Ghosts of Sherwood (2012)

Don't we all love the story of Robin Hood? The rogue bowman, the handsome outlaw, standing up for what he believes is right and rebelling against the oppressors of the common people. I guess the main reason people like him is the old poor vs rich scenario, the poor people are the good ones and the rich people are the evil and cruel bastards. Because no honorable person wants to be rich, money doesn't make you happy. Though driving a Ferrari is a lot better than a Vauxhall Corsa.

And so we have 'Ghosts of Sherwood', or as it's better known by, 'Robin Hood: Ghosts of Sherwood'. Robin (Martin Thon) rescues Maid Marion (Ramona Kuen) from a band of...bandits. Robin tells Marion of his gang and their fight against the Sheriff (Tom Savini. Yes, THAT Tom Savini), who is also Marion's cousin. Some hostilities occur and Robin and most of his Merry Men are killed. Marion and Little John (Kane Hodder, yes, the same Kane Hodder who played Jason Vorhees in some 'Friday the 13th' films) seek to bring him back to life, however they instead conjure Robin and co as zombies, and must now fight their friends to stop them from threatening the world.

That's what the back of the DVD says. The problem is that for a large part of this film, that doesn't happen. This film had such a good concept, but it screws it up. We could have seen some reluctant alliances with the Sheriff, the conflict of fighting the ones you love, Hell, throw in the 'love turns zombies back into humans' thing, actually explore the story. It's zombies in the medieval era for God's sake!

No, for the most part, the film focuses on Robin and Marion, which would have been good if they actually did something. Basically the main concept, Robin leading a band of Merry Undead, comes into the film in the last ten or fifteen minutes. Some of the run time is about the conflicting morality of Robin and Marion, and I'm sure a large part of the film is for character development, the only problem is the dialogue is so mundane and the characters themselves so remote, dull, and contradicting, it's hard to get into it.

And believe me when I say the characters bare little to no resemblance to the idea of Robin Hood. Let's take Robin, what's the main thing we know about him? He's a brilliant archer, quite possibly the best in the world. This Robin Hood, hardly uses a bow. And when he does he sucks at it. In fact, he only uses a bow three times; the third time when he's undead. One of Marion's line was "Leave the bow behind. I don't want you accidentally shooting me when rescuing me". HE'S ROBIN FUCKING HOOD! He should be able to shoot a fly off the tip of your tongue, while blindfolded, and looking in the opposite direction!

And you know you've done something wrong when you portray the Sheriff as the good guy! Seriously! The characters say the Sheriff is evil and a cruel, uncaring man, and yet the only time we see this is when he's torturing prisoners who stole from him! He sent soldiers to escort Marion, he has a laugh when practicing sword fighting with a guard, he has concerns for Marion's well being, not once do we see him actually do anything bad. Marion says he didn't give a toss about the passing of his wife, simply because mention her in a letter. Here's some points to counteract that; he was in shock, he was denial, he didn't want to talk about it, he mourned in private, he didn't want to talk about it in a letter, there are some reasons why he didn't mention her in one bloody letter.

In fact, it's Robin, Marion, and the Merry Men (All three of them) who I didn't really like. Marion was a stuck up cow who says one thing and does another, and doesn't seem to mind anything which others would think is the work of the Devil (Then again neither does anyone else). Friar Tuck (Kai Borchardet) came off as a dick whose actions got TWO innocent people's heads dunked into a water barrel. Will Scarlet (Dennis Zachmann) came off as arrogant, and Little John only turned up twenty minutes before the end! Granted, I liked Little John, he actually brought a fair few lines of humorous dialogue into this film.

Then again maybe the acting is the reason why I don't like our supposed heroes. The acting is awful. Even worse than 'The Covenant', at least the acting talent in 'The Covenant' didn't sound dubbed. Well, most of 'The Covenant' cast didn't sound dubbed anyway. The only real saving graces were Savini and Hodder, who actually attempted to put some life into their roles. Savini however appears in about ten minutes screen time altogether, and Hodder appears to be holding back at times as well.

And the effects, dear lord. At best they're on par with Asylum productions, at worse they're some of the worse to ever set foot in cinematic history. That being said, the make-up is alright. Nothing spectacular, but not bad, per se. Although a lot of the time, particularly for when someone gets hit with an arrow, the film cuts away for a second before returning to the previous shot to show whatever make-up has been applied.

I was expecting a 'so bad it's good' film, what I got...was kind of that. Believe me, it's horrendous. The story is crap, the plot arrives late, the acting is a travesty, the effects must have been done from Windows movie maker, the characters are irritating bores, and the dialogue is some of the most mundane pieces ever written in the history of scripts. BUT, I do think you need to check it out. It's one that needs to truly be seen to be believed. My review, barely scratches the surface of this film.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

And so the road to the Avengers 2 begins. Or, Avengers Assemble 2 anyway. And what better way to start off this journey than with the billionaire, playboy philanthropist himself, Mr. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.).

Roughly a year after the Loki-lead Chitauri invasion, Stark is suffering from some slight psychological issues, most likely because he almost died. Making more and more iron man suits as a distraction, he finds himself being called into action when a terrorist, known only as the Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley), threatens everything he holds dear.

The story is different from the last two Iron Man films, obviously, but I mean the context. The third film is much darker than the last two. We explore Stark's psyche, the Mandarin takes almost everything away from him, we see a more vulnerable Iron Man. And that makes it more exciting, it keeps you intrigued, on how Stark will overcome these obstacles. Having read the Extremis graphic novel, yes there were some differences, but really nothing drastic, the main, spoiler-free example being that War Machine is now the Iron Patriot, the suit that Norman Osborne (from Spider-Man) wears. Then again what do you expect the American military to change it to to make it more family friendly? Do you really think it's good publicity to have your weapon called War Machine? It's not like there are ships called destroy...ooooo. But apart from minor details like that it still relatively keeps to the source material. It still manages to keep it's humour as well, whether that be Stark interacting with James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) or something involving the suits.

Robert Downey Jr. is still superb as Stark/Iron Man, portraying the character we've all come to love, but adding in the dark tones from his experience with the Avengers. Cheadle still gives a great performance, but I do feel he was underused somewhat, especially when it comes to the climatic scene. Gwyneth Paltrow meanwhile was pretty good, she's an okay actress, but I do feel she was better towards the end. Sir Ben Kingsley meanwhile, please sir take a bow. He was brilliant, you can tell he was having a lot of fun. Guy Pearce meanwhile also did a fantastic job, he manages to portray the right characteristics, as well as effectively show how the character develops. Although the introduction of Harley (TY Simpkins) does feel forced and cheesy, even if the kid is a good actor.

The effects look spectacular, especially the metal suits and in combat. The scene where the Mandarin attacks the Stark residence (Shown in the trailer) was breathtaking, and those injected with the extremis look great, particularly when you see extremis flowing through their veins. Although I do kind of feel the climatic battle was a bit underwhelming, considering what's going on, but I do see that the film should focus more on the main character rather than what's happening around him.

There really isn't much else to say. It's a damn good film. The acting is brilliant, the effects are fantastic, the story is great, it's certainly a great start on the road to Avengers 2. It has a bit of a shaky start I admit, but there isn't really that much to hate, if anything. Okay, admittedly it isn't as good as the Avengers, but then again that film raised the bar, and with it being the first one since that film there was always going to be pressure against it. I've also seen a fair bit of rage against the film, particularly from Chris Nolan/Dark Knight fans, for some reason, and I was going to raise those points in a spoiler section, but I've decided against it. Well, I'll raise one or thing. But if you're going to strongly hate a film just because of some minor details, some of which are explained or quite obvious when you think about it, then fine, go be on your merry way. But it is quite a shame as this is one Hell of an entertaining film.

I mean, you'll never find me ranting that much over a film.

THAT FILM CAN GO ROT IN HELL!

Spoiler Section

Okay, Killian (Guy Pearce) being the Mandarin instead of Ben Kingsley. If I was a die hard Iron Man fan then I might be pissed off too, especially since Kingsley played a really good Mandarin too. Maybe it's because I'm not an avid fan of Iron Man that I'm angry with this. Like I said I've read Extremis, and I think it's one of my favourites. For the most part though, I thought it was a good twist. I certainly didn't see it coming and I thought it led to some great comedy.