Category Archives: Ben Kingsley

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

Marvel’s attempt to recreate its interconnected universe on film has officially paid off.

“Iron Man 3″ is a lot more organized than its predecessor, and a lot less cheesy than its predecessor. If anything, “Iron Man 3″ is cheesy on purpose. While the director/writer team of Jon Favreau and Justin Theroux that made up “Iron Man 2″ is certainly a talented one, Shane Black brings back everything that was great about the original “Iron Man,” plus everything that makes his take on the action genre so unique.

“Iron Man 3″ begins with a confession and then a flashback to 1999. During that time, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is still the same womanizing, partying genius, except with a better heart. The key information here is that brilliant scientist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) and her boss Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) work on a special experiment that could eventually help humans grow body parts back. It is a nice touch for the third “Iron Man” movie, as this series explores people using technology to exceed their life expectancy.


For further proof of that, look no further than Tony Stark. In “Iron Man 2,” he was dying. In “Iron Man 3,” he comes back with post-New York anxiety. Not the Woody Allen kind, but rather the kind you get from fighting aliens that nearly destroy an entire city. Tony distracts himself with work and a serious relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), but mainly work. This still doesn’t stop him from waking up with PTSD nightmares.

The “Iron Man” series is typically a lot more lighthearted than other films adapted from comic books. Yet, it still manages to be a serious character study of Tony Stark, who is basically the living embodiment of an adrenaline rush. “Iron Man 3″ portrayed a man bound to the machine that also haunts him.

Tony’s state of trauma can’t last too long: like any hero, he must get back to work. His latest challenge is a terrorist named The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), who looks like Bin Laden but talks like a member of Blue Collar Comedy. The Mandarin is vaguely threatening yet threatening enough that Tony extends an open invitation for The Mandarin to come attack him at his own home. Needless to say, this doesn’t turn out too pretty.

The action and CGI in this film are phenomenal, yet the best part of “Iron Man 3″ is when Shane Black strips Tony of his super powers and in effect, his identity. Technology can sometimes be used as a crutch, so it’s a treat to see Tony use nothing but his wits to fight his enemies. It is a reminder of why Tony Stark is a great hero in the first place: he is a genius. The power of the iron man suit seems to be transferrable  However, Tony Stark is one of a kind.

The reason that “Iron Man 3″ is so entertaining is because it’s a serious story that never takes itself too seriously. Shane Black plays action movie cliches for comic relief all while creating a very solid action film. No stone is left unturned here, if an item is brought up earlier in the script, you can bet it’ll come back later on.

“Iron Man 3″ is also the rare action film that doesn’t think its audience is dumb. Most of the time, the audience gets to find out plot details at the same time that the characters do. Therefore, the audience is not smarter than the characters, and the characters are not smarter than the audience. Both plot and character details unfold slowly. Though not quite on their level, it reminded me of some of the best action genre made in the 1980s, and not just because it also took place on Christmas.

“Iron Man 3″ is not perfect. Many loyal (beyond the movies) “Iron Man” fans were unhappy with a certain plot twist. As somebody who can only be credited as seeing the movies, I can understand why, but it was certainly an interesting experiment. My one quibble about the film is that it is at first bogged down by “Avengers” references. Once it learns to balance those with new plot points, it really takes off.

This may be the final “Iron Man” film. If so, it closed out well because it improved so much from its predecessor and revived the intrigue behind the Iron Man and Tony Stark. Tony Stark is more a Hollywood than New York hero, as he is a man driven mainly by the ego propelled by his talent. “Iron Man 3″ is also all about characters putting on different masks, labeling things, and overall trying to put on a good performance for the rest of the world. Yes, the name Iron Patriot means a lot. In terms of performance, there could have been no better Tony Stark than Robert Downey Jr., who’s fast-talking performance so perfectly matched the wit of what was written down on the page. Basically, Robert he created an alter ego just as compelling as the hero he must play.

The 3D Experience: Definitely worth seeing in theaters, but you could do without the 3D.

Sidenote: During the 1999 flashback, Jon Favreau’s hairstyle and outfit is nearly identical to that of John Travolta in “Pulp Fiction.” Intentional?

Movie Review: Hugo

Even this late in his career, Martin Scorsese can still reinvent himself, even if it means not changing at all.

“Hugo,” based on the award-winning children’s book “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” by Brian Selznick, is the rare PG-rated Scorsese film. However, that does not make it a children’s movie as many have labeled it. “Hugo” is for everyone.
“Hugo” is mechanical, yet magical. In the early 1930s, Hugo (Asa Butterfield) lives inside the walls of a Parisian train station, operating all of the station’s clocks. He has been doing this ever since his father (Jude Law) died and left him as an orphan. His life inside the walls gives him an innate ability to sneak around totally undetected. He steals in order to get by, which puts him at constant odds with the scheming and ill-tempered station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen). As the inspector, Cohen looks like a more over-the-top version of Charles De Gaulle.
All that Hugo has left of his father is a broken automaton which he spends his spare time trying to fix. He steals parts from, and eventually gets caught by, George Melies (Ben Kingsley). That name doesn’t mean a lot to young Hugo at first, but he later discovers that he is none other than the legendary pioneer of filmmaking himself. Melies was one of the first filmmakers to figure out that moving pictures could tell stories.
“Hugo” is based on a book and its about the power of imagination, but it is also about Scorsese’s love of movies. At one point, Hugo takes of Melies’s daughter Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) to see a movie in order to cheer her up. He believes that the movie theater is the only place where he can escape from reality. Viewers will also be treated to a history of film as well as footage from several key movies of the silent era. “Hugo” is a film buff’s dream come true.
From looking at the early movies shown in “Hugo,” there really was magic in them. The less realistic the special effects were, the more creative and deceptive filmmakers could be. Melies was equal parts filmmaker and magician.
Early silent films involved many tricks to feign depth and perspective. “Hugo” itself attempts this, and it contains some of the best 3D there has ever been. The third dimension is usually wasted by those who don’t understand the potential of it. In “Hugo,” 3D is not a gimmick but rather a way to add a layer of physical depth, and make this complex world of mazes and winding staircases even more immersive. I am not a cheerleader for the cause of 3D. However, if more directors used 3D the way Scorsese does here, then perhaps this new trend won’t necessarily spell the demise of movies as we know them.
As with any great movie, none of the special effects would mean anything if they did not support a great story. “Hugo” is an uplifting fantasy that is also very real. It balances out its darkest moments with comedy. Best of all, “Hugo” is not just about Hugo. The longer the audience spends in the train station, the more it gets to know the characters that occupy it. The subplots involving the inspector’s attempt to woo the flower shop owner (Emily Mortimer) and another including an old man at odds with a small dog are entertaining and actually tie in with the story as a whole. These segments of “Hugo” reminded me of the subplots seen in the windows of the apartment complex in “Rear Window.” Neither of these movies would be able to function without their settings, or the variety of people who occupy them.
The latter part of Scorsese’s career has been a mixed bag. While he won his first Oscar in 2006 for “The Departed,” few of his latest efforts have matched the brilliance of his earlier efforts. “Hugo” is his finest achievement in years, but there is just no way to compare it to his earlier works. There is nothing wrong with creating something that defies comparison.
Even if no one is shot in the head or shoved into the trunk of a car, “Hugo” could only have been made by Scorsese. His version of Paris transforms the City of Lights into something much grittier. The Paris of “Hugo” looks more like New York via “Gangs of New York”: snowbound, destitute, and industrial. Then there is Hugo’s world, which is one marked only by turning gears, with the great city surrounding him being just outside his reach. The only light of hope that ever shines is from a film projector.
In a way, Hugo is Scorsese in his youth. During his childhood on the mean streets of Little Italy, the movies were his only means of escape. Even as time passes, movies will always remain. The fact that “Hugo” is about a young boy saving the lost films of a once great artist is the kind of warm, moving act that doesn’t usually occur in a movie directed by Martin Scorsese. Even though “Hugo” claims that humans are just parts of the larger machine of the world, that can’t explain the feeling of being moved to tears by the movie’s end.
There is a scene in “Hugo” where Hugo and Isabelle watch “A Trip to the Moon” for the first time, and learn that each frame was colorized individually by hand. In the present, a camera can do that, and a computer can create any special effect imaginable. Therefore, it is hard for any movie made today to ever feel hand-crafted. When as much care, love, and devotion goes into making something like “Hugo,” it is then that the director’s, and not a computer’s, fingerprints are all over it. This is one of the best movies of the year.
As a side note, has anyone noticed that whenever a major movie is released that takes places in a foreign country but is spoken in English, all of the characters have British accents? When will Hollywood get that people can tell the difference between a French accent and a British accent?
Here are links to some of the silent movies featured in “Hugo”:
The Great Train Robbery (There is an allusion to the final shot at the end of “Goodfellas”)

Movie Review: Shutter Island

Sometimes, the language of film, and the language of literature, just fit together like a puzzle. When I think of great directors and great writers with similar visions, I usually just think of the Coen Brothers and Cormac McCarthy over “No Country for Old Men.” Now, I can add Martin Scorsese and Dennis Lehane, over “Shutter Island.”

In novel form, “Shutter Island” was a crackling and suspenseful psychological mystery that never took the obvious route. As a film, it is both a psychological thriller and an ode to a genre that seemed to have died ages ago. “Shutter Island” is set in the year 1954. Miles off the coast of Boston, there is a place called Shutter Island. It houses a mental institution for the criminally insane. The most dangerous patient, Rachel Salondo, has somehow escaped. U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) have been assigned to crack the case.
Before going on there are a few character points, rather than plot points, that need to be explained. Teddy is a war hero, haunted by what he saw when liberating Dachau. His wife (Michelle Williams) recently died in a fire. So yeah, this guy has problems. Meanwhile, Salondo murdered her children.
Over the years, Scorsese’s directorial skill has been put into question. Yes, he’s made a few flawed pictures (“Gangs of New York,” “The Aviator”), but even those are more watchable than most of the films that come out today. Truth is, most of his recent stories do not even come close to his old ones. However, could anyone ever make a film as good as “Taxi Driver” or “Raging Bull” ever again?
“Shutter Island” clicked for me because I feel it has something for everyone: a little bit of entertainment and a little bit of depth. It’s the kind of film that you walk out of wanting to talk to someone about the ending. It’s also the kind of film where you know, in the end, your money has been well spent.
“Shutter Island” shows that Scorsese, more than ever, knows how to work a camera. Not only that, but turn it into a form of art. Here, he brings back the long shots he used so masterfully in “Goodfellas” and does a few other camera techniques that bring out the ever growing sense of chaos.
This also shows how Scorsese is one of those rare directors who make movies with the self-awareness of being a movie, and being so inspired by movies of the past. The dark, smoke-filmed rooms totally bring out the film noir of the 1940s and 50s. I originally thought the music was somewhat overdramatic but when I think about it, I think it is meant to evoke the somewhat over-the-top nature of old thrillers.
Also, there is a very poor green screen in the backgrounds of some shots. It may evoke the Golden Days of Hollywood. However, it may also evoke some things about the character which I will not spoil for you. But only a director like Scorsese could use something so faulty and make them inspired and ironic.
Along with Scorsese’s direction, the acting was also fantastic. DiCaprio is truly proving himself to be a great leading man now. He corresponds well with Scorsese’s direction by constantly bringing out the trembling darkness within Teddy.
Also scoring a great performance by Ben Kingsley as the head doctor. I think it’s his line delivery that did it for me. The way he says, “it’s like she evaporated, straight through the walls,” is one that sounds both entirely innocent and oddly disturbing.
Back to Scorsese for a minute, because he is truly what makes this movie for a work. I want to use one specific scene to show his great direction. In one scene, Teddy is climbing down a steep, rocky cliff. We know the hero can’t die this early, but Scorsese puts a big, fat question mark to that possibility. He shoots this scene from very tight, claustrophobic angles and we feel like we’re there with him, climbing down those rocks. He takes a scene that might have made the viewer feel nothing, and packs it with suspense.
I believe the story goes from page to screen so well because Scorsese takes Lehane’s story and themes and makes them into his own style. Through the characters of Teddy and Rachel Solando, Lehane finds characters searching for redemption and trying to come to terms with their pasts, and their selves. Teddy’s own struggle with the horrors of war he’s seen could mirror what Travis Bickle had to live with in “Taxi Driver.” Through this, we can understand the character of “Shutter Island” even better.
The story of the film of “Shutter Island” isn’t much different than it was in the book. However, the fact that Scorsese can take Lehane’s style and mold it into his own is what makes this a truly faithful, truly successful adaptation. Scorsese takes Lehane’s dark message about human nature, and turns it into a haunting (and even relevant) message about how today’s world works.
Of course, there is quite a surprise of an ending. Even for somebody who read the book and knew the ending, I was still surprised when the big moment came. Scorsese masterfully knew how to both hide the truth and even make it seem very apparent at other times.
The more I think about “Shutter Island,” the more I like it. Scorsese has truly made a movie for everyone: it’s both simply entertaining, and complexly thought provoking. Quite simply, it is the ultimate experience for those who love movies.