Ant Reviews: Iron Man 3 (2013)

-->

While the previous two Iron Man films were great money-makers, and the first in the series having reinvigorated and redefined the superhero film genre, the decision to replace Jon Favreau with Shane Black (at Robert Downey Jnr’s suggestion) was the best decision made for the franchise. Iron Man 3 stands as the freshest, funniest and most interesting Iron Man, and Marvel film, made thus far.

Shane Black worked with RDJ on a film called Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) at a time when RDJ was still considered a risk to hire. The modern-day noir was very well written, had a lot of spark and great performances, and was something of a minor classic (at least for me). It set the tone for RDJ’s return to form, and his performances in all subsequent films, that is to say the use of the lovable, charming arsehole. While it may work for some characters (Tony Stark) it doesn’t work that well for others (Sherlock Holmes) but never the less KKBB is where it all began, and is the best example of this RDJ character in use.

With Drew Pearce as co-screenwriter, Black brings back some of that charm to RDJ’s Tony Stark, and contains some of the most successful dialogue moments the character has ever utilized in any film appearance. It’s good to watch this film with a good crowd as it only enhances the experience, and the jokes really work. The jokes aren’t that obvious and that’s a great thing for a film for kids involving kids. The film contains the most surprising and cringe-inducing opening song I’ve heard in a film (you’ll know what I mean), which was a great experience to sit through.

It is a fine choice to show the effects the Avengers film had on Tony Stark’s psyche, and the effects and interesting and convincing. One of the major problems I had with Iron Man 2 is that even after all of the character development of Stark in the first film Stark was still arrogant as hell. This film dials that down significantly, where he is a bit more subdued but not out-of-character, showing more progression than previously. The focus on Stark being a mechanic and a tinkerer helped in making him more like an individual and not just a flashier Bruce Wayne as well.

Guy Pearce is great as Aldrich, a sinister former employer of Pepper, played by Paltrow, who’s as solid as Rebecca Hall and Don Cheadle, who is now known as Iron Patriot. If there is one major complaint about the film is that these characters are sidelined for most of the film, and their appearances are almost an afterthought. The great Stark stuff is more than worth it, but I wish Iron Patriot got more of a better run. Ben Kinglsey is a revelation as the villain Mandarin, one of the most memorable villains of all of the Marvel Films. William Sadler is an odd choice to play a president, as he usually plays villains. This leads to some of the interesting political content the film contains.

The film seems to contain some kind of Bush-era criticism, which while still relevant to an extent seems a little out of place. Pearce’s character makes mention of Sadler’s president pulling strings for rich industrialist friends; a criticism levelled at W. Bush. In addition to this fact that Sadler looks a bit like Bush adds to this comparison.

 

Cheadle’s War Machine is re-branded Iron Patriot. War Machine makes no appearance in the film, despite what the merchandise will tell you. At one point in the film Iron Patriot has been tasked with hunting down Kinglsey’s Mandarin in Pakistan. The film presents an image of a living weapon, coloured like an American flag, kicking in doors and aiming space-age weapons at Muslims. The obvious Bin Laden comparisons to Mandarin aside, and you find yourself with a 2013 film that has themes and images that seem to reflect a pre-death-of-Bin-Laden War on Terror film, only with less criticism that films from that era would provide. Even the comic book The Ultimates (by Mark Millar) questioned the use of Captain America in Iraq, a living WMD wrapped in an American Flag. The invading ‘knight in shining (American) armour’ idea is presented with very little irony, which is a shame.

I find it interesting that Iron Patriot occupies such a role in this film. The image of a Captain America-esque Iron Man came about from someone tinkering with a Marvel Civil War cover of Iron Man holding Cap’s shield. This inspired the villain Iron Patriot, which was worn by Norman Osbourne, a Spider-man villain. The role suits Rhodey and like the design in the film, I just wish there was a bit more of it in the film.

So an interesting film, well made, even if some of the themes seem out of place or a little dated in a contemporary mindset. The supporting cast get little to play with (comparatively) but the overall experience is satisfying and all make great use of their time. It also contains the greatest third act of the franchise (I love all the extra armours!). And if you’re wondering why this film takes place at Christmas: Black wrote Long Kiss Goodnight, The Last Boyscout, Lethal Weapon and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, all of which take place at Christmas. It’s his thing.

****stars

Ant Reviews: Taken 2

I’ll admit that when I was much younger I watched the Australian episode of the Simpsons and was offended at the portrayal. I don’t feel that way anymore of course, and upon reflection and reviewing as an adult it’s hard to find something offensive in a portrayal that absurd. But it made me think about what people outside my country thought of my country, and how outsiders would choose to present it. Thoughts like this bring to mind the film Man on Fire (2004), which portrayed Mexico City as a violent, kidnap-filled wasteland, but put a dedication before the credits proclaiming how nice the city was. 

So it was interesting to see Taken 2 with my mate Cemil, who was a regular visitor to the city of Istanbul, in which most of Taken 2 is set. I was wondering how badly Istanbul would be portrayed and how violent and lawless it would be. The plot concerns Bryan (Liam Neeson) and his ex-wife (Famke Janssen, who still looks great) getting kidnapped while on holiday in Istanbul and relying on Kim (Maggie Grace) to rescue them. So, is Istanbul portrayed as a violent cesspit of sleaze?

Taken 2’s portrayal turned out alright, from what I’ve learned from Cemil. Istanbul is a beautiful city, and the landscape shots are nice. The cop cars, however, are anachronistic, and there isn’t as many Mercedes benz cars in Istanbul as the film suggests. There’s also one scene which visually suggests that Albania and Turkey share a border. But it is nice to have someone who can tell you what part of Istanbul they’re in according to what grand mosque is shown in an establishing shot. 

But it’s only in those sweeping establishing shots that the movie looks good. The rest of the cinematography is shaky and indirect, and a visual sense of geography is difficult to obtain. Halls all look the same, each street and bazaar looks like the last. One scene which has Maggie Grace climbing outside her luxury hotel room only offers us a few fleeting shots of the beautiful view. 

The actions scenes fare worse. One Neeson-vs.-three guys fight is so choppy and shaky it ends up as a jumpy collection of shoulders and elbows, with little to no sense of choreography and no indication as to which thug he’s killing and how. I suspect it has something to do with the toned down violence of the film, and perhaps it looks this bad because frames of violence were removed.

That marks the second problem I have with the film. The first film became a cult classic (despite its very obvious flaws in the first act) because of the speed and brutality of the violence and the extremes to which a lanky 60yrold Irishman will go to get his daughter back. This film didn’t share that brutality, which is a shame because, as the rule is with sequels, the things that people loved about the first film are recreated and exaggerated. It was great how Neeson dispatched enemies, and as action movie fan it was great to see a character that ruthless. One scene (referenced in this movie) had him brutally torture a baddie with electrocution, cutting off the typical “you won’t win” lines of dialogue by switching on the voltage. It’s that kind of genre defying that earned the first film so many fans and the sequel feels as if they’ve been neutered to appeal to a wider audience. 

But enough about what I didn’t like, what about what worked? For the one thing the film doesn’t share the kind of misogyny that the first film did. Kim is portrayed as resourceful and brave, despite still being very much a civilian. The ex-wife isn’t portrayed as naive or as stupid as she is in the first one, as well. There still is a bit of that element where Neeson is still determined to keep his daughter a virgin, but the film gives it a bit of context by having her still be a recovering victim from the events of the first film, so a bit of that is forgivable. 

The film is also smarter. There is a scene involving a shoelace and a hand grenade, and Neeson’s very clever way of establishing his position and making contact with Kim despite being blindfolded. There’s some great gunplay and martial arts on display, when visible (Neeson knows his way around a gun and is a very skilled fighter) and there is some very cool counter intelligence/counter kidnapping stuff here, which elevates the film more than I thought it would. 

The villains are the anguished relatives of Albanian white slavers that Neeson fantastically murdered in the first film. There is some good work with Rade Serbedzija as the father of the electrocution victim. You kind of feel for him, and as an action thriller it was interesting to have someone feel sad about the death of a horrible henchman. There was some stuff that I wish they put some more depth into, regarding who Serbedzija is. Neeson informs him that his son was a slaver, who kidnapped girls and turned them into prostitutes, and Serbedzija replies that he doesn’t care (for a scene like this done better, see The Losers (2010)). I wish they teased more emotion out of that scene, as it would have added a lot of depth. Ultimately he wasn’t as interesting as suggested, and is as ruthless a villain as you’d expect in a movie like this. Despite this the film gets points for trying to make him a sympathetic character.

So the film was better than I thought in some respects, lacking in others. I think the DVD contain a lot more violence in it, and again like other films this year I’m annoyed, frustrated and weary that I paid to watch an incomplete cut of a movie in a cinema. The city turned out ok, but I think Cemil and I wished it looked better and we could see things a bit more clearly. The final word on it is that it’s better than most films but still not as good as the original.

***stars.

Ant Reviews: Expendables 2

There was a moment that struck me as odd in Expendables 2: Chuck Norris’ character Booker is introduced by Bam-Bam (Sylvester Stallone) to his team: Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), Gunner (Dolph Lundgren), Toll Road (Randy Couture) and Maggie (Nan Yu). It struck me as odd because I didn’t know what Randy Couture’s character was called, and it surprised me that they all had character names. It spoke to the relationship that Expendables 2 has with its cast and its audience. Almost like in Oceans Twelve where Julia Roberts plays a woman who looks like Julia Roberts and impersonates Julia Roberts; we know we’re watching stars, not characters, and in Expendables the conventional elements of plot and character mean very little overall. We’re not here to see what happens to the team and who they rescue or defeat, we’re here to see the biggest stars of our youth clash on screen for our enjoyment, and that’s that. 

I’ve heard Stallone’s second coming described something like this: no big star from the past has ever honoured his fans the way that he has. They wanted another Rambo, they got another Rambo. Another Rocky? Done. An assemblage of all the biggest actions stars in one film all rolled into one? Delivered. It’s that element alone that makes this film something special to me, that this and the first film were some kind of fulfilled promise made to his fans, and there’s something I respect in that.

It must be said: in order to properly judge this film one must eschew all upper levels of intellectualism, and to a certain extent, femininity, from one’s analysis. This film is made for men of a certain age, to engage and excite the more primal instincts one might contain. On this level the film satisfies. 

So instead of analysing more of the complex performance or story nuances, we should instead focus on the action/violence content the film offers. In saying this, the film’s 2^nd act is the weakest, the first delivering the amazing custom war machine rescue and the third act of course featuring the amazing airport finale. The 2^nd act is too Liam Hemsworth-heavy, full of emotional monologues regarding his distant French love and the horrors of war. As schmaltzy as this is, when one considers that this is a classic action movie trope of setting up a character to kill, a rookie with a future, so that the old vets have a vendetta against their enemy.

I was thinking about the elements of an 80s action movie, and in considering the accepted shittiness of the film’s quality the trope regarding the kid fits, as does the general lack of women and sex. Another old-fashioned move I’ve watched recently, Resident Evil: Redemption 3D, was clearly, like UnderworldAwakening 3D, a movie that was ten years out of date. The thing about movies that were made for me when I was a teen in the early Noughties was that they didn’t shy away from the fact that teen boys liked hot women. That’s one thing Redemption got right: Sienna Guillory and Milla Jovovich running around in sexy, albeit silly, outfits. 

Expendables 2 has Nan Yu, who, while attractive and is the object of affection to both Stallone and Lundgren in the film, isn’t overtly sexualised, nor does she actively pursue a sexual relationship with any of the characters. This is very 80s in that the films had an underlying feeling of homosexuality in proceedings; mainly oiled, muscled men, with the women nowhere to be seen. In this film, Stallone chastises Statham for being too loved up with his cheating girlfriend (Charisma Carpenter) and Hemsworth’s girlfriend is distant and unseen until prior to the credits. In this film it’s all a guy’s world, men doing manly things, no chicks aloud, in a sense. It’s interesting to note the difference between what we liked as kids (80s-90s action movies) and what we liked as teens (00s garbage) comes down to the sexualisation of women. I dare say that as a little boy you not interested in girls, yet as an teen they’re all you think about, and there’s a generation out there who’s actions movies reflected this change to an extent. 

The final sequence of the film, the airport shootout, is pure childhood wish fulfilment, with all the big players swinging fists and slinging lead. As fun as it all was however there was this sense of holding back. It should be over an hour long, everything should have been at least 3 times bigger and better. This is a big movie, meant to be the biggest ever, though at times you get that sense that, quality-wise, it’s only a hair away from being a straight-to-DVD movie. Part of that comes from it being largely filmed in Bulgaria, the new Canada in terms of cheap production values. By that I mean a lot of American shows are filmed in Canada; a lot of straight-to-DVD movies are filmed in Bulgaria. There must be some kind of rebate the country offers, as I know a lot of Steven Segal movies are filmed there, as I’m sure a lot of Van Damme movies are*. I suppose its suiting; as a final resting place for old actions stars, Bulgaria should host the film that brings all of them together.

I admit that I had a good time watching it, and that had something to do with my company, who laughed at all the right places and made the experience fun. I found in all this nostalgic fun a moment of melancholic reflection; Bruce Willis offers Stallone a beat up old plane. “That thing belongs in a museum” Stallone says, to which Schwarzenegger adds “we all do”, before they all smile and disembark. It was a nice moment, an acknowledgment of times past, of growing up and moving on. It’s a mature moment, one that said to me that the guys we looked up to as kids are now old men, as are we who worshiped them. It’s this scene that allows me to forgive Expendables 2’s more glaring faults. It also makes me want to give the film a big smile and a ‘thank you’ for keeping that childhood promise that was too crazy to expect.

***stars

*I had watched a bit of a movie called Day of the Dead, a remake of the 80s Romero classic. I thought it was filmed in middle America, where it’s set, or at least in Canada, where, in Smallville they made rural Canada look like Kansas. Nope, the whole thing was filmed in Bulgaria.

Ant Reviews: Men In Black 3 (2012)

Old and busted. The new hotness.

I had a theory that if I went back in time about ten years and spoke to myself, what would I ask myself about the future of popular culture? “What kind of movies are people watching, what kind of games are they playing?” And I’d tell him “It’s all different. People are watching a brand new Spider-man film, and people are playing Diablo and Max Payne on their computers.” “Oh” my younger self will reply. Such is the nature of remakes and sequels, nothing really new is achieved, nothing truly original.

Without getting into a discussion of inter-textuality and how all texts are somehow related to one another on some level, I’ll just go ahead and talk about this week’s sequel Men In Black 3. In this Will Smith’s J goes back in time to save K’s (Tommy Lee Jone’s) younger version (Josh Brolin) from some kind of Scout/Hitman/Biker Boris the Animal (Germaine Clement).There's also Emma Thompson playing O, with the very lovely Alice Eve playing the younger version.

My first reactions to hearing about their making of this movie were pretty grim. Every film franchise, it turns out, needs a 60s Mad Men style version. At least with X-Men First Class they actually had a Mad Men cast member. It’s a sign of the times, of the tastes; after all, there was a period where every film franchise needed a Hong Kong action version, like Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) with Jet Li and Tomorrow Never Dies (2000) with Michelle Yeoh. I’d count the disastrous The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008), though that came out after the craze had passed, though it does feature Jet Li, but I digress.

So we get a Mad Men in Black, complete with sharp suits and slick hair. While the greatest triumph of the film is its design (more on that later). But the one thing I was most concerned about in my viewing of this film is the performances. I love Josh Brolin, and he was as incredible as I thought he’d be, his impersonation of Jones was perfect. Will Smith was inconsistent, and it was interesting to watch him on screen after his sabbatical. He still has fans, and while his charm is significantly lesser than in the first film of the franchise, in my theater at least he still had fans and could still raise a laugh. It’s all in the eyes, you see. You can see that, with the exception, Brolin perhaps, not everyone in this film really wants to be here. There was those old scenes from the other MIB movies, where they use the neuralizer on the public and Will makes up a funny story to cover it. They do these here, but they really lack the fun of the older movies.

But while Smith at least tries, Jones is really flat. It’s one of those situations where I’d like to know what the mood on the set actually is, where that story would interest me more than the actual film itself. I remember once, and I can’t remember if it was for the first MIB or the second, but the puppeteer that performed those alien Worm characters was saying on Entertainment Tonight that he managed to make Jones laugh, and that this was some kind of achievement. I don’t know if this was some kind of comment regarding the tough-guy mystique that Jones had created for himself, or that he was miserable to be around on set. I’m starting to think the latter.

But it’s an alarming trend I’ve been seeing where the big stars just don’t try all that hard anymore. I know for a fact that Bruce Willis certainly doesn’t give it his all anymore, as evidenced by all his films of the past five or six years. Add to that the people that worked with him on Kevin Smith’s Cop Out, who all say he was awful to work with. I think I first noticed this kind of thing in when I watched that Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, with Brendan Fraiser. He didn’t want to be there, and it showed, and if he didn’t care then I didn’t care and the whole experience is just depressing and a waste of time. Its selfish on their part, actually.

But that’s not to say that this film is careless. The design is incredible. I love how the aliens in the past are all 1950s/60s sci fi movie style, like old fashioned Star Trek monsters, as opposed to the new monsters of today. And I love the 1960s MIB tech, the guns are all old fashioned, the neuralizer is either hand pumped or an actual large machine one has to lie in, and of course I love the single seater blade motorbikes, that looked great.

Something that made me think was a little odd was the treatment of race in this film, something that’s been addressed before with other reviewers. One review made mention of the fact that Wil Smith isn’t picked up on for being black in the 60s; that’s erroneous, many moments draw attention to it. And while it’s still very safely handled, at least they don’t ignore the fact that for most of the 20^th century white men ruled. I’m not saying that’s a good thing, but it’s not like Captain America: The First Avenger where everyone accepts the Asian guy, the black guy, and they accept taking orders from a woman, and the only person they abuse is the scrawny white dude. No, that was a period of time when if you weren’t a white man, you were an oppressed minority, and that’s just how it was back then.There was also an incident when Brolin's K gets asked by his boss X whether a particular incident involved human casualties, suggesting he could care less about the aliens. This was a nice touch but never addressed again.

One thing I did take issue with was the Chinese restaurant scene, where J and K shoot up the place after looking through the kitchen to find gross live animals being cut up and served to guests. I suppose that’s the downside of using non-white characters in this way; too many people will see it as racist. I think the reason for the scene was expose those urban myths about the awful food practices of Chinese restaurants while making it gross and alien like the series normally does. But you can’t help but find it a little racist when a southern man grabs and Chinese chef and caves his skull in with an iron skillet, and only once the guy’s dead do we realize he had antennae and was an alien.

Overall it was a fun movie, and I had a much better time than I thought I would. For an incredibly paint-by-numbers film there were still very inventive set pieces and moments. The thing that stops this from being a great movie instead of just being an ok movie is that all important enthusiasm. We all know that you’re just doing this for the money, but still, make us think that you care and we’ll care with you. But as a popcorn movie, its worth having a look. 

PS, i really just want a Brolin MIB movie, which i hope they do. 

***stars

Ant Reviews: This Means War (2012)

I love you Tom Hardy

Left with nothing to do but pass some time, I decided to watch a movie just to keep my current releases up to date. Do I watch Contraband? I already know that Mark Wahlberg will steal the money for Giovanni Ribisi, who’ll probably double cross them and he’ll have to rescue them and whatever. Safehouse? I already know that Brendan Gleeson is the villain from the trailer, like the twist is the bad guy is the bureaucrat that Ryan Reynolds is working for. The Killer Elite? A little  better, but the closest session was too far away. I will have to say that I seriously considered watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy again for the third time. Perhaps I should have.

My last choice was then This Means War. It contains two of my favourite leading men, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy. Reese Witherspoon doesn’t particularly impress me, I hadn’t seen a whole movie with her in it since Cruel Intentions, though I did watch a few minutes of Sweet Home Alabama. I don’t find her alluring or sexy, she’s a good looking woman to be sure, and a competent actress, but personally I loose my mind over her like the two characters do in the film.

I suppose that’s strike one against credibility in the film. The plot is simple: two spies end up dating the same woman, and compete to see who it is that gets her in the end. And there we have strike number two: I’ve never found myself in a position where I was competing for a woman with my best friend. I can say with some certainty that either of both of us would back off the girl for the sake of friendship. Bros before Hos, as they say.

My guard was down. I wasn’t expecting anything great, and really was watching the film to see Tom Hardy and what he does in a romantic lead. I’ve known about him for a while; having seen him in Star Trek Nemesis at a young age, I was wondering why they’d give such an important role to an unknown. He must have been talented, I thought, and he was. He was also in Black Hawk Down, but in uniform, in the dark with about two other young men that looked a lot like him, so its difficult to remember which one he was. Was he the one with the leg wound or the one holding him down or the medic fixing it?

 There are a few Hardy films I’ve yet to see, one is Bronson and the other is Warrior, both of which I’m keen to check out. There came a point with Bronson, where he’d transformed himself into this hulking beast (which he’s done again for Dark Knight Rises) and I was under the impression that this is what he does now, big character roles where he changes his entire appearance. I have to say that he looks different in every role, and here, though he’s very normal, he looks nothing like he looked in Inception or even Rock N’ Rolla.

But I’m happy to announce that Tom Hardy is the greatest thing in this movie. It’s a great test for the A-list, as most big stars have to drudge through romantic comedies before they’re really big, so its good they’ll be an A-lister leading man that can really handle everything, from monstrous villains to handsome romantic leads convincingly. He filled his lovelorn character with charm and gravitas, and elevated the material somewhat. He even convincingly sells some awkward lines. It was great spending time with the character, and Hardy is deft with comedic timing. Just like in Inception he steals every scene he’s in.

This Means War is no doubt a flawed film, but what struck me most is the tenuous relationship the film has with reality.  The main characters are called Tuck and FDR (?) and as I mentioned, if you can get over how two bros can fuck each other over you can accept the film more.  Pretty much every main character is a scoundrel, and makes horrible decisions; it’s difficult to find any kind of sympathy for the characters, with the exception of Hardy, for the most part. None of the situations or interactions ring true with reality, which is something I feel is a symptom of McG’s films. The Charlies Angels films were high camp, and Terminator Salvation, with its impressive spectacle at times, had characters and situations I found very difficult to relate too.

Perhaps that’s the nature of the game. The whole thing is a female fantasy. The same way a man watches a porno and fantasises that a powerful and satisfying sexual encounter can come so easily and with so many willing partners is as false and as fantastical as the idea that a woman, just by virtue of her being there, has two gorgeous men to choose from. I had also read that with romantic films the professions of the main characters were as if a teen imagined what they’d be like as an adult, devoid of the pressures and disappointments of reality. This film has that, Reese Witherspoon is a product tester that uses a flamethrower on frypans in a colourful lab, Tuck and FDR hit on models at parties before shootouts. That’s something I recognised from years of watching Alias: non-descript villains, terrorists or spies with no political or national connection to any real-world enemies of the west, attending lavish parties in foreign countries. Lavish parties are always a great way for the protagonists to dress up and mingle while hip music plays. It’s a strange, unrealistic conceit. There’s no building up of a legend for the spy to use, no months of intell and confidence work to move up through the ranks of a terrorist organization, no, it’s all Audi sports cars and nightclubs.

But there is something I noticed in Chelsea Handlers character. She has a large role as Witherspoon’s best friend and confidant, with strange, obscene (sometimes clipped) phrases peppered throughout the script. Handler is strangely wooden, but from what I’ve seen of her that deadpan delivery is her style. I imagine a lot of her lines were improvised, and it lead me to realise that pretty much the whole main cast is either playing themselves or playing characters they’re known for to an extent. Witherspoon plays possible the a-typical female romantic comedy lead typical of the post-Meg Ryan era. I think they cast Handler right off her show with little direction and Hardy seems pretty much like himself, which makes me want to meet him all the more, he seems nice.

But with Chris Pine you have a massive arsehole. I don’t think he’s a prick in real life, but he does play those handsome arrogant frat boy characters a lot. Whereas in something like the excellent Carriers his arrogant frat boy is given some depth, here he’s a prick all the way, and the film just confirms that happiness will always be bestowed on those who don’t want nor need it.

SPOILER

I suppose I should mention here just how despicable the characters are, in particular Pine’s character. He’s the lecherous douchebag who sleeps around, while Tom Hardy wants something long term and meaningful with a spouse, so he signs up for online dating and meets Witherspoon. Then Pine picks her up ina  DVD store. They all start dating and Pine develops feelings, despite the fact that his best friend bagged her first, in a manner of speaking. There’s one scene where he’s alone I his apartment and he gets a booty call from a hot Australian flight attendant, which he turns down because he’s developed feelings for Witherspoon. Add to that he fucked her when he said he wouldn’t. Then in the end it turns out that he fucked Hardy’s wife (with whom he’s had a kid with, broken up and reconciled) once in the past and that Hardy never fucked Witherspoon as we were led to believe, so Pine has smashed his dick into everything. A petty thing to take umbrage with, but when the whole film is about a competition between two men it’s hard not to notice when someone wins and another looses. The film then ends with them fighting. I’m reminded of Chronicle, where the character you relate to the most gets fucked over but the guy who’s a dick wins in the end.

It lead me to think again of the female fantasy. It is said that many women want to date bad boys because they think they can change them and make them monogamous, more into what they want them to be. I think the reason why Witherspoon chooses Pine in the end is for that reason. He’s a debauched ladies man, and she wants him faithful and committed, while Hardy WANTS commitment, has a son of his own and WANTS to settle down; there’s nothing for her to change or manipulate. A misogynistic thought perhaps, and I know for sure that I’m reading too deeply into something that’s not designed to be read into, but there you go. Oh, and there’s a point I was thinking in regards to people that, when they have a kid and break up, Middle America and Hollywood demand that they get back together and form a nuclear family again. Tuck cant have a child with an ex and start a new one with Witherspoon, that wouldn’t be proper. For a better explanation of that and how that’s annoying, read this.

SPOILERS END

So yeah, the film overall had some funny moments, some inappropriate scenes. And while the film wasn’t great by any stretch of the imagination, I didn’t have a bad time watching it, truth be told. That’s mainly because of Tom Hardy, adding the right level of engagement. I was annoyed when he wasn’t around, and wanted desperately for him to say “Everything the Circus thinks is gold is shit” into a reel-to-reel machine again and again (that’s a bit inside, but still). It won’t ruin your day to watch it, but it is strangely dark to an extent, what with all the strange, lecherous characters on display. And I have to say, even as a straight man, I’d let Tom Hardy kiss me on the mouth. I’m just saying.

**stars.