show, along with the multiple, inter-linked character stories ensured that 24 was always charging ahead at maximum speed for each and every episode. And of course there was always a nifty cliffhanger at the end of each show (God bless the terrorists for planning their devious escapades on the end of each hour) to ensure tuning in for next weeks instalment was a necessity.

After receiving much criticism (provoked by the Guantanamo scandal) for it's lead character's right-wing relish in torturing terror suspects, the series took a more introspective approach, questioning how much your willing to sacrifice your morality in exchange for saving lives and "the greater good" (something explored in The Dark Knight and Watchmen).

As the series progresses it soon became apparent that the formulaic nature of the show couldn't be escaped from. While this became a drag for a couple of years, the writers caught on and used the familiar plotting to their advantage, making it a signature of the show...something to look forward to...rather than a limitation. So, in saying goodbye to poor old Jack, here are a few of those story beats that will be sorely missed (although I wonder how many will actually make it into the proposed movie version...)

1/ Big, bad foreign terrorists have an elaborate plot which is set up in several stages, so that as each one is foiled, a bigger threat is revealed, that will endanger more and more people.

2/ Jack Bauer, in later seasons, will no longer work for CTU... but will be forced back into action, due to whatever threat. Jack wants a normal family life, which he'll never have.

3/ Bauer goes 'underground' and disassociates himself from CTU, so that he can carry on with his mission (once, even going so far as to fake his own death!)

4/ There will always be a mole working in C.T.U (Counter Terrorist Unit). A plan will be conjured up to snare the traitor, they'll be interrogated and a Presidential pardon will be required to secure vital information.

5/ If a character has broken protocol, or been wrongly accused, no matter what they've done, they will be allowed to work at, or with, CTU for the rest of the day, until the crisis is over, because their expertise is needed.

6/ U.S Presidents will make tough moral choice for the greater good of the nation. Their Presidential term has two outcomes; either be good and die or be corrupted and be caught by Jack (or die!). The President will always be in the same city as where Jack and the terrorist are (usually L.A.)

7/ All the women Jack has a romantic relationship with will die. Horribly. It may happen during one season, but they'll never last more than two. Tops.

8/ If an actor has made an impact in a previous season (and they survived that season), they'll inevitably turn up mid-season one or two years down the line. Apart from Kiefer, no other actor has appeared as a regular in all 8 seasons. Only four other characters have survived from their introduction to the series finale. That means if you get called back for another season of 24, there's a damned big chance you're going to die. Horribly.

9/ Someone will be relieved of duty, or at least forced to take second place, by someone higher up (usually as the head of CTU, or the person in charge of field ops.)

10/ Someone will be seriously injured (usually a traitor or terrorist), and has vital information, which they may or may not give up before they die or slip off into a coma, etc.

11/ No one is seen to eat, drink, sleep, go to the toilet, re-charge their phone, top up with fuel...or even mention they've been up for the last 36 hours, non stop. CTU doesn't seem to have a shift rota to cover the long hours (perhaps because no crisis lasts longer than 24 hours?)

Not the most character based series in the world, but still one of the most addictive I've ever seen. Still, they managed to leave Mr Bauer in a place that's entirely fitting for the series. Not very happy. Which makes me happy! Bye Jack.

Prince Of Persia: How To Make A Summer Blockbuster 101

If there were a modern default setting for a summer blockbuster, Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time might very well be it. so if you're a producer looking to create the next studio tentpole, here are a few hints and tips to guide you:-

1/ In this scenario a script is needed, but you don't have to worry about putting too much work into drafting poetic dialogue, original action beats or a tightly plotted narrative.

2/ Your first choice of director is an ex-commercials guy with a history of trashy, glossy action fare. If Tony Scott and Michael Bay are unavailable employ anybody with a non-decrepit visual style who also has a familiarity with big effects movies (like an ex-Harry Potter director).

3/ Since effects sell movies these days, not star actors, cast two young, beautiful people in your male and female leads. It doesn't matter if he lacks a magnetic personality, as long as he's not Sam Worthington (that's if the studio hasn't already bullied you into casting Worthington). As for her, you're looking for a spectacular beauty. If she's got spirit and has a radiant personality...you might have overdone it for our desired default setting blockbuster. Back up your young babies with talented character actors (Brits like Kingsley and Molina are to be recommended) to play baddies, people in authority, father figures and sidekicks.

4/ Now all you have to do is over-do it. Forget the saying "less is more". Therefore construct huge intricate sets that can't be distinguished from one another and hire a barely adequate effects company to stuff your film with three time the amount of CGI that's actually required to tell your story.

5/ You also don't need to fret about originality either. By copying the slow-mo action shots that are all the rage, and by editing your close-quarters combat scenes with the zeal of a victim of full body tourettes, you should be able to make your action stuff indistinguishable from any superhero/fantasy blockbuster opening withing 2 weeks of your movie.

6/ Ensure that coloured gels are placed on the camera at every opportunity...natural lighting is for the old and square. Your music score will need no personalty or recognizable theme if your film is to fit in. You're also afforded an opportunity to place a song over the end credits, but you should make sure that in these modern times, it isn't good enough to chart successfully.

That should do it. You should be able to pick up around $130-$170 at the domestic box office and around $400 worldwide, despite the guaranteed luke warm reviews.
Pat on back. Job well done.

The 'Spot The Merry Man' Competition

Let's face it, director Ridley Scott hasn't made a 'great' film since Black Hawk Down. And while ol' Ridders isn't capable of making a 'bad' movie, his output since then hasn't been stellar. Kingdom Of Heaven, A Good Year, Body Of Lies and (I don't care what you say) American Gangster all failed to hit the heights of Scott classics Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Blade Runner and Alien. His recent films all take themselves a little too seriously and feature scripts that are a little too unengaging and rambling. Robin Hood marks Scott's fifth collaboration with Russell Crowe with the pair of them making a return to the epic swordplay that defined their biggest hit, Gladiator, a decade ago. Unfortunately, Scott can't quite shake his poor form, leaving a movie that, while his best work since 2002, has a few major problems which drag the production down.

First, the bad news.

1/ The plot is nothing original. It basically ignores the bulk of the traditional Robin Hood legend (Robin vs The Sheriff Of Nottingham, Robin vs Little John with quarterstaff's, the outlaw who robs from the rich to give to the poor) and replaces it with a prequel story that predates the legend, opting for a narrative that encompasses English politics and a French invasion plot. Now, it must be noted that this shift away from the traditional Robin Hood story has been described as pointless and ill advised. What's the point in doing a Robin Hood story if you're not going to tell the story of Robin Hood? Well, frankly, I don't care. The story told here isn't a million miles away from the legend we're all familiar with and I applaud the film-makers for trying to do something a bit different.

What really concerns me is whether the new story is worth telling. And the answer? Only just. What you get is a stripped down retelling of the hero myth. You know the one... Man goes on a quest, resolves his father issues and discovers his true worth, becomes a leader of men, defeats the villain and becomes a legend in the process.
So in an attempt to bring us a new take on Robin Hood, Scott gives a story that's even older AND more familiar.

2/ The films other major flaw is the acting.
First off, Russell Crowe under performs to such a degree, it's almost like he's not even trying. His Robin is supposed to be a bit of a rogue, but we can see he's a do-gooder really. He's a mostly charismaless, quiet and charmless soul that often seems to be quite an odd character to be leading men in a campaign to defend England. However, Russell Crowe not trying is 100 times better than Orlando Bloom attempting to emote in Kingdom Of Heaven. Crowe has more raw screen presence than Bloom could summon if he'd received a million years of Shakespearean training.

Blanchett is fine, but oddly for actors of her and Crowe's calibre, there's no chemistry between the two. There love story starts out with them at loggerheads...but there's nothing in their subsequent performances that convinces that they could later fall for each other. Mark Strong is as predictably ruthless as you'd expect from the baddie in Kick Ass, Danny Huston is barking as King Richard, Matthew MacFadyen utterly ineffectual as the Sheriff, leaving Max Von Sydow to steal the show as Sir Walter Loxley. Everbody else just turns up...and then goes home again.

The other acting issue is the accents. Rather than go with the obligatory plummy English accent, which is the norm in period pieces, Scott elects to have his actors perform with regional accents. The problem for the non-British cast is that exactly which region is unclear. Crowe's probably aiming for a Nottinghamshire accent but there's a Celtic twang that seems to slip in and out placing it more Irish/Scottish.
What with Crowe's subdued, gruff delivery it's distracting and unnecessary.

On the plus side:-

As expected, the film is technically pitch perfect. There's few directors on the planet that can photograph as beautifully as Scott. The visuals are far more subtle than anything found in Gladiator and are rich, textured and immersive. Helping this are the epic production designed landscapes of the English countryside. Shots of hundreds of horsemen galloping past the giant pagan white horse symbols embedded into the rolling hill's of the southern counties makes you feel proud to be English. Indeed it's refreshing to have a movie where CGI takes a backseat (the effects are practically invisible) and the castle sieges and beach invasions are done for real.
Marc Streitenfeld actually remembers that it's not enough to simply mimic the style of fellow composer Hans Zimmer, and delivers a score that's both memorable and haunting.

The action, while not groundbreaking as it was in Gladiator, is fast, frenetic and exciting with the attack on Nottingham being a particular stand out sequence. Like Centurion earlier in the year, Robin Hood has a strong sense of time and place, putting the viewer slap-bang into the middle of 12th century society. The film also benefits from the constant threat of invasion by the French, meaning that no matter how often characters get together for a heated chat, trouble in never far from our minds.

Not a great Ridley Scott movie then...one that is flawed both in inception and execution...but it's one that can't be dismissed either. It's much, much better than Kingdom Of Heaven and even if the story doesn't blow you away, there plenty of other stuff to distract you. Or look at it this way; if Sam Worthington can keep you engaged for 2.5 hours running around a blue forest...you'd better believe the superior Russell Crowe can keep you interested running around a green one.

PS. If you want to experience the definitive version of the Robin Hood legend, I'd enthusiastically recommend the 1980's TV series Robin Of Sherwood. Still the best by a mile.

Iron Man - Episode II - Attack Of The Hammeroids

Could do better.

It's a shame that's the way this Iron Man 2 review has to start, but it defines the whole movie for me. Perhaps because this sequel to 2008's original is made by pretty much the same team, and therefore generates a similar expectation of quality, makes it all the more disappointing. But it's not a bad film, in fact it's pretty enjoyable...but it just misses the mark in that 'Last Crusade' kind of way.

It being from the same team of director Jon Favreau and star Robert Downey Jnr there is, of course, much to recommend. The film wisely follows directly off from the first movie exploring the effect of Tony's arc reactor on his own health, the effect Iron Man in the big-wide-world has on the arms industry, potential employers, and his relationships (with close friend Rhodey and potential love interest, Pepper Potts). The problem lies with a script that isn't streamlined enough to juggle a rival industrialist (the always brilliant Sam Rockwell), a vengeful genius (an under written and under used Mickey Rourke), a potentially lethal health scare as well as a head hunting defence department (SHIELD). And Favreau hasn't had time to develop a more cinematic solution to the repetitive, talkie scenes that bog down the middle of the movie. With these many interweaving stories, the pace should be breakneck, but the film just idles along until the finale kicks the sequel into gear. It's not that individual scenes are dull; they're not. But I don't think that every scene is necessary and some scenes could have been handled with a bit more flair and imagination.

Which is also a major issue. Iron Man 2 just isn't as much fun as it's predecessor. Just like Chamber of Secrets was charmless compared with The Philosopher's Stone, this movie doesn't have the energy of the first film. Maybe it's because the concept and the look of the film are already know to us...the surprise is ruined. Maybe it's because Tony Stark has a lot more weightier issues on his plate this time, demanding a more sober tone. Maybe it the slightly more grown up cinematography (that reminds one of the change between the gloss of X-Men and the more subtle X2). Or maybe that sense of wonder at Tony and his wonder-tech is taken for granted...just like Tony has taken his new found popularity for granted. Either way, it's that sense of wonder that's mostly missing. Only in a few scenes, such as Tony discovering a way to make a new, life sustaining, atomic element that the film rediscovers what it can achieve...both in story terms and cinematically. Indeed, the whole subplot of Tony resolving his unresolved father issues to solve this problem prove to be amongst the most satisfying.

Other gripes include the pared down fission between Paltrow and Downey; flirting opportunities limited in the sequel as she's been promoted (but they're still enormous fun when sharing a scene). Don Cheedle doesn't make an impact as military buddy Rhodey...but again, that may be due to that character having less onscreen 'funtime' with Stark, and having to stand up to him more than Terrance Howard ever had to do. I also tend to think the first part of the airborne finale lacks quality control...not only in some obvious effects work but in the editing that's a little too fast cut (that thankfully settles down once they're on the ground). Finally there's John Debney's score (that replaces Ramin Djawadi's cool original) which is blander than water flavored soup.

But it's not all bad. The basic plot, while mishandled, is pretty good. Downey is as magnetic as ever and delivers the film's best lines (like refering to rival Justin Hammer's combative robots as Hammeroids). The Monaco sequence, a half hour in, demonstrates what this franchise does best. Spills, thrills, original action, great character based humour, flawless effects, a cocky yet vulnerable hero... and the stunning possibility that Iron Man may get his arse kicked. Samuel L Jackson returns (from the post end title sequence in the first Iron Man movie) as Director of SHIELD, Nick Fury and does a fantastic job of squaring up to Downey Jnr. Indeed, the inclusion of Jackson allows Iron Man 2 to set up upcoming Marvel movies like Thor (be patient and you'll see the set up), Captain America and The Avengers, the team of which Nick Fury is actively recruiting for here. These inside references to the larger Mavel Universe are fun to spot and helps give depth to the world Tony Stark & company inhabit. Best of all is the inclusion of Scarlett Johansson as SHIELD agent Natasha Romanoff (aka, Black Widow). Not only are the scenes of her kicking butt among the movie's best, but she steals every scene she's in. Not by acting Downey or Jackson off the screen, but because Favreau treats her as an all powerful, honest to God, silver screen Goddess. I mean, those lips and that movie star hair and that bum in that dress and that body in that catsuit...the director exploits his actresses assets with a near unrivaled effectiveness. Phewee!

So know this. While Iron Man 2 isn't as good as it could be, it's can in no way be described as shit. In fact, if you have the ability to blank out a movie's flaws, some moments in the sequel may just scorch your eyeballs and blow your brains out the back of your skull. And you can't say that about The Incredible Hulk or Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Tony Stark Knocks It Out The Park

When making their action blockbusters (which are made up, increasingly it seems, of super-hero movies) studios are getting more and more cautious. Since these huge summer tent pole movies cost (usually) well over $100 million apiece, it's no wonder that studio execs want to play it safe and deliver the broadest appealing movie they possibly can. This often means hiring hack directors that can make broadly commercial films in their sleep (just look at the workmanlike quality of Brett Ratner's X-Men 3) or by hiring acclaimed directors that can be bullied and micro-managed into making the one-size-fits-all film that's required (like the cesspool that is Gavin Hood's Wolverine). Occasionally a Christopher Nolan or Bryan Singer can successfully transfer their vision onto the big screen...but more and more often that's not the case.

After Sam Raimi's Spider-man was released, rival studios recognised Sony had produced the perfect summer event movie; action packed, funny, relatable ...with just enough originality to provide a unique experience without becoming a commercial risk. Director Raimi had suppressed the quirkier aspects of his film-making, yet retained his confidence in storytelling. Since then, not until 2008's Iron Man, no one had really succeeded in capturing that broad, family blockbuster; the results either being too dark (Batman Begins), too serious (Hulk), too weird (Hellboy) or just too plain predictable (Fantastic Four). With the hiring of Elf/Zathura director Jon Favereau, that elusive mainstream, break-out hit film was created...and it's great.

As a super-hero origin movie Iron Man follows familiar terrain with the basic three act structure of set-up, exploring/developing the super powers and finally, fighting the big bad. Despite the familiarity, the script is very tight, gets off to a topical and explosive start in Afghanistan, is delicately balanced with emotional dramatic beats, thrilling action sequences, a villain that's cleverly woven into the heroes back story and some well timed gags. The film has a pleasing high-tech sheen and has a tone that is neither too dark, too juvenile nor too dramatically light weight. ILM's effects are uncluttered, and look all the better for it, while the score echoes the production itself; utterly commercial, but distinctive enough with it's themes and style (electric guitars in scores are generally corny, but not here).

What elevates this from being good to great is the casting...specifically that of Robert Downey Jnr in the lead as billionaire industrialist Tony Stark. Like Johnny Depp in the Pirates movies, Downey brings to Iron Man not only the confidence, charisma and swagger needed...but also the baggage and humility of a man who can be his own worst enemy. Downey's been there and done that...so he's able to channel that into his portayal of the conflicted hero. He's funny too, especially when interacting with Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts in some inspired improv.

Despite not having the biggest budget in the world, Iron Man has some thrilling set pieces...notably Tony's return to the Middle East and his subsequent encounter with a couple of US fighter Jets. With any other actor this could have been simply 'stuff' happening onscreen (Michael Bay...I'm talking to you), but thanks to Downey, the action sequence has great character driven humour, dramatic tension and a lead you want to succeed. Sounds simple. Looks simple. But it took years to get to this. Despite being a lesser Marvel character, it's no wonder people went in droves to see it.