Top 10 Films That Deserve a Cult Following

Cult cinema is an undying tradition that's been relevant to moviegoers pretty much ever since movies. With the first ever cult film debatably dating all the way back to the early 20's, Nosferatu, a lot of film history has happened in between then and now and presently there are dozens upon dozens of such films. What makes a simple movie a cult classic? If you've been reading this blog for any amount of time, you should probably already know this but for those of you just tuning in, a cult film is defined as a movie that acquires a passionate and devoted fanbase that views the film repeatedly, quotes it and participates in content creation and such. But I'm not here to talk about the cult movies that we all know and love, I'm here to talk about the ones that aren't but truly deserve a cult status. Films that should go down in history with a fandom. This is top 10 films that deserve a cult following.

10. Burn After Reading

Most every Ethan and Joel Cohen film attains a cult status at some point, most notable would be The Big Lebowski which is often cited as THE quintessential cult movie. That said, for this list, I decided to only pick one of their films so as not to cheap out (it was tough between this and A Serious Man). The dark comedy, Burn After Reading received mixed critical response from a lot of people who simply didn't get the humor of it. I personally consider it to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen but I'll admit, it took me more than one watch to really get the movie. It follows five completely different characters that are all portrayed by A list actors, in a story of espionage and intrigue. What it really comes down to is that every character so perfectly influences the others that everyone ends up running around, scared shitless thinking that someone is out to get them when really everyone's just as witless and lost as they and they're all freaking out over nothing. It's a difficult movie to summarize, but it's quotable, stylish comedic genius and definitely shouldn't be missed.

9. The Stuff

The Stuff is an 80's as fuck horror camp-fest about a killer junkfood that's referred to only as The Stuff. It's a pasty white goop that resembles Fluff or whipped cream but apparently it tastes amazing because once a company starts mass-producing it, no one can get enough of The Stuff and it fast becomes the most popular food in America. Unbeknownst to the consumers however is that The Stuff is no mere processed good. It's actually an alien creature that was discovered by mere happenstance and brings to mind the blob. What makes The Stuff so memorable, besides it's 80's to the absolute maximum setting, is it's satyrical commentary on American consumerism. That along with it's catchy theme song, catchphrase and logo is worthy of a minor cult following.

8. 9

9 is a film that I've probably mentioned before. The 2009 film (9/9/09 to be exact) garnered mixed to positive reviews while only barely making back it's budget. Since then it has slipped under the radar and into the realm of obscurity. This is a film that deserves recognition. Some people find the fact that it's animated as off-putting but the film is very dark and serious in tone just the same. With the director of Wanted in the chair, the action is surprisingly, not very fast-paced but no less exciting. But what draws me to 9 is it's uniqueness. The fact is that I've never seen a film quite like it. While not being a highly quotable film, it's cautionary aspect is no less loud here though it's delivered in a way that isn't even close to preachy. Like Burn After Reading, it's just a difficult movie to try and describe and it really just has to be seen.

7. The Fantastic Mr.Fox

This film just has so many things going for it that make it worthy of cult status. For starters, it's directed by Wes Anderson, who pretty much makes cult movies for a living. Second, there's an all star cast with George Clooney, Bill Murray, Meryl Streep and others. Third, it's delightfully animated with stop-motion which, as CGI becomes more and more readily accessible, is truly a dying art in today's day. Next you have an attractive vintage/autumn color palette, a good soundtrack, memorable moments and lines and that's more than enough right there. While still considered a family movie, The Fantastic Mr.Fox is no less delightful to watch as an adult and it's full of enough humor to make you wonder if they were aiming it at the wrong demographic.

6. Coffin Joe

In stark contrast to the previous entry, Coffin Joe is a dark and disturbing Brazilian horror trilogy from the 60's. The three films are titled At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul, This Night I'll Possess Your Corpse and Embodiment of Evil. Not only are these films way fucked up and creepy, they're also pretty weird too. With a trip to Hell that would make Dante cringe, a really rape-y evil plot and seriously haunting monologues, there's enough here to be on par with Eraserhead as far as fuckedness goes. It's quotable, distinct and freaky and it deserves a solid cult status.

5. Terrorvision

Now here's one I've definitely talked about before. Since I've already done a review of this, I'll keep this brief. Terrorvision is a wholly bizarre experience that, like The Stuff, has 80's written all over it. It's funny, campy, weird and a complete stand-out parody all at the same time. There's no way you could forget it after seeing it.

4. Creepshow

This is another one of those movies that I've referenced often. Creepshow is an anthology compilation film and is by far the best of its kind. Generally with these types of movies you get something half-assed like The ABCs of Death or V/H/S. With Creepshow, it couldn't be any better. Stephen King writes the screenplay, George Romero directs and Tom Savini does special effects for all five short films. The film is styled after the comic books from which it's based and it overall has such a campy feel that it's impossible not to enjoy it. Not to mention, Stephen King has a main role in one of the shorts and he acts like a complete slapstick lunatic which is just such an odd thing to see. Just as surprising, this film features Leslie Nielson, of Airplane and The Naked Gun fame, in what was probably his only serious role. I use the word "serious" loosely here because nothing in the movie is serious but it's a scary villainous character that's not jumping around punching terrorists so it's still just a bizarre scene to watch. Creepshow is quotable, stylish, campy and creative and it should have a fanbase.

3. The Wolf of Wall Street

At this point, it's a pretty regular thing for Scorsese films to go down in cinema history. Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull would be only to name a few. With his most recent work, The Wolf of Wall Street which documents the rise and fall of a white collar gangster, I think he really went all out. Matter of fact, everyone went all out in this movie and it's probably the most energetic and zany role that Leonardo DiCaprio has ever had. This film is just off the wall mad and there's always all kinds of shit going on. It's three hours that'll feel like one and a half. More memorable than the quotes of the film are the moments like Jonah Hill eating a live goldfish, or fuck, the candlewax scene. But apart from those, more than anything, this movie is a strong commentary on the gratuitousness of Wall Street and the investors that work there. The entire lifestyle is shown in excruciating detail and it's just too insane to forget.

2. Valhalla Rising

This is another that I've talked about before and I reference often. Valhalla Rising is a visual dream of a film and is incredibly stylish to boot. While sporting a simple but highly intriguing plot, Valhalla Rising is less about the story and more about a strong atmosphere and mood and in this it exceeds way beyond the standard. Considering that there isn't much dialogue at all, it's not a very quotable movie but it's artistic quality, characters and meanings are enough to carry it into a following.

1. Pumpkinhead

This is one I've been meaning to get around to for ages. Pumpkinhead is an 80's horror flick that was actually directed by Stan Winston, he being the Academny Award winning legend behind all of your favorite movie monsters including The Terminator, Alien, Jurassic Park, Predator, Monster Squad and a fuckton of other things. On Pumpkinhead he spared no creativity or expense and the monster looks fucking amazing. I would describe it as kind of like a Xenomorph from Alien combined with a scrotum, which is not at all eloquent but hey, it's accurate. The title is misleading because the monster doesn't have a pumpkin for a head at all and in fact this film has very little to do with pumpkins in general. It's about this guy who's played by Lance Hendrikson, who you may recognize as Bishop from Aliens, who gets an old witch to summon the Pumpkinhead monster so that he can get revenge on the people who are responsible for his son's recent death. Considering Pumpkinhead is like a demon monster type-deal, shit gets out of hand.
At this point in time, there are four installments in the franchise but two of them are made-for-TV and none of the sequels had anything to do with Stan Winston. The first Pumpkinhead is definitely worth seeing and is actually a fairly decent film by horror movie standards, but the others are entertaining as well, namely the second one, Pumkinhead 2: Blood Wings which features some very creative kills including death by chickens. There really needs to be more of these movies, Pumpkinhead should be sitting atop a horror icon throne next to guys like Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees. What it comes down to is that it's just an entertaining flick that's so recognizable and memorable if you've seen it. I just wish more people would see it because I want to be able to reference it.

Need For Speed

March 14th saw the release of the newest game inspired dice-roll, Need For Speed, starring the one and only Aaron Paul, who's probably now better known as Jesse Pinkman of Breaking Bad fame. Seeing him in this movie was kind of odd even though he plays a similar role. While I was disappointed that his script didn't include him calling anyone "bitch" one single time, I was also a bit let down that he couldn't find himself a more challenging role. After seeing him in Breaking Bad, we all know that he can act well enough of garner at least an Oscar nod if he played his cards right, and I would say that this character didn't really pander to his talents. The only scene of serious acting was one in which a grief-stricken Aaron, who's character is named Tobey Marshall, laments over a happening that's a spoiler which I'll refrain form ruining.

The rest of the cast is pretty good as well. Supporting actress (and misfortunately named) Imogen Poots has her first big role. Dominic Cooper, who the entire time I was convinced was actually Topher Grace, plays the antagonist whom I would complain was uncharacteristically douchey for no real reason, which is more a fault of bad writing than his. The only other memorable roles would be that of Tobey's energetic crew who are mostly in it for comic relief, not to mention, Michael Keaton is in this and plays a radio host who specializes in illegal street racing coverage and who's mostly there for remind the audience what's happening I guess. His inclusion felt necessary in the film, but in retrospect seems tacked on.

The plot isn't complicated and, as far as adaptations of plotless video games go, I guess I should be impressed. It centers around Marshall, a skilled street racer and mechanic who runs a shop with his couple of friends. Thanks to Cooper, who plays a guy named Dino Brewster, they end up losing the shop and Marshall spends two years in prison. After getting back out, he's confronted with a chance to reclaim his dignity along with $2 million in a high-stakes race on the far side of the country. He's got 48 hours to get there and by leaving the state, he breaks his payroll which ends up being the least of his many infractions.

Of course, I have to dock some points here for being too predictable. From start to finish, it isn't hard to guess what's going to happen next or figuring out the outcome of each sequence before it climaxes. Other than that, it's nothing too original, even as far as racing movies go. Sure it's pulled off well but that alone doesn't make it stand out or interesting.

One place where this film excels is in it's cinematography. Not only does this film showcase very little CG and more stunts than one could count, it's all shot very well. There's nothing that ruins some good action like a camera that seems like it's being held by meth-head and fortunately, we don't see that in Need For Speed. Stunts are shown clearly from multiple angles as if the filmmakers were highly proud of their work and want to show it off. That's how stuntwork should be done, not in barely visible blurriness that obscures what's likely a weakly performed trick. The dynamic camerawork heightens the action and gives a greater sense of speed as opposed to breaking it up with static laziness. Every shot and splicing is tight and important. Technically speaking, it's an impressive film.

Along with that goes it's sheer entertainment factor which receives a high mark here. The movie is, ironically, a bit slow in the beginning and some of the coke-addicts in the audience may get bored. The racing and chase sequences are all invigorating and pulse-pounding. How anyone could lose interest here is beyond me, though I've heard that's one of the major complaints against this film. In this instance, I'd blame the short-attention span of the audience. Sure you could say that going into a movie like Need For Speed, you expect a thrilling roller coaster ride, but don't fault the movie because your preconceived notions didn't line up.

As far as innovating, like I said, the movie wasn't anything completely new. It's highly reminiscent of the early Fast and Furious movies and I'm pretty sure Need For Speed was made in response to said increasingly over-the-top series. With absurd action, machine guns and strapping, sweaty combat sequences, it's safe to say that the string of movies that'd been running since the 90's, now six installments long, had gotten away from it's roots. Need For Speed intended to bring it back to what it's all about. Stunts and racing and it did. It has some stylish moments as well and manages to feel like a little more than just a movie on the screen.

So what the film comes down to is an all-around enjoyable experience. A good pop-corn movie that goes a little above and beyond the typical action flick standard by throwing in some emotion and style.

P:5.5

A: 7.25
C/VQ: 8.75

I/S: 7

EV: 8.5

7.4/10 - Enjoyable but nothing very memorable

The Aculeus' New And Improved Scoring Rubric

I am making this post in light of a dramatic change that will become effective on this site immediately. I am completely overhauling the rating system for this site. I've felt for awhile that the way I grade films was too vague and rigid, so now I'm altering it to ascertain a much more accurate scoring of films.

Each film will now be graded based on five categories. The categories are the following:

Plot (P): How complicated and/or interesting was the story itself? Do I care about the characters and their endeavors? Am I watching the film to see the plot through or just because it's entertaining? The plot is a crucial part of every film. Note that a plot can still garner high scores if it's very simple if it works in the case of the movie. A brainless Transformers movie wouldn't score high here but something like Valhalla Rising would because sometimes simplicity is what's called for.

Acting (A): If I'm going to take a film seriously, it needs to be well-acted. There's no dodging this stone. The actors who portray the characters are entirely responsible for the overall believability of the movie and believing in the movie is a vital piece of the overall experience.

Cinematography/Visual Quality (C/VQ): I put a high value on how good a film is visually. This is what separates a simple plot from a work of art. Most notably, I'm looking for films that's shooting is experimental or challenging and an image and color palette that's just appealing to the eye. Anyone can point a camera but only a master can make it dance. Scoring low here won't ruin the movie, but scoring high could save what would otherwise be a mediocre experience. Sometimes it's better to show and not tell and this is where it counts.

Innovation/Style (I/S): Who wants to pay to see the same thing every year? Not me and a film that steps out and tries to do something unique is highly admirable. Generally speaking, I'm grading the uncommon and special aspects of the film. It's not difficult to show a bunch of guys beating each other up, I want to see a pioneer of something. I want the film to be it's own film and not be borrowing from the thrift shop of cheap tricks just so it can be made.

Entertainment Value (EV): Lastly, there's entertainment value which is just as straight forward as, did I enjoy the film or not? Did it keep me interested throughout or did it trail off at times? When it comes down to it, this is what films are supposed to do, entertain, so it's important not to forget to give credit where it's due.

All of these criteria are graded on a scale of 1-10 allowing for fourths of a point (.25s). Once those have been graded properly, the five ratings are averaged together for a final total which will be the film's score. The final score is rounded to the nearest hundredth but can be any decimal it wants. (Ex. 8.62 would be allowed but 8.618 would be rounded to just 8.62).

So look forward to the new reviews and seeing this new system in use. Now that you have this helpful guide to refer back to, you'll have no trouble getting the exact opinion for each and every film.

 - Cheers.

Beginners Guide to Black Metal

Want to get started in Black Metal and join the metal elite? Too intimidated by the kvlt purists and variety? I give you The Aculeus' Highly Comprehensive Guide to Black Metal. As far as I know, this is the most in depth guide there is just in terms of pure content. Listen to each album as directed and find your niche. Enjoy.

(Note: You'll have to open the image in a new tab to view read it)

Non-Stop

Non-Stop released in American theatres about two weeks ago by the time of this writing and I saw it last Saturday. It's an action/suspense thriller that's set on an international flight 40,000 feet in the air. To be clear, this is not a shoot-em-up sort of movie where everything explodes and yadda yadda. In fact, there's not much with which to fuel explosions at all since almost the entire film is shot aboard the plane.

The plot is actually very straight forward. Liam Nesson plays an Air Marshall who boards the flight like it's any other day. It isn't long before he starts to receive some highly sketchy text messages from an unknown person who threatens to kill a passenger every twenty minutes until $150 million is wired to some account of his. Nesson, whose character is named Bill Marks, takes this very seriously right off the bat, though his colleagues think he's just overreacting. In classic Jack Bauer form, he defies the commands of his superiors in order to stop the terrorist at any cost.

Liam Neeson is often typecast as the troubled cop-type character with a broken family and in this he's no different. Bill Marks has recently lost a daughter, his wife is God knows where (I don't recall it actually mentioning much of her), he's been discharged from the police force and on top of all that, he's a struggling alcoholic. One of the twists of the film comes about when the media gets hold of the developing crisis and starts slandering Marks to make him look like a delusional drunk who's hijacking the plane either for his own selfish benefit or just because he's gone mad. Despite it being his usual role, Neeson plays it well and makes it seem like a new character.

The other cast members are also pretty strong. In the airport scene before boarding the flight, the film briefly has a few shots of each character that's going to be important at some point in the flight. Julianne Moore plays a somewhat OCD woman named Jen Summers who, at first, I thought would be more of a throwaway character (just to get another big name) but she ends up being instrumental in the plot.

An interesting face to see was Cory Stoll who you may recognize as Peter Russo from House of Cards. He plays pretty much the same character except instead of a politician with a shitty attitude, he's a cop with a shitty attitude. Along with him are mostly C-level actors like Scoot McNairy, Michelle Dockery and Nate Parker who all play important roles that are each defined from each other.

But the real question is, does the movie deliver? Why, yes, it most certainly does. Non-Stop really is a non-stop ride from start to finish. It's paced in the opening scenes but once it gets going, it's full throttle suspense through and through. One possibly weird way to summarize this film would be if you combined the novel Airframe by Michael Crichton with the movie Scream. Drama and intrigue on a commercial jet where everyone is a suspect and keeps you guessing at the true killer until the very end. I'm usually fairly adept at figuring out the twist of a movie before it hits (Shutter Island was obvious), but I can honestly say here that I didn't see it coming until it came and it's not like the film just pulled some unguessable deus ex machina out of thin air, it makes sense. What looks like a simple heist from the outside may actually run a lot deeper.
After hunting the elusive killer down, uncovering several accomplices and having to work against the uncooperative passengers, police force and media, it all comes down to a final harrowing climax which is where most of the movie's action comes from. There are a couple of other combat scenes scattered about to keep you on your toes, one very exciting one in particular that involves the impossibly close quarters of the lavatory, but all flashiness is saved for the end. This contrast serves to make the final scenes that much more intense and by then your pulse will be way above usual.

There are of course some things that bring it down. The main issue I have with the movie is that by the end of the film, there were several plot points that seemed sketchy. Not that they were conflicting or that there were plot holes, rather there were a few mysteries that were simply never explained. You wouldn't likely notice it thanks to the editing and the fact that you're generally too concerned with what's happening to think about it, but further reflection warranted some areas that needed clarification. This is one of those few times that I really wish the villain had gone off on some gaudy speech explaining how he did everything. I suppose it's more realistic that the villain doesn't, but it's lazy writing if you ask me. The film was obviously not intended for the Michael Bay audience and expects us to not be stupid so it's not excusable to make that sort of error.
Overall, Non-Stop was a film that had some flaws but watching it, you'd be way too wrapped up in the heat of the moment to care. Definitely the thrill-ride that it promises and highly worth the watch.

9.25/10 - Very thrilling, keeps you guessing.

Upcoming: Godzilla (New Trailer, More Insight)

It's been since December since the last update, and since then, a new Godzilla trailer has been released and more insight has been given on the plot. First, here's the theatrical trailer that released a few weeks ago.

Well, the first thing that I notice about this trailer is that opening line, "I want to talk to someone in charge." I'm wondering if that was an intentional reference to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but it's possible that it's just a coincidence. The next thing I would pick out would be the shot at around 0:17. Notice those origami cranes looming over the city skyline like that? I seriously doubt that that was not a deliberate cinematographic move... perhaps foreshadowing?

But let's get to the important things. Have we learned anything new about the setting? Why, yes we have indeed. Gareth Edwards (the director) notes that this movie is about a global crisis and the trailer obviously is jumping all over the place. However there are a few shots that may hint to the main focus. Notice the desert setting and palm trees in many of these shots, then notice the Statue of Liberty. That background looks to be curiously unlike the New York harbor. Well, there are only three Liberty statues in the world and the only one that's in a desert is in Sin City. A Las Vegas setting seems like an incredibly unique idea for this movie, I don't think I've ever seen a monster movie that takes place there.

I love the idea that's suggested in this trailer that states that the nuclear tests taking place in the Pacific in the 50's didn't awaken Godzilla or mutate him from an iguana or something. No, they were trying to murder his ass. That's an amazingly un-cliche plot point for any giant monster movie, much more so for Godzilla.

Gareth pointed out in another interview that they are trying to capture an emotional aspect to the film rather than just go for straight dumb action. He said he expects people to tear up... not sure if he can make good on that promise but at least we can go into the theatre with the solace that it won't be a brain dead explosion fest. Evidence to this emotion is Bryan Cranston's performance, which we get to see a bit more of here. There's that one shot at 1:37 where he gets all choked up, presumably because he's being forced to part with whomever is on the other side of that closing blast door.

Also, Ken Wantanabe, whom you may remember as Ra's al Ghul from Batman Begins, has a great monologue in the latter half of the video. What role he has in the movie, there's no way to predict, but this part here almost makes him out to be an antagonist (which doesn't make that much sense, really).

Oh, and fuckin' a! We finally get a good glimpse at the new and improved King of the Monsters. It's a brief shot of him making his iconic roar and it only lasts for a few fleeting seconds, but hell, it's by far the clearest shot we've gotten to date. I really dig the updated image from what I've seen of it. It's clearly a new look but it's still recognizable as the Godzilla we all know and love, unlike the 1998 one which was so un-Godzilla like, it was renamed Zilla by Toho.
As for the enemy monster(s), there are all sorts of  forumers making all sorts of predictions. I've heard everything from Gigan to the Smog Monster being predicted, so what we'll end up with in the theatre is anyone's guess. The spider-like creature that I mentioned in my last post is still up in the air and the filmmakers have hinted at something called Muto which is sounding like it's going to be some kind of mutate insect type creature. I wonder if that's what that bizarre appendage at 2:07 belongs to. Speaking of which, go back to those hanging origami cranes from before. I wonder if that's implying that they will be more than one of those things... and/or that they can fly. But this is all just fan-made conjecture, what this Muto thing really is, no one can be certain.

Whatever all of these new hints and trailers truly mean, we can't know until we're in the theatre on May 16th. It's great to see that this film is shaping up to be something memorable made by someone who actually cares about the fans and the movie (and of course, Godzilla himself), rather than just someone who's in it to rape the name and be paid seven figures. Recent monster movies haven't seen much success, with Pacific Rim being a box office failure and critics speculate this is because the giant monster genre is old, tired and dead. I think this movie is going to prove all of them wrong. May 16th couldn't come soon enough and with so much of the movie being kept hush-hush under lock-and-key, it'll be fun going into the place not knowing what to expect. See you there.

Iron Man 3

After much deliberation, I finally decided to bite the bullet and watch this movie. If you've read some of my past posts, you probably know that at this point in time, my relationship with the superhero franchise is not great. Captain America, Thor, Iron Man 2, The Wolverine, The Incredible Hulk and The Avengers were all disappointments and I had all but given up on the comic book craze. That is until I gave this one a watch and found a bit of gleaming redemption amidst the rest of the overhyped series.

As convoluted as most of these films are getting, the plot of Iron Man 3 is fairly straight forward. This terrorist named Mandarin wants to shake things up here in little ol' America and he does so via a string of seemingly untraceable bombings. It isn't long before these get a little too personal for Tony Stark, who's been suffering from bouts of immobilizing panic attacks, when his chief of security, Happy, is seriously wounded in one such attack. The always cocky Tony Stark takes it upon himself to challenge this Mandarin guy by broadcasting a threat to him over the news and it's just all downhill from there.

I'd like just to make a quick note that I find it somewhat disturbing that some of the terrorist bombing stock footage used in the movie were real bombings where real people really died. Of course, you wouldn't know that unless you spent some amount of time on Liveleak thereby recognizing the videos, but it's still kind of a fucked up thing to do if you ask me.

In a classic, this-type-of-movie cliche, one of the early scenes exhibits Tony showing off some fancy new gadget. This particular trick allows each of the components of the suit operate independently to remotely locate Stark wherever he may be and form the suit right there on the spot. While that may sound like the most ominous deus ex machina in action film history, Iron Man 3 is thankfully above that and doesn't cop-out in the heat of the action. Also on the other side of the spectrum, it's nice to note that this trick wasn't tossed in to only be used in one or two scenes, it's actually fairly essential and sees implementation in several scenes.

One of the things that makes this particular installment excel way beyond the dismal Iron Man 2 is it's high entertainment value. Iron Man 2 was too dull, too simple and too stupid to live up to it's far superior predecessor and with only two rushed scenes featuring the main antagonist actually fighting, it was highly disappointing. This one has much more action and doesn't feel so much like a sequel for the sake of being a sequel. One sequence in particular has Stark trying to catch a bunch people who were just sucked out of a falling airplane. It feels like a classic superhero kind of situation and his solution to it is clever. I also enjoy watching Stark's in-the-moment problem solving, as he employs little foresight whenever in a tense situation and rather opts for whatever can fix the immediate danger that he's in (e.g. launching out of his suit to avoid an attack but not having given any thought about where he intends to land). Of course just straight action doesn't make a film and this one still does not quite live up to the original film which was more intelligent by comparison.

And of course there are things that bring this film down. As a trade off to the greater amount of action, it's unsurprising that much of it tends to be pretty over the top with too much CG, however, if you're coming off of The Avengers, it'd probably look like the fucking Bourne Identity. It also suffers from the same problem as The Wolverine, as it fails to make any substantial developments in the protagonist's character. Sure, there's some kind of visible change that we can see, but like The Wolverine, I don't feel like we needed an entire movie just to cover it.

It also has some pretty stupid moments in it like in one scene where a kid doesn't recognize Tony Stark but then shows him a newspaper that he happened to be holding that has Tony Stark's face on the front page. I noticed that on my first casual viewing so I get the feeling that this is one of those movies that's potentially riddled with little plot flubs like that (if you've ever seen the CinemaSins episode, you know what I'm talking about). And of course there's the glaring "Where are the Avengers" thing, which I guess is going to be an unspoken plot-hole for the rest of comic book movie history. On top of that, I find it kind of lame that anyone can just throw on a suit and become Iron Man; who the hell needs Tony Stark in that case? It kind of destroys the sanctity of the superhero if anyone can be him and, I know I'm not as well versed on my comic book knowledge as I used to be, but isn't it that glowing thing inside Tony's chest that powers the suit? So how can anyone else fly it?

Also pretty stupid is the fact that you'd have to be an idiot to not realize that a certain character becomes the main bad guy even though the movie sets it up to seem like he's just a nice dude. Finally, I think that the Christmas setting was a gimmicky idea that just shouldn't of been done, this isn't Die Hard, people.

Also notable of this film is that holy shit, this is the fifth highest fucking grossing film of all time. Yeah, with a budget of $200 million (which is actually not too insane for movies like this anymore), it made 1.2 billion dollars. As these comic book films become only more and more impossibly popular the rate at which they are made (and hopefully the quality but don't hold your breath) can only be expected to continue going up. So hopefully, for your own sake, you're not yet sick of these movies because there's no way in hell that they're going away anytime soon.

So Iron Man 3 is actually not too bad a film. It's redeeming over the rest of the superhero flicks that have been flying out of Hollywood faster than one can count. It's still no masterpiece but it's entertaining, good action and maybe even worth a watch.

7.25/10 - Redeeming but still not great