Welcome back to another edition of the Blogorium's Retro Review. Today we're going to continue looking back at a series of reviews written for defunct online magazine You're All Doomed. Previously we took a look at reviews from 2005 and at the output of guest blogger Professor Murder. Turning the wayback machine a little further, let's take a look at a few movies from 2004.
Once again, a bit of a disclaimer: these reviews represent a proto-Cap'n Howdy and accordingly they don't look like what I write today. They're shorter, tend to make logical leaps and assume the audience will simply follow, and sometimes contain erroneous information because I was more interested in getting reactions out unspoiled rather than fact checking and researching before and during the writing process. I am, however, leaving them untouched in order to represent the original material.
---
The Ladykillers
no immediate star review.
I'm sort of torn about Joel and Ethan Coen's The Ladykillers. Part of me genuinely likes the movie; the twisted sense of humor, the (somewhat absurd) denouement, Tom Hanks. Another part of me recognizes that it's slight, virtually nonexistent plot is padded out with wild caricatures instead of characters, and that almost as much of the movie doesn't work as does. Let's take it bit by bit:
The Good -
Tom Hanks: Ever the curious exception to the rule, Hanks will do a run of family friendly pap, and with little provocation will jump into cahoots with strange little projects that are poorly received (The Burbs, Joe vs The Volcano) When I heard he was working with the Coens, there was little concern on my part. They are, after all, largely responsible (along with Steven Sodebergh and Robert Rodriguez) for bringing George Clooney back from the abyss of crap like The Peacemaker. Hanks invests every bizarre peccadillo into Professor G.H. Dorr, and watching him dig into this character is in itself a riot.
Cameo work by Bruce Campbell, Stephen Root, and George Wallace: Little things that make the Coen movies so fun. Sure, there's no Buscemi this time out, not even John Tuturro, but Coen-like flourishes are what make their movies almost a genre unto itself.
Irma P. Hall: WIthout Hall, Hanks would have nothing to work with. As the straight woman of the piece (who's anything but) she anchors the film and gives everyone something to react to. And the disdain for "hippity hop", or, more specifically, "I Left My Wallet in El Segundo" by a Tribe Called Quest.
The Bad -
The rest of the cast: Normally, I'm as big a J.K. Simmons fan as you'll find. He's a pitch perfect J. Jonah Jameson, and had a small but memorable role in O Brother. But here he's working with nothing better than fart jokes. And bad fart jokes at that. Marlon Wayans has a little more to do, and to be fair, he isn't as grating as usual, but being the character known for nonstop profanity is a little one note. Of course, the rest of the crooks (Ryan Hurst, Tzi Ma) have even less to do, and their moments to shine are accordingly lackluster.
The Pacing: This movie seems like it's over in no time, and while some might look at that as a good thing, I felt cheated. Yes, the plot is slight, the tension is basically nonexistent, but there was nothing to really lock on to while watching it. The Ladykillers is so schizophrenic that when it does end you wonder what the hell you just did.
The Fact that You Can Rent the REAL Ladykillers: In the scope of remakes, this isn't the worst, but it can't hold a candle to the original. Something about the british sensiblity is lost in americanizing it (i realize how obvious the previous statement is, but nevertheless) and while I loved Hanks in the movie, he's no Alec Guinness. Or even Peter Sellers, who was on screen for the first time in the original Ladykillers.
So, where are we? ratings, right. let's do this three ways.
As a Coen Brothers Movie: It ranks above Intolerable Cruelty, but just barely. This is lower end Coens. 2 stars
As a remake: It's better than Psycho or Shaft. Even better than The Planet of the Apes. But it's no Scarface, or even Willard. 2.5 stars
As a Hanks/Hall showcase: Here, as the only movie in its category, does it truly shine. 3.5 stars.
---
May
3.5 stars
May isn't a horror movie. Well, it is, but it's just as much black comedy and character portrait as an edge of your seat kill fest. Gorehounds might be disappointed by the lack of truly violent moments, but even when things spiral in the third act, May is more about character than kill.
May Dove Canady, when we meet her, is being fitted with a patch for her lazy eye. As a little girl who doesn't relate well to others, she mistakenly scares off friends by telling them she is not, in fact, a pirate. Her mother, an odd bird herself, decides to remedy the situation by making a doll for May. But her owned skewed sense of reality prevents May from even enjoying this when the doll can't ever leave its glass case.
When we catch up with May later on in life (played by Angela Bettis), she's a painfully lonely and withdrawn young woman with a crush on Adam (Jeremy Sisto), and a job working at the local vet. When a chance encounter brings the possiblity of something more, then things get complicated.
Now it sounds like I've told you a lot, but that's the first fifteen minutes of the movie. Along the way we meet the coworker hot for May (Anna Faris of Scary Movie and Lost in Translation), a punk with a tattoo she admires (James Duvall of Donnie Darko) and a class full of blind children. If I'm being vague, well I sort of need to be. Telling you too much, or even just regurgitating the back of the DVD would give away where the movie goes (although an astute viewer can pick it up pretty early on). What works in May is Angela Bettis. At no point during her character arc does a decision seem out of place or unbelievable, and she's a magnetic lead. Sisto doesn't fare as well; he's sort of a bore and doesn't have much to do in the movie except react. Faris is in the same boat. She spends most of the movie acting "come hither" to May, and by the end we're a little surprised she's so relaxed by what's going on. Duvall doesn't actually have anything to do, but it was nice to see Frank the Bunny in another movie.
Lucky McKee uses a lot of first time director tricks to keep the story going: jump cuts, music montages, but in the context of playing things out through May's point of view, it works. While it doesn't succeed on all fronts (for one, the film takes itself far too seriously), he's managed to craft a fine little fable and shows a lot of promise down the line.
That he's managed to wrangle horror icon Bruce Campbell into his second movie, The Woods, is a pretty good indication that Lucky McKee has a solid future in the world of low budget fright flicks. Don't get me wrong, this isn't an indictment of an indication of his skills. Rather, I'm glad to see the new crop of horror directors slowly build their reputations. While May, like Cabin Fever, isn't a home run on the first try, it's better than a lot of the remakes and sequels that pass for horror these days.
---
Hellraiser: Hellseeker
NEGATIVE STARS
Let's face it, folks. There are no more Hellraiser movies. They stopped making 'em after 3, and the sooner you get used to it, the better off all of us are. Bondage freaks and Pinheadites may scream "But NO! NO! You just haven't seen the original cut of BLOODLINE! Heathen scum!" Bollocks to that. Just like Halloween, there's a cut off point and begging to include a crap sequel doesn't sit well with me. But since there's a suggestion I ought to finish this "review", let us discuss the relative merits (or lack thereof) of Hellseeker:
At first glance, this is THE Hellraiser sequel people have been looking for. Bringing Ashley Laurence back into the mix as Kirsty for the first time since "Hell on Earth" would in theory be the jolt this series needs to get back on track, but wait.... she's on screen about as much as Pinhead was in Hellraiser: Inferno (which is only barely a Hellraiser movie, but gory as hell). For the rest of Hellseeker, we follow the helplessly emotionless Dean Winters (of Oz fame) who seems incapable of playing his scenes any way other than snarky. And when you're the bereaved husband of the supposedly drowned Kirsty, snarky doesn't cut it. But wait, did she drown? Scenes bleed together from painfully unerotic encounters to baffling and pointless work and police interrogations (and that's no typo. every point he enters his cubicle, the obnoxious "co-worker" asks the same stupid questions the same stupid ways over and over) I suppose we're meant to question his reality, but this reviewer stopped caring about twenty minutes in. Vanilla Sky this isn't, although Vanilla Hell does aptly describe watching Hellseeker. To spare you the curiousity of what the "twist" is:
Idiot buys the Lament Configuration for Kirsty on their anniversary, she opens it and talks to Pinhead. They make a deal that she can deliver five souls more rotten than this movie, and his is the last. So, viola! The ENTIRE movie is Dean Winters coming to grips with being in hell. *Yawn*
Is it gory, you say? No. If you want gory Hellraiser movies, this isn't your flick. In fact, Hellseeker really has nothing going for it, and I'd be pleased as punch to report to you this DTV ditty was the last, but oh no, we have two more to look forward to: Hellraiser - Deader (I shit you not. Starring Kari Wuhrer), and Hellraiser - Hellworld (with Lance Henrikson). Actually, the premise of Hellworld is classic, so I'll close this review with the plot outline from IMDB.com:
Pinhead returns to terrorize computer hackers that have opened a virtual Lament Configuration on the website Hellworld.com.
---
Exorcist: The Beginning Review
2 Stars (out of Five)
I know everyone's expecting a straight pan of this movie; to be honest i went in expecting to hate it, and to be sure, i was mostly correct. Exorcist: The Beginning, is in some ways every bit as bad as Exorcist 2: Heretic, and just as dumb as any other big budget horror movie of its ilk (by that i'm referring to such ditties as Lost Souls, Bless the Child, The Order, or any Omen movie that isn't the first one) The problem is that E:B could have been something good indeed.
To be fair, Beginning has some good things going for it. Stellan Skarsgard is excellent playing a younger Father Merrin, and since much of the movie rests on his shoulders, it is a relief they didn't cast Ryan Phillipe or Kerr Smith, who are much to young, and would've likely fallen hard with the rest of the movie. The rest of the cast either struggle to maintain some credibility, or simply fall into the abyss of over acting.
But let's get into why this movie is so bad. As many of you may know, the Exorcist prequel floated around for a while from director to director (John Frankenheimer was originally slated to direct, but left the project a month before his passing) when Paul Schrader, who wrote Taxi Driver and directed Auto Focus, came on board, he set out with the intention of making a psychological thriller instead of a bloodbath that producers wanted. He made his movie, and was promptly fired. In order to guarantee they'd have the film they were paying for, producers turned to Renny Harlin. (now, before i get into Harlin bashing, let me go ahead and say that A Nightmare on Elm Street 4, Die Hard 2, and The Long Kiss Goodnight remain to this day on my list of guilty pleasures) Known for such gems as Deep Blue Sea, Cutthroat Island, and The Adventures of Ford Fairlane, naturally he was the obvious choice to continue the Exorcist series. Thusly, most of the film was reshot to include more graphic violence, include a love interest(?!) for Merrin, and the most ridiculous exorcism ever put on film. Rumour goes that about 20 minutes of the movie is still actually Schrader's, and to Harlin's credit, for the first hour and change I couldn't tell what belonged to who.
And therein lies the problem. The first three quarters of this movie is, with a few exceptions, pretty good. It is at least better than Heretic, and on par with The Exorcist 3 (and Legion isn't really that terrible as these types of movies go) There are a couple of suspensful moments, and while it is overly bloody, the mystery surrounding a church buried in East Africa is intriguing. However, things start to fall apart in the third act (specifically when the Sandstorm hits) and if you're not into spoilers, i'd go ahead and get out of here now, because we're veering that way. From this point out, this movie is a joke. Now, i need to take a moment out and discuss the truly horrendus CGI in this movie, because for the bulk of the film, you just try to tune it out (the Hyenas stand out in particular, because they ruin an otherwise well thought out sequence involving children in peril) but when the sandstorm rolls in, looking like b-roll footage from The Mummy Returns, you know things are in trouble. How bad does it get? Well, there's the British soldiers fighting with the Tribesmen in an unnecessarily brutal and pointless sequence, or perhaps the bait and switch bit on who is actually possessed, or perhaps the aforementioned exorcism, which takes place in the pagan temple beneath the church and culminates with the Captain Howdy (i won't spoil all of it for you) literally flying down a tunnel towards Merrin as he tries to cast out Satan. Seriously. Not only does it take all of the punch out of the actual exorcism in the first movie (were you to watch them chronologically) but it's laugh out loud stupid. But the coup de gras is actually the very ending, where they blow two key opportunities to make up for this slight. Merrin is back in Italy, renewed faith, etc, and the moment comes where he stands up from the table, puts on the hat everyone recognizes, and walks off towards the Vatica- oh wait! Remember those rotten effects i mentioned? Well, Father Merrin walks off into the Green Screen where a painfully fake looking picture of the Vatican is, and they don't even have the sense to play Tubular Bells. *sigh.
Perhaps Paul Schrader's cut (which is purported to be coming out on dvd) is the movie this franchise deserved, and we shall see. As it stands, Exorcist: Beginning is a painfully schizophrenic movie that isn't sure what it wants to be, and to me, it stinks.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Blogorium Review: The Avengers
When I think of "Summer Blockbuster" movies, I tend to think of the 1999 remake of The Mummy. It's a big, loud, dumb, action packed movie with plenty of special effects and wafer thin characters. When I say "big," I mean the scale of just about everything: the fight scenes, the chases, even the jokes are elevated to a massive level. Rachel Weisz is introduced as he character knocks down every shelf in a library. It has a little something for everybody, including something for the horror fans: it's hard to argue that the scarabs who tunnel under your skin and eat your heart or the pre-Arnold Vosloo Imhotep are there for the kiddos or the romantics who came to see Fraser and Weisz trade barbs before falling in love. It's an entertaining, if inconsequential, film that does exactly what it sets out to do, throws in some (for then) state-of-the-art special effects, and sends audiences home happy.
The Mummy is what I assume people mean when they say "it's not supposed to be Hamlet - it's just a movie!" Of course, I haven't seen the Transformers film*, which is where this argument comes up with every successive sequel. It's what I gather I'll be hearing from people who go to see Battleship, this year's Transformers surrogate. That's fine, I guess. Gone are the days when "summer" movies meant movies like Batman Returns or Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark were the norm, when John and Jane Q. Public would go to movies that didn't need to be as close to "lowest common denominator" studio concocted and market tested product as humanly possible. Where movies like The Dark Knight or Inception aren't a rarity. Okay, so Mission: Impossible: III and Star Trek and even Iron Man also qualify. Let's not be so myopic here, but my point is that playing it safe pays off and doing something a little risky (and Batman Returns or Alien 3's relative failure may have fed into this) was something you wouldn't need to wait a few years between.
Which brings us to The Avengers, the culmination of Marvel Studios' four year project to make a film for Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and The Incredible Hulk (Eric Bana, no wait, Edward Norton... no, wait...) before bringing them together with Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) under the leadership of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) to save the world. In The Avengers, the threat is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), introduced as "Loki! The brother of Thor!" by Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), in case you missed Thor last summer. That would, by the way, probably be a bad idea, but don't worry, Marvel isn't going to leave you in the dark at the beginning of the movie. That might make you leave.
So I don't want anybody thinking that I didn't enjoy The Avengers. I did. I enjoyed it a LOT more than The Mummy, which is an unfair comparison but helps frame how I feel about how The Avengers functions as entertainment and the reaction to the film. I've seen it twice now, and I liked it more the second time than the first. It's a film that plays like gangbusters with an audience, so I totally understand why people are throwing around words like "amazing" while other reviewers are reacting in comparably hyperbolic ways to bring them back to Earth.
The first time I saw The Avengers, I was caught off guard by just how "Whedon-esque" The Avengers is. I don't want to repeat too much of what I said last week, which covers what most of audiences know of Joss Whedon versus what his die hard fans have come to expect, but even I wasn't expecting The Avengers to be as "quippy" as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Serenity. Almost every character has a moment where they make a clever, scathing comment that undercuts tension or action or a speech made by someone else. Most of them have several, and I'm not just talking about Downey's perpetually snarky Tony Stark, who has a nickname for every member of the team. Even the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) gets a line in that is, apparently, often drowned out by the laughter from what happens right before he says it (the line, for anyone who didn't hear it, is "Puny god.")
At first, I didn't know how I felt about it. Being a semi-dedicated Whedon-head**, once it happened a few times, I understood that this was going to be a film where stakes were maybe not as important as they could be. Then again, that's fine: if you've seen any of my other reviews for these films, Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, and Joe Johnston also muted any serious sense of threat to their respective outings. The Avengers are "hopelessly outgunned" but not in such a way that Tony Stark doesn't continue to threaten Loki right before a Chitauri*** invasion of Manhattan. The film was enjoyable, but I had reservations about how I felt about the lack of "stakes," even when a supporting character died and another character turned "evil" early in the film. Rather than meaning much, it just made sense. That's a good way to address two characters we kind of know but who have to this point played minor roles in other films.
See, the more I write about The Avengers, the more it seems like I didn't enjoy it. Nothing is further from the truth: I'll probably see it again, maybe even this weekend. I highly recommend it to people tired of insipid "summer entertainment" and I think it's great that parents are bringing their kids (or, more likely, vice versa) and that the whole family seems to be loving it. This is a movie that can comfortably show trailers for Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, and Pixar's Brave beforehand and not one of them seems out of place. It's a movie for geeks, for families, for casual moviegoers, and people just looking to have fun at the movies. Clearly its box office receipts (which, as you know, is the only way you know a movie is any good****) support the idea of its universal appeal. It is a LOT of fun, and I really want to emphasize that.
The more I think about it, the more appropriate it is to compare The Avengers to The Mummy AND to J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. The Mummy I use as a sort of superficial concept of what "summer entertainment" means, in that it is successful in trying to reach all of the target demographics while also being vaguely enjoyable but also mostly forgettable once you're finished with it. It's why the film works so well on Saturday afternoons, when it seems to play on television. It doesn't require you to pay too much attention, but you'll have a good time and be able to get back to what you're doing without much trouble.
Star Trek, similarly, is a more successful version of this. It's accessible both to Trekkies***** and people who know of Star Trek but haven't necessarily been following the series or films. The direction is assured, the film moves at a brisk pace, the cast is fun, and it delivers laughs and thrills in equal measure. I continue to argue that despite the fact that the Star Trek reboot is a very entertaining film, it doesn't have much - if any - of a plot. It does such a fine job of making you not notice this fact that nobody really seems to mind, and I'm cool with that.
The Avengers is sort of like that, in that it gets by on such good will with what it does right (the levity, the excitement, the humor, the character interaction), that you don't really mind the first half dragging after Loki steals the Cosmic Cube (er, Tesseract******) until Thor shows up. We spend time catching up with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), we see Black Widow in a scene that should make fans of Buffy or Dollhouse very happy, we meet the new guy playing Bruce Banner and enjoy the fact that Marvel finally nailed the Hulk's alter ego, and as usual, Steve Rogers doesn't have much to contribute.
I know. I was mean to Captain America in that review, but aside from one great line ("There's only one God, ma'am, and I don't think he dresses like that") he doesn't get to do much but shout orders. Well, there's the other nice moment when he finally gets a pop culture reference (at the expense of Thor) that's a good laugh during an exposition scene. Captain America doesn't play much of a role in his fight scene with Loki - Iron Man swoops in and saves the day, and I don't really understand why the whole "Thor's hammer vs. Cap's shield" manages to end a fight in the woods after the God of Thunder steals Loki from S.H.I.E.L.D.'s jet.
But look, I'm thinking about this too much. And I'm not saying that maybe I shouldn't, but like Star Trek, most people just don't care. And I'm okay with that, because if you're going to get behind "summer entertainment" in the way people are getting behind The Avengers, it's vastly preferable that it be something this well made. This much fun. Joss Whedon knows exactly how to put the right pieces together to make a movie that plays to as many people as possible without pandering or dumbing everything down, and now he has a massive platform with which to demonstrate it. I totally understand why people LOVE this movie, and I understand why some critics are so frustrated that people are willing to overlook so much of what isn't "perfect" that they see. Both sides have a point, even if they're reaching a little too hard to prove what the other is "missing."
Where am I? Well, like I said, I'll be seeing it again. I enjoyed it that much and think a third time is worthwhile. I'm comfortable with the film's strengths and faults in equal measure and to be honest, the former outweigh the latter in all the ways that count. Since I can't fathom why I'd see Battleship, The Avengers is going to be my "summer entertainment," as Thor and Fast Five were last year. Things will get dark and moody with Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, and (hopefully) Looper in the coming months, but I'll be happy to have some fun with Earth's Mightiest Heroes in the meantime. You should too.
* After The Island, Michael Bay and I got to a point where it made more sense for us to spend some time apart. Not being able to follow the incomprehensibly edited and shot robot action scenes in the trailers made the decision to sit out the last seven years of his output easier.
** That's what you call yourselves, right? I mean, you aren't all just Browncoats, right?
*** Interesting tidbit I missed during the credits - the Chitauri named "The Other" is played by Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel alumn Alexis Denisof.
*** On the off chance you have never read one of my reviews before or anything else from this blog, I would like to point out that this statement is intended sarcastically.
**** Sorry, Trekkers.
****** I must admit that I'm a little confused why The Cosmic Cube isn't called "The Cosmic Cube" in The Avengers, and is instead repeatedly referred to as "The Tesseract." At first I thought it was to avoid explaining what a "Cosmic Cube" would do, but when you introduce Thanos as the stinger for the sequel and don't say his name (the lady sitting next to me asked her boyfriend "who's he?" and he didn't know) then I think you could get away with just calling it The Cosmic Cube.
The Mummy is what I assume people mean when they say "it's not supposed to be Hamlet - it's just a movie!" Of course, I haven't seen the Transformers film*, which is where this argument comes up with every successive sequel. It's what I gather I'll be hearing from people who go to see Battleship, this year's Transformers surrogate. That's fine, I guess. Gone are the days when "summer" movies meant movies like Batman Returns or Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark were the norm, when John and Jane Q. Public would go to movies that didn't need to be as close to "lowest common denominator" studio concocted and market tested product as humanly possible. Where movies like The Dark Knight or Inception aren't a rarity. Okay, so Mission: Impossible: III and Star Trek and even Iron Man also qualify. Let's not be so myopic here, but my point is that playing it safe pays off and doing something a little risky (and Batman Returns or Alien 3's relative failure may have fed into this) was something you wouldn't need to wait a few years between.
So I don't want anybody thinking that I didn't enjoy The Avengers. I did. I enjoyed it a LOT more than The Mummy, which is an unfair comparison but helps frame how I feel about how The Avengers functions as entertainment and the reaction to the film. I've seen it twice now, and I liked it more the second time than the first. It's a film that plays like gangbusters with an audience, so I totally understand why people are throwing around words like "amazing" while other reviewers are reacting in comparably hyperbolic ways to bring them back to Earth.
The first time I saw The Avengers, I was caught off guard by just how "Whedon-esque" The Avengers is. I don't want to repeat too much of what I said last week, which covers what most of audiences know of Joss Whedon versus what his die hard fans have come to expect, but even I wasn't expecting The Avengers to be as "quippy" as Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Serenity. Almost every character has a moment where they make a clever, scathing comment that undercuts tension or action or a speech made by someone else. Most of them have several, and I'm not just talking about Downey's perpetually snarky Tony Stark, who has a nickname for every member of the team. Even the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) gets a line in that is, apparently, often drowned out by the laughter from what happens right before he says it (the line, for anyone who didn't hear it, is "Puny god.")
At first, I didn't know how I felt about it. Being a semi-dedicated Whedon-head**, once it happened a few times, I understood that this was going to be a film where stakes were maybe not as important as they could be. Then again, that's fine: if you've seen any of my other reviews for these films, Jon Favreau, Kenneth Branagh, and Joe Johnston also muted any serious sense of threat to their respective outings. The Avengers are "hopelessly outgunned" but not in such a way that Tony Stark doesn't continue to threaten Loki right before a Chitauri*** invasion of Manhattan. The film was enjoyable, but I had reservations about how I felt about the lack of "stakes," even when a supporting character died and another character turned "evil" early in the film. Rather than meaning much, it just made sense. That's a good way to address two characters we kind of know but who have to this point played minor roles in other films.
See, the more I write about The Avengers, the more it seems like I didn't enjoy it. Nothing is further from the truth: I'll probably see it again, maybe even this weekend. I highly recommend it to people tired of insipid "summer entertainment" and I think it's great that parents are bringing their kids (or, more likely, vice versa) and that the whole family seems to be loving it. This is a movie that can comfortably show trailers for Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, and Pixar's Brave beforehand and not one of them seems out of place. It's a movie for geeks, for families, for casual moviegoers, and people just looking to have fun at the movies. Clearly its box office receipts (which, as you know, is the only way you know a movie is any good****) support the idea of its universal appeal. It is a LOT of fun, and I really want to emphasize that.
The more I think about it, the more appropriate it is to compare The Avengers to The Mummy AND to J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. The Mummy I use as a sort of superficial concept of what "summer entertainment" means, in that it is successful in trying to reach all of the target demographics while also being vaguely enjoyable but also mostly forgettable once you're finished with it. It's why the film works so well on Saturday afternoons, when it seems to play on television. It doesn't require you to pay too much attention, but you'll have a good time and be able to get back to what you're doing without much trouble.
Star Trek, similarly, is a more successful version of this. It's accessible both to Trekkies***** and people who know of Star Trek but haven't necessarily been following the series or films. The direction is assured, the film moves at a brisk pace, the cast is fun, and it delivers laughs and thrills in equal measure. I continue to argue that despite the fact that the Star Trek reboot is a very entertaining film, it doesn't have much - if any - of a plot. It does such a fine job of making you not notice this fact that nobody really seems to mind, and I'm cool with that.
The Avengers is sort of like that, in that it gets by on such good will with what it does right (the levity, the excitement, the humor, the character interaction), that you don't really mind the first half dragging after Loki steals the Cosmic Cube (er, Tesseract******) until Thor shows up. We spend time catching up with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), we see Black Widow in a scene that should make fans of Buffy or Dollhouse very happy, we meet the new guy playing Bruce Banner and enjoy the fact that Marvel finally nailed the Hulk's alter ego, and as usual, Steve Rogers doesn't have much to contribute.
I know. I was mean to Captain America in that review, but aside from one great line ("There's only one God, ma'am, and I don't think he dresses like that") he doesn't get to do much but shout orders. Well, there's the other nice moment when he finally gets a pop culture reference (at the expense of Thor) that's a good laugh during an exposition scene. Captain America doesn't play much of a role in his fight scene with Loki - Iron Man swoops in and saves the day, and I don't really understand why the whole "Thor's hammer vs. Cap's shield" manages to end a fight in the woods after the God of Thunder steals Loki from S.H.I.E.L.D.'s jet.
But look, I'm thinking about this too much. And I'm not saying that maybe I shouldn't, but like Star Trek, most people just don't care. And I'm okay with that, because if you're going to get behind "summer entertainment" in the way people are getting behind The Avengers, it's vastly preferable that it be something this well made. This much fun. Joss Whedon knows exactly how to put the right pieces together to make a movie that plays to as many people as possible without pandering or dumbing everything down, and now he has a massive platform with which to demonstrate it. I totally understand why people LOVE this movie, and I understand why some critics are so frustrated that people are willing to overlook so much of what isn't "perfect" that they see. Both sides have a point, even if they're reaching a little too hard to prove what the other is "missing."
Where am I? Well, like I said, I'll be seeing it again. I enjoyed it that much and think a third time is worthwhile. I'm comfortable with the film's strengths and faults in equal measure and to be honest, the former outweigh the latter in all the ways that count. Since I can't fathom why I'd see Battleship, The Avengers is going to be my "summer entertainment," as Thor and Fast Five were last year. Things will get dark and moody with Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, and (hopefully) Looper in the coming months, but I'll be happy to have some fun with Earth's Mightiest Heroes in the meantime. You should too.
* After The Island, Michael Bay and I got to a point where it made more sense for us to spend some time apart. Not being able to follow the incomprehensibly edited and shot robot action scenes in the trailers made the decision to sit out the last seven years of his output easier.
** That's what you call yourselves, right? I mean, you aren't all just Browncoats, right?
*** Interesting tidbit I missed during the credits - the Chitauri named "The Other" is played by Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel alumn Alexis Denisof.
*** On the off chance you have never read one of my reviews before or anything else from this blog, I would like to point out that this statement is intended sarcastically.
**** Sorry, Trekkers.
****** I must admit that I'm a little confused why The Cosmic Cube isn't called "The Cosmic Cube" in The Avengers, and is instead repeatedly referred to as "The Tesseract." At first I thought it was to avoid explaining what a "Cosmic Cube" would do, but when you introduce Thanos as the stinger for the sequel and don't say his name (the lady sitting next to me asked her boyfriend "who's he?" and he didn't know) then I think you could get away with just calling it The Cosmic Cube.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Blogorium Reviews Assemble!: Captain America - The First Avenger
Pre-Review Nerd Stuff:
I know that it's considered bad form to start a review with a tangent, but why is that subtitle on Captain America? Were Paramount and Marvel afraid that people wouldn't go see a Captain America movie if they didn't directly tie it to The Avengers movie that was still a year away? Were they concerned that people might think that, despite no evidence to support the theory, that it was somehow a live action sequel to Team America: World Police?
Let's take a moment to just pontificate on this, because I'm guessing most of you didn't even think twice about it. Captain America was the last of the Marvel feature-length-prequels/trailers to Marvel's The Avengers Directed by Joss Whedon in IMAX and RealD 3-D Coming to Theaters May 4th*. We already know that every Marvel movie that doesn't involve spider-men, punishers, mutants and Nicolas Cage** are moving towards The Avengers. How do we know? Well, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, and Thor have included either Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury or Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson (sometimes both!) and they keep hinting at an "Avengers Initiative" that Tony Stark isn't allowed to be in.
Sometimes they throw in characters that have nothing substantive to add to the movie but who also happen to be members of The Avengers not named Ant Man (Hawkeye and Ant Man / The Wasp stand-in Black Widow) that are also part of S.H.I.E.L.D. However, to this point, Universal and Paramount have trusted nerds to understand that they're planning an Avengers movie without subtitles like Iron Man: The Avengers Wouldn't Have Him or Thor: The God of Thunder and Also Member of The Avengers.
I could understand the need to bridge this with Captain America if say, Nick Fury wasn't in the film (SPOILER: He is. So are his "Howling Commandos," but sans their learder). If the film was actually just about Captain America's origin and role in World War II and didn't involve the prologue and epilogue in the present day, then yeah, I guess some rubes might say "hey, where's things I recognize? Why does that guy who isn't Robert Downey Jr. have the same last name? Why doesn't this movie explain things to me because I'm a drooling moron?" Okay, that last part was maybe a little mean, but we haven't needed our hands held to this point. The other films have done a reasonably good job of integrating elements for a later film without disrupting the experience of watching the film. Well, until Iron Man 2.
Wait, what? Oh, the movie itself? Fine...
Substantive Film Review Portion:
Is there a missing "director's cut" of Captain America somewhere? Specifically a cut of Joe (The Rocketeer) Johnston's film that fills in the second half of the film, when things just happen without any connective tissue? Things were off to such a promising start...
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a 90 pound weakling with a heart of gold who just wants to enlist and fight Nazis in World War II. His miniscule body (accomplished with some impressive digital trickery) and sickly medical record keep him from being mowed down by machine gun fire, which is what the Army officials who keep turning him down remind him. Defeated, he goes to the World's Fair in New York with his buddy "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan) and a few girls, and on a whim he decides to forge his papers and enlist (again). This time, Rogers catches the eye of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a scientist who defected from Germany to help the Allied war effort. He's working with Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) to develop the "Super Soldier" serum, and after boot camp, Rogers is determined to be the ideal candidate. Despite the misgivings of Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) and Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), Rogers receives the serum and becomes muscular, hunky Chris Evans, er "Captain America," and is promptly sent to do USO shows to help the war effort.
Meanwhile, Erskine's first "Super Soldier" experiment, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), is plotting to take over the world, first for Hitler and then just for Hydra, his own private army. He has the Cosmic Cube, left on Earth by Odin (Anthony Hopkins, not appearing in this film), and with the help of Dr. Arnim Zola (Toby Jones), is creating new weapons, ones that will help him rule the world. Oh, and he doesn't have a face any more - he has a Hugo Weaving mask that he wears for a while but is actually a Red Skull. Or, THE Red Skull.
And this whole portion of the film, dedicated to Captain America's origin story, is a whole lot of fun. It's a throwback to throwbacks of old fashioned adventure films like Joe Johnston's The Rocketeer or Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark (visual effects art direction by Joe Johnston). There's a nice sense of momentum and wonder as this puny kid named Steve Rogers proves himself to have the heart to be a hero and then gets the "Super Soldier" serum and instead of getting to fight Nazis has to pitch war bonds to families and punch a fake Hitler over and over.
He never even gets to punch the real Hitler, because Captain America: The First Avenger doesn't actually feature Nazis to speak of - The Red Skull kills a few of Hitler's liaisons and then declares Hydra to be its own entity. That's okay, I guess, although it defeats the purpose of needing to have the film set in the 1940s, but I was still on board. Rogers ends up in Europe doing his goofy show to soldiers that really aren't interested - they lost a lot of good men to Hydra, including "Bucky" Barnes. Rogers decides that this "rah rah" patriotic song and dance isn't helping, so he asks Stark and Peggy to sneak him across enemy lines so he can save the captured allied soldiers.
The first action scene, when Captain America improbably sneaks into the Hydra plant past a bunch of heavily armored soldiers and rescues Barnes, along with what will eventually be the aforementioned "Howling Commandos": "Dum Dum" Duggan (Neal McDonough), Gabe Jones (Derek Luke), Jim Morita (Kenneth Choi), James Montgomery Fallsworth (J.J. Feild), and Jacques Dernier (Bruno Ricci). The men band together to escape from Hydra, and Captain America ends up meeting Zola and The Red Skull as the plant begins exploding.
And then Captain America: The First Avenger falls apart. There's still plenty of action and patriotism and fighting ofNazis Hydra, but none of it matters any more. All of the well designed narrative and breathless pacing designed to service Captain America's origin collapses and Johnston's film becomes a meaningless cacophony of scenes that seem to happen independently of what comes before and after them. The sense of wonder and adventure dissipates and instead we're subjected to a mish-mash of things that need to happen to service the epilogue of the film, when (SPOILER) Captain America wakes up in present day New York.
I'm going to give you two examples of things that just happen without any explanation other than "well, it needs to happen for the movie to end the way we wrote it":
1. Captain America goes from being a propaganda tool who went AWOL and saved some soldiers who returned fully expecting to be court-martialed to being AN ACTUAL soldier. How does this happen? Well, there's a scene where he's supposed to get a medal for bravery but he isn't there so that Stan Lee can make a joke in his standard issue cameo. He's not there because Captain America is now in London is certainly appears to be an actual Captain. Before someone goes into the comments to correct me on this, please instead consider explaining how, in the film (not the comic), receiving a medal of valour is in any way a logical substitute in the narrative for going from being s morale booster into being an actual soldier.
2. Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter have a "will they or won't they" romance during the first half of the film, one that is loosely continued into the second half of the film, only in a lazier fashion. They sort of flirt, have conversations that indicate that they could fall in love, and then Rogers is seduced by another lady. Carter walks in on them kissing, makes a snide comment, and Rogers is embarrassed. He tries to apologize, but instead she shoots his new shield and Howard Stark makes a joke. Steve thought that Stark and Peggy were canoodling because he doesn't know what "fondue" is, so he doesn't understand why she's so mad! Oh, romantic comedy misunderstandings! Then the script drops all of the parts where he wins her back and instead pretends that because Captain America puts a picture of Peggy in his watch and that she sees it in a newsreel that they're in love. We know this because they see each other during the last Hydra showdown and kiss in a car, then have a sappy conversation as Rogers (SPOILER) crashes the Red Skull's plane into the Arctic, where he will be frozen for seventy years.
That's important because the nonexistent third act romance is supposed to be the real tragedy of the film, because when Rogers wakes up in the future and Nick Fury stops him in the middle of Times Square, the only thing he can say is "Yeah. Yeah, I just... I had a date."
I wish I shared the tragedy of Steve Rogers losing everything and everyone he knew, but I just didn't buy it. Just like I didn't really feel anything when (SPOILER) "Bucky" is killed during a seemingly arbitrary train sequence designed to capture Dr. Zola. We're off to the next scene so quickly that it doesn't really matter what just happened, which robs the second half of the film from having any meaning.
Along those lines, the Red Skull and Captain America have no stakes in their rivalry: other than being the only "Super Soldier"'s and being on opposite sides of the war, there's nothing driving their specific animosity towards each other. They're enemies because the movie needs an antagonist who can fly to America so that Captain America can crash the plane, be frozen, and be rescued in present day. The Red Skull works because he's Captain America's enemy, so he's in the film. He has the Cosmic Cube because it figures into The Avengers, although for some reason they aren't calling it the Cosmic Cube in the film.
Nothing happens organically after Rogers storms into the Hydra plant. It's somehow appropriate, because at that point the World War II setting becomes irrelevant anyway. The Red Skull has developed futuristic laser guns and laser tanks that evaporate Allied soldiers (gotta have a PG13 rating for this war movie, after all), so it ceases to be a throwback to adventure films anyway. Now it's a dumb CGI science fiction / comic / war hybrid where things like plot development don't matter. The film doesn't need a reason to get from A to B to C; it just skips forward and assumes you're too swept up in the special effects to notice.
For a director who started in visual effects, Joe Johnston has been having a lot of trouble with effects heavy films lately. Jurassic Park III and The Wolfman looked comically cheap when it came to digital effects, and despite the presence of actual physical stunts, Captain America starts to look like a long string of green screen sequences with people running, fighting, or driving. I'm almost positive that most of the plane interior where Captain America fights the Red Skull is an actual set, but it looks fake, and so does most of the movie after the first hour. To put it in perspective, I knew that most of Asgard was designed in a computer, but it seemed more palpable than 80% of Captain America's climax.
Now, it is possible to watch Captain America and not think about any of this. You could just turn your brain off after an hour, try not to follow the story and just say "well, they need those 'splosions, after all" and be swept away to the end of the film. You're still going to feel underwhelmed by how quickly it ends, how little any of it registers, or the way that you don't feel anything that the writers, director, and actors wanted you to. But you might not mind. You'll think about Chris Evans and how he was a really good Captain America / Steve Rogers. You'll like Hayley Atwell and Tommy Lee Jones and be surprised that Neal McDonough wasn't playing a jerk for the first time you can remember. Toby Jones is a little bit like Ronald Lacey in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Hugo Weaving is chewing up scenery as the Red Skull. Dominic Cooper is fun as Howard Stark and you know, it was a fun adventure movie. It was a comic book, and really what did you expect?
And if that's how you measure a movie, then the fact that half of an actual movie has been stitched together with a bunch of other scenes won't be an issue. Maybe there are a ton of deleted scenes that I need to watch or something, but they aren't in the movie I did see. The movie I did see started out with a lot of promise, and then used that good will to skip to the ending without earning it. Of course, the ending only exists to be the beginning of another movie, and not much else. At least Thor had something to do on Asgard, and Dr. Banner went back into hiding while he tried to cure himself. Tony Stark had to decide what good being Iron Man was really doing.
Steve Rogers hangs out in S.H.I.E.L.D. until Nick Fury asks him to be an Avenger. The First Avenger, I guess.
Subsequent Nerd Closing Component:
So, where were we? Oh right, "The First Avenger" part. So if we're talking chronologically, wouldn't Thor be the "first" Avenger, predating Captain America by a few thousand years?
I fully admit that I'm not an expert on Captain America or The Avengers. I was always more of a DC Comics fan, so I'm coming into these films with what little I do know about the characters. Some of them I know more about than others - I read more Spider-Man and X-Men and The Punisher than The Avengers, but I also read Secret Wars and am familiar with most of the major Marvel characters. The movies have their upsides and downsides, but Captain America has, to this point, been the one I was the most disappointed with.
Sure, Iron Man 2's plot was too busy and Thor's story was more concerned with Asgard than the dutch-angle laden New Mexico portions, but there was a semblance of narrative in them that wasn't JUST in service of The Avengers film. Captain America doesn't feel like a movie so much as an obligatory set-up of one last character in the crossover film. It's like stretching the Hawkeye scene in Thor into a two hour movie that needs to hit certain beats in order for people to come into The Avengers knowing who everybody is. Worse still is that it tricks you into thinking there's an actual movie in the beginning and then just peters out halfway through.
* Take that, George Lucas. May the 4th be with them!
** Or are those last two the same thing???
I know that it's considered bad form to start a review with a tangent, but why is that subtitle on Captain America? Were Paramount and Marvel afraid that people wouldn't go see a Captain America movie if they didn't directly tie it to The Avengers movie that was still a year away? Were they concerned that people might think that, despite no evidence to support the theory, that it was somehow a live action sequel to Team America: World Police?
Let's take a moment to just pontificate on this, because I'm guessing most of you didn't even think twice about it. Captain America was the last of the Marvel feature-length-prequels/trailers to Marvel's The Avengers Directed by Joss Whedon in IMAX and RealD 3-D Coming to Theaters May 4th*. We already know that every Marvel movie that doesn't involve spider-men, punishers, mutants and Nicolas Cage** are moving towards The Avengers. How do we know? Well, Iron Man, Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, and Thor have included either Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury or Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson (sometimes both!) and they keep hinting at an "Avengers Initiative" that Tony Stark isn't allowed to be in.
Sometimes they throw in characters that have nothing substantive to add to the movie but who also happen to be members of The Avengers not named Ant Man (Hawkeye and Ant Man / The Wasp stand-in Black Widow) that are also part of S.H.I.E.L.D. However, to this point, Universal and Paramount have trusted nerds to understand that they're planning an Avengers movie without subtitles like Iron Man: The Avengers Wouldn't Have Him or Thor: The God of Thunder and Also Member of The Avengers.
I could understand the need to bridge this with Captain America if say, Nick Fury wasn't in the film (SPOILER: He is. So are his "Howling Commandos," but sans their learder). If the film was actually just about Captain America's origin and role in World War II and didn't involve the prologue and epilogue in the present day, then yeah, I guess some rubes might say "hey, where's things I recognize? Why does that guy who isn't Robert Downey Jr. have the same last name? Why doesn't this movie explain things to me because I'm a drooling moron?" Okay, that last part was maybe a little mean, but we haven't needed our hands held to this point. The other films have done a reasonably good job of integrating elements for a later film without disrupting the experience of watching the film. Well, until Iron Man 2.
Wait, what? Oh, the movie itself? Fine...
Substantive Film Review Portion:
Is there a missing "director's cut" of Captain America somewhere? Specifically a cut of Joe (The Rocketeer) Johnston's film that fills in the second half of the film, when things just happen without any connective tissue? Things were off to such a promising start...
Meanwhile, Erskine's first "Super Soldier" experiment, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), is plotting to take over the world, first for Hitler and then just for Hydra, his own private army. He has the Cosmic Cube, left on Earth by Odin (Anthony Hopkins, not appearing in this film), and with the help of Dr. Arnim Zola (Toby Jones), is creating new weapons, ones that will help him rule the world. Oh, and he doesn't have a face any more - he has a Hugo Weaving mask that he wears for a while but is actually a Red Skull. Or, THE Red Skull.
And this whole portion of the film, dedicated to Captain America's origin story, is a whole lot of fun. It's a throwback to throwbacks of old fashioned adventure films like Joe Johnston's The Rocketeer or Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark (visual effects art direction by Joe Johnston). There's a nice sense of momentum and wonder as this puny kid named Steve Rogers proves himself to have the heart to be a hero and then gets the "Super Soldier" serum and instead of getting to fight Nazis has to pitch war bonds to families and punch a fake Hitler over and over.
He never even gets to punch the real Hitler, because Captain America: The First Avenger doesn't actually feature Nazis to speak of - The Red Skull kills a few of Hitler's liaisons and then declares Hydra to be its own entity. That's okay, I guess, although it defeats the purpose of needing to have the film set in the 1940s, but I was still on board. Rogers ends up in Europe doing his goofy show to soldiers that really aren't interested - they lost a lot of good men to Hydra, including "Bucky" Barnes. Rogers decides that this "rah rah" patriotic song and dance isn't helping, so he asks Stark and Peggy to sneak him across enemy lines so he can save the captured allied soldiers.
The first action scene, when Captain America improbably sneaks into the Hydra plant past a bunch of heavily armored soldiers and rescues Barnes, along with what will eventually be the aforementioned "Howling Commandos": "Dum Dum" Duggan (Neal McDonough), Gabe Jones (Derek Luke), Jim Morita (Kenneth Choi), James Montgomery Fallsworth (J.J. Feild), and Jacques Dernier (Bruno Ricci). The men band together to escape from Hydra, and Captain America ends up meeting Zola and The Red Skull as the plant begins exploding.
And then Captain America: The First Avenger falls apart. There's still plenty of action and patriotism and fighting of
I'm going to give you two examples of things that just happen without any explanation other than "well, it needs to happen for the movie to end the way we wrote it":
1. Captain America goes from being a propaganda tool who went AWOL and saved some soldiers who returned fully expecting to be court-martialed to being AN ACTUAL soldier. How does this happen? Well, there's a scene where he's supposed to get a medal for bravery but he isn't there so that Stan Lee can make a joke in his standard issue cameo. He's not there because Captain America is now in London is certainly appears to be an actual Captain. Before someone goes into the comments to correct me on this, please instead consider explaining how, in the film (not the comic), receiving a medal of valour is in any way a logical substitute in the narrative for going from being s morale booster into being an actual soldier.
2. Steve Rogers and Peggy Carter have a "will they or won't they" romance during the first half of the film, one that is loosely continued into the second half of the film, only in a lazier fashion. They sort of flirt, have conversations that indicate that they could fall in love, and then Rogers is seduced by another lady. Carter walks in on them kissing, makes a snide comment, and Rogers is embarrassed. He tries to apologize, but instead she shoots his new shield and Howard Stark makes a joke. Steve thought that Stark and Peggy were canoodling because he doesn't know what "fondue" is, so he doesn't understand why she's so mad! Oh, romantic comedy misunderstandings! Then the script drops all of the parts where he wins her back and instead pretends that because Captain America puts a picture of Peggy in his watch and that she sees it in a newsreel that they're in love. We know this because they see each other during the last Hydra showdown and kiss in a car, then have a sappy conversation as Rogers (SPOILER) crashes the Red Skull's plane into the Arctic, where he will be frozen for seventy years.
That's important because the nonexistent third act romance is supposed to be the real tragedy of the film, because when Rogers wakes up in the future and Nick Fury stops him in the middle of Times Square, the only thing he can say is "Yeah. Yeah, I just... I had a date."
I wish I shared the tragedy of Steve Rogers losing everything and everyone he knew, but I just didn't buy it. Just like I didn't really feel anything when (SPOILER) "Bucky" is killed during a seemingly arbitrary train sequence designed to capture Dr. Zola. We're off to the next scene so quickly that it doesn't really matter what just happened, which robs the second half of the film from having any meaning.
Along those lines, the Red Skull and Captain America have no stakes in their rivalry: other than being the only "Super Soldier"'s and being on opposite sides of the war, there's nothing driving their specific animosity towards each other. They're enemies because the movie needs an antagonist who can fly to America so that Captain America can crash the plane, be frozen, and be rescued in present day. The Red Skull works because he's Captain America's enemy, so he's in the film. He has the Cosmic Cube because it figures into The Avengers, although for some reason they aren't calling it the Cosmic Cube in the film.
Nothing happens organically after Rogers storms into the Hydra plant. It's somehow appropriate, because at that point the World War II setting becomes irrelevant anyway. The Red Skull has developed futuristic laser guns and laser tanks that evaporate Allied soldiers (gotta have a PG13 rating for this war movie, after all), so it ceases to be a throwback to adventure films anyway. Now it's a dumb CGI science fiction / comic / war hybrid where things like plot development don't matter. The film doesn't need a reason to get from A to B to C; it just skips forward and assumes you're too swept up in the special effects to notice.
For a director who started in visual effects, Joe Johnston has been having a lot of trouble with effects heavy films lately. Jurassic Park III and The Wolfman looked comically cheap when it came to digital effects, and despite the presence of actual physical stunts, Captain America starts to look like a long string of green screen sequences with people running, fighting, or driving. I'm almost positive that most of the plane interior where Captain America fights the Red Skull is an actual set, but it looks fake, and so does most of the movie after the first hour. To put it in perspective, I knew that most of Asgard was designed in a computer, but it seemed more palpable than 80% of Captain America's climax.
Now, it is possible to watch Captain America and not think about any of this. You could just turn your brain off after an hour, try not to follow the story and just say "well, they need those 'splosions, after all" and be swept away to the end of the film. You're still going to feel underwhelmed by how quickly it ends, how little any of it registers, or the way that you don't feel anything that the writers, director, and actors wanted you to. But you might not mind. You'll think about Chris Evans and how he was a really good Captain America / Steve Rogers. You'll like Hayley Atwell and Tommy Lee Jones and be surprised that Neal McDonough wasn't playing a jerk for the first time you can remember. Toby Jones is a little bit like Ronald Lacey in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Hugo Weaving is chewing up scenery as the Red Skull. Dominic Cooper is fun as Howard Stark and you know, it was a fun adventure movie. It was a comic book, and really what did you expect?
And if that's how you measure a movie, then the fact that half of an actual movie has been stitched together with a bunch of other scenes won't be an issue. Maybe there are a ton of deleted scenes that I need to watch or something, but they aren't in the movie I did see. The movie I did see started out with a lot of promise, and then used that good will to skip to the ending without earning it. Of course, the ending only exists to be the beginning of another movie, and not much else. At least Thor had something to do on Asgard, and Dr. Banner went back into hiding while he tried to cure himself. Tony Stark had to decide what good being Iron Man was really doing.
Steve Rogers hangs out in S.H.I.E.L.D. until Nick Fury asks him to be an Avenger. The First Avenger, I guess.
Subsequent Nerd Closing Component:
So, where were we? Oh right, "The First Avenger" part. So if we're talking chronologically, wouldn't Thor be the "first" Avenger, predating Captain America by a few thousand years?
I fully admit that I'm not an expert on Captain America or The Avengers. I was always more of a DC Comics fan, so I'm coming into these films with what little I do know about the characters. Some of them I know more about than others - I read more Spider-Man and X-Men and The Punisher than The Avengers, but I also read Secret Wars and am familiar with most of the major Marvel characters. The movies have their upsides and downsides, but Captain America has, to this point, been the one I was the most disappointed with.
Sure, Iron Man 2's plot was too busy and Thor's story was more concerned with Asgard than the dutch-angle laden New Mexico portions, but there was a semblance of narrative in them that wasn't JUST in service of The Avengers film. Captain America doesn't feel like a movie so much as an obligatory set-up of one last character in the crossover film. It's like stretching the Hawkeye scene in Thor into a two hour movie that needs to hit certain beats in order for people to come into The Avengers knowing who everybody is. Worse still is that it tricks you into thinking there's an actual movie in the beginning and then just peters out halfway through.
* Take that, George Lucas. May the 4th be with them!
** Or are those last two the same thing???
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Blogorium Reviews Assemble!: Thor
I'm of two minds when it comes to reviewing Thor, because as much as I want to convey to readers that the movie is not only watchable, but eminently better than the garbage passing itself off as "summer entertainment" year after year, I also feel a responsibility to point out that half of the film is much better than the other. I feel this is directly attributable to Thor's director, Kenneth Branagh.
Branagh, whose output varies from the likes of Dead Again to a remake of Sleuth, is best known for his Shakespearean films - Henry V, Hamlet, Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing, and As You Like It (as well as appearing in Othello) - and the influence of the Bard on his adaptation of the Nordic-God-Turned-Marvel-Comic-Hero is apparent throughout the film.At least, part of the film.
In the realm of Asgard (one of the nine cosmic realms), Odin (Anthony Hopkins), King of the Gods, is preparing to step down and enter Odinsleep - his period of hibernation - but first must decide which of his sons to hand the throne of Asgard to. His oldest son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is brave, if stubborn, whose rule may be undermined by a sense of entitlement. His youngest son, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) spent his life living in the shadow of Thor, and while his mischievous nature is recognized, his desire to win Odin's approval is evident. When the Frost Giants invade Asgard and try to steal back the Casket of Ancient Winters (their power supply), Thor disregards Odin's wishes and travels to Jotunheim with Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander) and The Warriors Three - Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) - in tow to destroy the King of the Frost Giants (Colm Feore). Furious, Odin strips Thor of his powers and orders Heimdall (Idris Elba) to banish his son to Earth.
And that's the first half hour or so of Thor. That doesn't take into account astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her advisor Dr.Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings), who discover Thor while searching the deserts in New Mexico for wormholes (or, as the film insists on calling them, "Einstein-Rosen bridges*"). No sooner have they found the brash, unruly son of Odin than Mjolnir, Thor's hammer, also falls to Earth and is discovered by S.H.I.E.L.D., headed up by Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg), who continues to appear in all Avengers-related Marvel films.
The New Mexico part of the story, including a well-staged action sequence involving Thor, the S.H.I.E.L.D. team (including an extended cameo by Jeremy Renner, who will play Hawkeye in The Avengers**), is unfortunately the half of the film that doesn't really work. It's clear that Branagh is more interested in the Shakespearean power play at hand in Asgard, where Loki assumes power as Odin collapses after banishing Thor and proceeds to manipulate events in order to keep his older brother from ever returning. What happens on Earth, the place where Thor learns humility and earns his "God of Thunder" powers - which should be the most important part of the film - takes a back seat to Asgardian politics.
Portman and Skarsgård are wasted in roles that serve no purpose: Jane Foster's developing romance with Thor never really makes sense because there's no story arc to support it. Selvig seems to exist in order to bridge Norse mythology to the story at hand (as is evidenced by the many times Skarsgård is forced to mention or read tales of the Viking Gods during the film), and for one good scene where he (badly) lies about Thor's identity to free him from S.H.I.E.L.D. captivity. There's also the after credits tease, but I'll get to that in a minute. I have no idea why Kat Dennings is in the film at all, as Darcy contributes nothing to the story unless the three screenwriters (plus two credited "story" writers) felt the pressing need to have three people discover Thor.
Gregg is, as usual, fine as the "been there, seen that" second hand man of S.H.I.E.L.D. This time, he's on his own (Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury doesn't show up until later), and makes a credible Earth-bound foil for Thor, I guess. Since Thor pretty much gives up on beating goons after failing to raise Mjolnir, it's hard to really say. Again, the Earth-bound business feels perfunctory, second to the far more interesting Asgard story.
Branagh seems to be more comfortable with Hopkins, Hiddleston, Hemsworth, Elba, and Renee Russo (who I didn't even recognize as Odin's wife Frigg) and the power struggle between father and sons. It's as though he's reveling in a pulp fiction twist on King Lear, and the film comes to life during throne room conversations. That's not to say that the Asgard half of the film isn't without its problems, though - another Branagh idiosyncrasy pops up that further confuses the narrative.
Audiences have some idea when they are introduced to Loki that he's supposed to be the villain: his posture is slightly stooped, his hair is slicked back and his sullen, sunken eyes just scream "bad guy waiting in the wings!" But when the time comes for Hiddleston to shift from younger brother with an inferiority complex to full on baddie, Branagh doesn't convey that. This shouldn't be surprising: Branagh also devoted as much of his Hamlet as possible to give nuance to Claudius, typically portrayed as the moustache twirling villain. And there's something to be said for nuance, for giving a villain dimensions, or even to make him sympathetic, but Loki is such a muddled antagonist that he's never a genuine threat for Thor.
In fact, Loki doesn't actually behave in a villainous manner until the after-credits sequence (directed by Joss Whedon, it turns out), where Selvig is summoned by Nick Fury to examine the Cosmic Cube. This brings me to another problem that isn't Branagh's fault, per se, but more attributable to Marvel Executive Producer Kevin Feige: the "set-up" effect.
To be fair, Thor integrates Marvel characters (specifically Avenger-related) in a less intrusive way than say, Iron Man 2: there are small asides that indirectly mention Tony Stark and Bruce Banner; there's the aforementioned "Hawkeye" scene, and The Cosmic Cube is their way of anticipating the Captain America film to come. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is that Thor on Earth isn't really about Thor among humans, but as laying the groundwork for The Avengers, right down to the last thing he says to Agent Coulson before leaving for Asgard.
Okay, so I've nitpicked Thor as a way of addressing why there's a small (but vocal) backlash against the film online, so why do I think it's better than most summer entertainment? Well, the Asgard sections of the film are very good, as is the battle with the Frost Giants. Hemsworth and Elba are both great; Hopkins hasn't been this watchable in a while, and while they don't make much of an impact in the story, Sif and The Warriors Three have a natural chemistry with Thor that hints at a stronger relationship than we see in the film.
The film is also funnier than this recap might suggest, and the laughs are much needed considering how much "fish out of water" plot is glossed over. The effects are impressive, particularly the Bifröst and bridge of Asgard. More to the point I feel the need to stress that there actually IS a story in Thor, which is more than I can say for a lot of "summer movies." It may not be the perfect comic book movie, but if you don't mind the imbalance of interest on Branagh's part, there's a lot to enjoy in Thor.
* I mention this because Ain't It Cool News, of all places, has an actual astrophysicist that breaks down the science of Thor here, and it seems like while the name is appropriate, it's really just a fancy way of saying "wormhole."
** I mention this because Coulson never actually uses his Avengers moniker, so either you know about the casting or are enough of a Marvel fan to know why he chooses a compound bow over sniper rifle. Or both, I suppose. Otherwise, it's just "hey, why is Jeremy Renner in this movie?"
Branagh, whose output varies from the likes of Dead Again to a remake of Sleuth, is best known for his Shakespearean films - Henry V, Hamlet, Love's Labours Lost, Much Ado About Nothing, and As You Like It (as well as appearing in Othello) - and the influence of the Bard on his adaptation of the Nordic-God-Turned-Marvel-Comic-Hero is apparent throughout the film.At least, part of the film.
In the realm of Asgard (one of the nine cosmic realms), Odin (Anthony Hopkins), King of the Gods, is preparing to step down and enter Odinsleep - his period of hibernation - but first must decide which of his sons to hand the throne of Asgard to. His oldest son, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is brave, if stubborn, whose rule may be undermined by a sense of entitlement. His youngest son, Loki (Tom Hiddleston) spent his life living in the shadow of Thor, and while his mischievous nature is recognized, his desire to win Odin's approval is evident. When the Frost Giants invade Asgard and try to steal back the Casket of Ancient Winters (their power supply), Thor disregards Odin's wishes and travels to Jotunheim with Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander) and The Warriors Three - Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanobu Asano) - in tow to destroy the King of the Frost Giants (Colm Feore). Furious, Odin strips Thor of his powers and orders Heimdall (Idris Elba) to banish his son to Earth.And that's the first half hour or so of Thor. That doesn't take into account astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her advisor Dr.Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings), who discover Thor while searching the deserts in New Mexico for wormholes (or, as the film insists on calling them, "Einstein-Rosen bridges*"). No sooner have they found the brash, unruly son of Odin than Mjolnir, Thor's hammer, also falls to Earth and is discovered by S.H.I.E.L.D., headed up by Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg), who continues to appear in all Avengers-related Marvel films.
The New Mexico part of the story, including a well-staged action sequence involving Thor, the S.H.I.E.L.D. team (including an extended cameo by Jeremy Renner, who will play Hawkeye in The Avengers**), is unfortunately the half of the film that doesn't really work. It's clear that Branagh is more interested in the Shakespearean power play at hand in Asgard, where Loki assumes power as Odin collapses after banishing Thor and proceeds to manipulate events in order to keep his older brother from ever returning. What happens on Earth, the place where Thor learns humility and earns his "God of Thunder" powers - which should be the most important part of the film - takes a back seat to Asgardian politics.
Portman and Skarsgård are wasted in roles that serve no purpose: Jane Foster's developing romance with Thor never really makes sense because there's no story arc to support it. Selvig seems to exist in order to bridge Norse mythology to the story at hand (as is evidenced by the many times Skarsgård is forced to mention or read tales of the Viking Gods during the film), and for one good scene where he (badly) lies about Thor's identity to free him from S.H.I.E.L.D. captivity. There's also the after credits tease, but I'll get to that in a minute. I have no idea why Kat Dennings is in the film at all, as Darcy contributes nothing to the story unless the three screenwriters (plus two credited "story" writers) felt the pressing need to have three people discover Thor.
Gregg is, as usual, fine as the "been there, seen that" second hand man of S.H.I.E.L.D. This time, he's on his own (Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury doesn't show up until later), and makes a credible Earth-bound foil for Thor, I guess. Since Thor pretty much gives up on beating goons after failing to raise Mjolnir, it's hard to really say. Again, the Earth-bound business feels perfunctory, second to the far more interesting Asgard story.
Branagh seems to be more comfortable with Hopkins, Hiddleston, Hemsworth, Elba, and Renee Russo (who I didn't even recognize as Odin's wife Frigg) and the power struggle between father and sons. It's as though he's reveling in a pulp fiction twist on King Lear, and the film comes to life during throne room conversations. That's not to say that the Asgard half of the film isn't without its problems, though - another Branagh idiosyncrasy pops up that further confuses the narrative.
Audiences have some idea when they are introduced to Loki that he's supposed to be the villain: his posture is slightly stooped, his hair is slicked back and his sullen, sunken eyes just scream "bad guy waiting in the wings!" But when the time comes for Hiddleston to shift from younger brother with an inferiority complex to full on baddie, Branagh doesn't convey that. This shouldn't be surprising: Branagh also devoted as much of his Hamlet as possible to give nuance to Claudius, typically portrayed as the moustache twirling villain. And there's something to be said for nuance, for giving a villain dimensions, or even to make him sympathetic, but Loki is such a muddled antagonist that he's never a genuine threat for Thor.
In fact, Loki doesn't actually behave in a villainous manner until the after-credits sequence (directed by Joss Whedon, it turns out), where Selvig is summoned by Nick Fury to examine the Cosmic Cube. This brings me to another problem that isn't Branagh's fault, per se, but more attributable to Marvel Executive Producer Kevin Feige: the "set-up" effect.
To be fair, Thor integrates Marvel characters (specifically Avenger-related) in a less intrusive way than say, Iron Man 2: there are small asides that indirectly mention Tony Stark and Bruce Banner; there's the aforementioned "Hawkeye" scene, and The Cosmic Cube is their way of anticipating the Captain America film to come. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect is that Thor on Earth isn't really about Thor among humans, but as laying the groundwork for The Avengers, right down to the last thing he says to Agent Coulson before leaving for Asgard.
Okay, so I've nitpicked Thor as a way of addressing why there's a small (but vocal) backlash against the film online, so why do I think it's better than most summer entertainment? Well, the Asgard sections of the film are very good, as is the battle with the Frost Giants. Hemsworth and Elba are both great; Hopkins hasn't been this watchable in a while, and while they don't make much of an impact in the story, Sif and The Warriors Three have a natural chemistry with Thor that hints at a stronger relationship than we see in the film.
The film is also funnier than this recap might suggest, and the laughs are much needed considering how much "fish out of water" plot is glossed over. The effects are impressive, particularly the Bifröst and bridge of Asgard. More to the point I feel the need to stress that there actually IS a story in Thor, which is more than I can say for a lot of "summer movies." It may not be the perfect comic book movie, but if you don't mind the imbalance of interest on Branagh's part, there's a lot to enjoy in Thor.
* I mention this because Ain't It Cool News, of all places, has an actual astrophysicist that breaks down the science of Thor here, and it seems like while the name is appropriate, it's really just a fancy way of saying "wormhole."
** I mention this because Coulson never actually uses his Avengers moniker, so either you know about the casting or are enough of a Marvel fan to know why he chooses a compound bow over sniper rifle. Or both, I suppose. Otherwise, it's just "hey, why is Jeremy Renner in this movie?"
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Blogorium Reviews Assemble!: Iron Man 2
Iron Man 2 is a classic case of "too many good ideas for one movie." From the "making of" documentary and featurettes for the film, it is evident that director Jon Favreau felt rushed to complete the film in order to meet Paramount and Marvel's release date, and the wear on him physically and mentally is apparent. He also mentions how little time they have, how the script isn't quite finished, that costumes aren't done, effects shots and casting come down to the last second. There's a moment where screenwriter Justin Theroux comes in to help feed lines to Sam Rockwell in order to set up the War Machine subplot. Based on the pressure to keep things moving and the suggested lack of connective tissue, I would wonder if that was more the norm than the exception.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), having revealed that he is Iron Man at the end of the previous film, is now facing scrutiny from the U.S. Government in the guise of Senator Stern (Gary Shandling) for not wanting to share his creation with the military. Stark boasts he's "privatized world peace" but it's clear he isn't the only person capable of making an arc reactor. For one, there's weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer (Rockwell), who has been unsuccessful in making his prototypes work but is more than interested in selling them to hostile countries. There's also Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), the son of a Soviet defector that helped Howard Stark (John Slattery) create the arc reactor technology. When his father dies, Vanko decides to create his own suit and instill chaos into Stark's life as Whiplash. Meanwhile, Tony is running out of time as his current reactor is slowly poisoning him, bringing tension to his relationships with Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow), Happy Hogan (Favreau), and Colonel Rhodes (Don Cheadle, replacing Terence Howard). Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) intervenes and assigns Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) to keep an eye on Stark, along with the mysterious Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson), his new secretary. That may be the least of his worries when Hammer and Vanko join forces to create an army of Iron Drones, just in time to ruin the annual Stark Expo.
Frankly, it's impressive that Iron Man 2 holds together at all. There are at least four competing stories in Iron Man 2 that don't always seem to fit together. Let's take a quick look:
1. Tony Stark's greatest invention is killing him, and his friendships are suffering. The only hope is to reconnect with his deceased father in order to discover a way to stay alive and do good, but he's running out of time to find a stable substitute as his celebrity continues to rise.
2. The Stark family history (including the Expo) hide a secret about what Howard Stark did to get where he got and the people who were stepped on along the way, including the Vanko family. Not only does Tony have to continue to be accountable for the Stark history of warmongering, but he faces a very palpable threat in the guise of a wronged man and a rival weapons dealer.
3. Tony has to deal with the possibility that not only can the Iron Man suit end up in the hands of his enemies, but also his friends. When "Rhodey" takes a Mark IV suit with him and returns it to the military, they immediately set about working with Hammer to create a "War Machine" along with Hammer's drones, and use Stark Expo to unveil their new weapon.
4. Stark's place in the larger Marvel Universe if offset as the film sets up The Avengers by introducing Johansson as Black Widow (I'm assuming you've seen Iron Man 2 by now or at least the trailers for The Avengers so that's not a spoiler) and increasing S.H.I.E.L.D.'s role in the film with Coulson and Fury making extended cameos in the film. There are also direct references to the events of The Incredible Hulk (which appears to happen simultaneously with the end of Iron Man 2) and the arrival of Mjolnir - Thor's hammer - on Earth at the end of the film, a tease that has no direct bearing on Tony Stark.
All of this happens in two hours, and that's not including the first fight with Whiplash that derails a Grand Prix in Monte Carlo, a prison break for Vanko, an action scene for Black Widow (and, for comic comparison, Happy Hogan), and the showdown between Whiplash, his drones, and the Iron Man / War Machine tag team, also during the Stark Expo. The various plotlines are resolved haphazardly, if at all (the Justin Hammer character basically disappears in handcuffs promising revenge) just in time for Tony and Pepper to get together after his new suit saves his life. Black Widow doesn't really make much of an impression at all, as there's not a lot of time for an arc for Johansson in someone else's movie. And hey, there's Agent Coulson in New Mexico! He found Thor's hammer!
There aren't many "villains" in Iron Man 2, at least in the conventional sense that Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane was as Iron Monger in the first film. Ivan Vanko is a man who comes from a family wronged by Howard Stark and is justifiably angry with Tony's glorifying being Iron Man. Justin Hammer is a guy who desperately wants Tony Stark to be his friend, or at least consider him as an equal, to no avail, so he acts out in foolish ways to get even. Even Rhodey only steals the suit because Tony is being a drunken mess during his birthday party and using his own suit to blow up bottles and watermelons. The drones are just that - drones. You don't really feel anything for them so it's no big thing to see them wiped out en masse at the end. Even the perceived threat of Stark's mortality (played up repeatedly in the film) is a straw man, because we all know he's not going to die in the second movie.
So how is it that Iron Man 2 works? How is it that, despite the overstuffed narrative and the rushed schedule and the various "needs" being addressed to facilitate more Marvel films, that I still mostly enjoy the film? Well, it is still funny - Robert Downey Jr. brings a sardonic quality to his impending demise, and his conversations with Jarvis (Paul Bettany) continue to make me chuckle. Likewise the relationship between Stark and Coulson, which actually figures prominently into The Avengers (kinda SPOILER), and the scene where a hungover Tony meets Nick Fury at a doughnut shop. Favreau and Theroux poured every ounce of themselves into the film, as did the cast and crew, and despite the fact that Iron Man 2 just shouldn't work it almost makes it.
It doesn't collapse on itself (like Captain America) and doesn't lopsided in one direction (Thor). The Incredible Hulk's connection to the Marvel world is more tenuous - watching the film again I noticed that all mention of Stark Technology and of S.H.I.E.L.D. appear during the opening credits and the Super Soldier Serum is mentioned by name only once. Were it not for Robert Downey, Jr. appearing at the very end of the film to talk to William Hurt's General Ross, there'd be no tie between Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk at all. That's not really on Iron Man 2, which has a "blink and you'll miss it" screen of footage of Hulk's college campus showdown with the military, but one does get the impression that Marvel felt the need to overcompensate now that the stage had been set.
I'm curious to see Shane Black's Iron Man 3, which has the opportunity to largely be free of the need to set up other Marvel heroes or to feature S.H.I.E.L.D. so prominently (that's what The Avengers 2 is for), and to see where they go with Iron Man's rogue's gallery next. Favreau left the series (and The Avengers) citing a disinterest in moving into the "mystical" realm, although watching the extra footage, I wouldn't be shocked if exhaustion didn't factor in as well. One of the last things you see him doing is recording the audio commentary for the film - before Iron Man 2 is released. He admits it feels surreal to be speaking about the finished film without any context of its release, reaction, or with any distance from its production. Iron Man 2 was a race to the finish line, and it just manages to cross before collapsing.
Frankly, it's impressive that Iron Man 2 holds together at all. There are at least four competing stories in Iron Man 2 that don't always seem to fit together. Let's take a quick look:
1. Tony Stark's greatest invention is killing him, and his friendships are suffering. The only hope is to reconnect with his deceased father in order to discover a way to stay alive and do good, but he's running out of time to find a stable substitute as his celebrity continues to rise.
2. The Stark family history (including the Expo) hide a secret about what Howard Stark did to get where he got and the people who were stepped on along the way, including the Vanko family. Not only does Tony have to continue to be accountable for the Stark history of warmongering, but he faces a very palpable threat in the guise of a wronged man and a rival weapons dealer.
3. Tony has to deal with the possibility that not only can the Iron Man suit end up in the hands of his enemies, but also his friends. When "Rhodey" takes a Mark IV suit with him and returns it to the military, they immediately set about working with Hammer to create a "War Machine" along with Hammer's drones, and use Stark Expo to unveil their new weapon.
4. Stark's place in the larger Marvel Universe if offset as the film sets up The Avengers by introducing Johansson as Black Widow (I'm assuming you've seen Iron Man 2 by now or at least the trailers for The Avengers so that's not a spoiler) and increasing S.H.I.E.L.D.'s role in the film with Coulson and Fury making extended cameos in the film. There are also direct references to the events of The Incredible Hulk (which appears to happen simultaneously with the end of Iron Man 2) and the arrival of Mjolnir - Thor's hammer - on Earth at the end of the film, a tease that has no direct bearing on Tony Stark.
All of this happens in two hours, and that's not including the first fight with Whiplash that derails a Grand Prix in Monte Carlo, a prison break for Vanko, an action scene for Black Widow (and, for comic comparison, Happy Hogan), and the showdown between Whiplash, his drones, and the Iron Man / War Machine tag team, also during the Stark Expo. The various plotlines are resolved haphazardly, if at all (the Justin Hammer character basically disappears in handcuffs promising revenge) just in time for Tony and Pepper to get together after his new suit saves his life. Black Widow doesn't really make much of an impression at all, as there's not a lot of time for an arc for Johansson in someone else's movie. And hey, there's Agent Coulson in New Mexico! He found Thor's hammer!
There aren't many "villains" in Iron Man 2, at least in the conventional sense that Jeff Bridges' Obadiah Stane was as Iron Monger in the first film. Ivan Vanko is a man who comes from a family wronged by Howard Stark and is justifiably angry with Tony's glorifying being Iron Man. Justin Hammer is a guy who desperately wants Tony Stark to be his friend, or at least consider him as an equal, to no avail, so he acts out in foolish ways to get even. Even Rhodey only steals the suit because Tony is being a drunken mess during his birthday party and using his own suit to blow up bottles and watermelons. The drones are just that - drones. You don't really feel anything for them so it's no big thing to see them wiped out en masse at the end. Even the perceived threat of Stark's mortality (played up repeatedly in the film) is a straw man, because we all know he's not going to die in the second movie.
So how is it that Iron Man 2 works? How is it that, despite the overstuffed narrative and the rushed schedule and the various "needs" being addressed to facilitate more Marvel films, that I still mostly enjoy the film? Well, it is still funny - Robert Downey Jr. brings a sardonic quality to his impending demise, and his conversations with Jarvis (Paul Bettany) continue to make me chuckle. Likewise the relationship between Stark and Coulson, which actually figures prominently into The Avengers (kinda SPOILER), and the scene where a hungover Tony meets Nick Fury at a doughnut shop. Favreau and Theroux poured every ounce of themselves into the film, as did the cast and crew, and despite the fact that Iron Man 2 just shouldn't work it almost makes it.
It doesn't collapse on itself (like Captain America) and doesn't lopsided in one direction (Thor). The Incredible Hulk's connection to the Marvel world is more tenuous - watching the film again I noticed that all mention of Stark Technology and of S.H.I.E.L.D. appear during the opening credits and the Super Soldier Serum is mentioned by name only once. Were it not for Robert Downey, Jr. appearing at the very end of the film to talk to William Hurt's General Ross, there'd be no tie between Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk at all. That's not really on Iron Man 2, which has a "blink and you'll miss it" screen of footage of Hulk's college campus showdown with the military, but one does get the impression that Marvel felt the need to overcompensate now that the stage had been set.
I'm curious to see Shane Black's Iron Man 3, which has the opportunity to largely be free of the need to set up other Marvel heroes or to feature S.H.I.E.L.D. so prominently (that's what The Avengers 2 is for), and to see where they go with Iron Man's rogue's gallery next. Favreau left the series (and The Avengers) citing a disinterest in moving into the "mystical" realm, although watching the extra footage, I wouldn't be shocked if exhaustion didn't factor in as well. One of the last things you see him doing is recording the audio commentary for the film - before Iron Man 2 is released. He admits it feels surreal to be speaking about the finished film without any context of its release, reaction, or with any distance from its production. Iron Man 2 was a race to the finish line, and it just manages to cross before collapsing.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Blogorium Reviews Assemble!: Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk
Luckily for all of you, The Cap'n did actually have a couple of stored up reviews just in case such a day came where I was a) no longer angry about the news or b) irritated by something in the film department. In a rare show of "double featuring", I watched Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, roughly back to back not long ago.
Of the two, I'm definitely landing on the Iron Man side of things. It's hard to not want to compare Iron Man to The Dark Knight, the other "big" summer comic book movie, but I'm going to try. They're very different types of films, anchored in very different ways (which actually comes in handy when we turn to The Incredible Hulk, which tries to be darker).
I'm a casual Iron Man reader, so forgive me for not knowing the series as well or catching all of the in jokes, but I did dig the hell out of this movie. While I'd be tempted to say that it could still work with someone else in the suit, Robert Downey Jr is pitch perfect as Tony Stark and kicks the movie from "very good" into "a damn entertaining movie".
And that's what Iron Man is: entertaining. As an origin story, it covers all of the necessary ground quickly and integrates it into the narrative in such a way that things feel organic. In most "origin stories" (think Spider-Man or Batman Begins), there's a dividing line between "hero hones his skill" and "first major test from any villain". Iron Man has three pretty serious tests to the suit, punctuating the film in such a way that the "learning" process scenes in between feel necessary and not, well, "necessary".
The difference is that you're on the ride with Stark as he changes from indifferent playboy to man with a cause, and his adjustments to the suit and his technique don't feel perfunctory because "an origin story needs x, y, and z". Credit for that goes to Jon Favreau, who I felt made a surprisingly good kids film with Zathura a few years ago and is really establishing himself as a great director of summer entertainment.
The cast all seems to be having a great time, with Downey in the lead, but that shouldn't leave out Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Favreau himself who plays Stark's chauffer. What Iron Man has that few comic book movies do is the sense of enjoyment with the material, and a wonder at what unfolds onscreen. In that respect it's a lot like Superman: The Movie.
And yes, there's the Nick Fury scene at the end, setting up the whole "Avengers Initiative", a thread that continues in The Incredible Hulk. Most of the weaponry used by General Ross (William Hurt) against Bruce Banner / The Hulk (Edward Norton) comes from Stark Industries, and Robert Downey Jr makes an appearance in the film as Tony Stark. This is notable because two different studios made Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, but Marvel is asserting its universe whoever finances the film.
Like I mentioned above, The Incredible Hulk is "darker" than Iron Man, by which I should say "angstier". Like Superman Returns, the film is almost slavishly devoted to the Incredible Hulk tv series, borrowing music, iconography, and even some cast members (look for Bill Bixby on a tv show and Lou Ferrigno halfway through the film). Ferrigno is also the "voice" of Norton's Hulk, and yes, that does mean he talks, not just growls.
To separate itself from Ang Lee's Hulk, the reboot has a Spider-Man 2-like opening which quickly recaps the Hulk origin story in flashes. The movie goes ahead and assumes you've either a) seen Lee's version or b) watched the tv show, so there's not a lot of time spent recapping stuff. There is a lot of staring, running, Edward Norton and William Hurt looking angsty, and Liv Tyler being menaced.
In fact, only Tim Roth seems to be having any fun with the movie, until he too is reduced to the cgi Abomination for the big brawl at the end. I'll give it to The Incredible Hulk for upping the "destruction" quotient in this second go-around, but overall the movie is narratively fractured, edited sloppily, and mostly uninterested in doing more than moping and smashing. I'm not in any hurry to watch it again, or see the "alternate opening" and deleted scenes, which Edward Norton claims are a fraction of what was cut from the film (oh boy, a longer, angstier version of The Hulk awaits...)
They do continue to set up Captain America, particularly since Roth's Emil Blonsky takes the Super Soldier serum to equal Hulk in power, and the aforementioned Iron Man / Avengers connection. I look forward to Iron Man 2, even if the "Terrence Howard / Don Cheadle" situation confuses me a bit. If Kenneth Branagh is still involved with Thor, I'm quite curious, and the announcement of Joe Johnston on Captain America doesn't feel like a detriment. We'll see what Marvel has in store for us.
Bonus: Four Reasons Why Iron Man is Not for Children!
To preface this edition of Four Reasons, allow me to explain what seems like a fairly obvious argument. I made the mistake of telling someone - based on having seen Iron Man once a year and a half ago - that it might be the kind of movie they could show an eight year old. The way I remembered Iron Man, which is admittedly a PG-13 movie, hinged upon the scenes where Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) put together the Mark II and was flying around like a goofball (i.e., Tony hovering in the garage, flying too high and freezing, and the airplane chase).
What I'd forgotten about was the rest of the movie, which is not at all kid-friendly. In fact, I'd say that Iron Man is on the "hard" end of a PG-13. Of course, I had to find this out while watching the movie with said parent, who seemed alarmed I would even suggest this film was appropriate for a kid who liked Iron Man as a character.
But let's make with the specificity, shall we? Then you - like I - can remember exact points of reference and never made the mistake the Cap'n did.
1. Depiction of Women - You could argue that there are, essentially, two women in the story: Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Christine Everhart (Leslie Bibb). Pepper is Stark's loyal assistant, who willingly puts her life aside to serve Tony at whatever whim he indulges in. In exchange, she occasionally gets to make a snarky quip at his expense, which is what passes for comeuppance considering that he twice puts her life at risk and sees her as a "love interest" in the most passing and incidental of ways.
I'd forgive you if you forgot who Christine Everhart was, since she only appears once during the beginning (outside the casino), the middle (at the charity ball), and at the end (the press conference). She's the reporter who sleeps with Stark immediately after some verbal sparring, is suggested by Potts to be part of "occasionally taking out the trash", and then reappears to create the schism between Tony and Obadiah (Jeff Bridges) so the conflict can begin properly, and then gets one parting shot in before Stark announces "I am Iron Man." That's it. That's her character.
While you could make the argument that they're doing this job because they enjoy it, I do feel the need to mention the flight attendants on Stark's private plane who strip down and work out on a stripper pole in mid-flight. One could also argue that this entire sequence exists only so that they could incorporate a Ghostface Killah video into the film (as one of Ghostface's alter egos is named Tony Stark and his first album was called Ironman), which I'd buy, but it doesn't necessarily explain away the "women as objects" argument in Iron Man.
2. Violence - I lost count of how many people Iron Man cripples, maims, or kills during the film (either by burning them, blasting them, or in explosions), but it's a pretty high body count, even for a comic book movie. To put it in perspective, let's look at X2 and Spider-Man 2, which both have higher body counts than the first film, but still nowhere nearly as high as Iron Man*.
Okay, in X2, Wolverine goes on a berserker rage and kills ten to fifteen soldiers in the Xavier Institute. Let's safely assume he wipes out some more in Stryker's lab, plus the presumed killing of Lady Deathstrike (always possibly alive for sequels). All of the other murders are committed by villains; Magneto kills the guard, Mystique kills a bunch of schmoes, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something else. Nightcrawler doesn't kill anyone, per se, in his White House siege, although I'm sure he knocks out several people.
In Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man kills... nobody. He doesn't even accidentally kill someone, like the Green Goblin in the first film. Doctor Octopus kills all of the medical staff, and I'm sure there was some serious collateral damage during the "car thrown into the coffee shop" scene, but he also willingly sacrifices himself to the deep to save Spider-Man and Mary Jane (and the world). I'm reasonably certain less people die in Spider-Man 2 than did in Spider-Man.
Iron Man is not quite The Dark Knight in terms of violence, but there's a lot of carnage in the film. Even when Iron Man and Iron Monger are fighting, Jeff Bridges is talking the entire time, so it's hard to pretend that two cgi robots are kicking the crap out of each other. Speaking of which, that brings us to the second reason...
3. Generally Disturbing Content - See, it's not just that Obadiah has people killed, including two attempts on Tony's life. The way he does is is way too creepy for children. Bear in mind that the "paralyzing" sonic device that he uses is not explained in full until he uses it on Stark, so the first time it comes out on Raza, we don't know what the hell is happening. All the audience knows is that the veins on his head are becoming very pronounced (and blackened) and he's having trouble breathing. Then Obadiah says "that's the least of your worries right now" and leaves. We have no idea what's going to happen. Is there some kind of horrible virus in him?
To make things worse, when Stane uses it on Tony, Stark is at a 45 degree angle on his couch while Obadiah leans over him and explains a) how the device works, and b) his evil plan. Then he uses a device to burn through Tony's shirt and pull out Stark's "heart", leaving him there to die. As someone who watches quite a few horror movies, this would fit nicely in one of the A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels as a Freddy torture dream. Definitely not for kids.
For more examples, let's move along to number four...
4. Again, This Movie is Rated PG-13??? - While I think I've laid out a pretty good case so far, let's push a little further, shall we? I haven't even mentioned the fact that the film opens with Tony Stark under siege and the troops protecting him being wiped out one by one, or the fact that he's captured by the Ten Rings, which is presented as a terrorist organization and makes a video eerily reminiscent of al Qaeda hostage tapes. Or we could talk about the fact that Tony Stark's Mark One is constantly being attacked by his own machine guns. Or Stane trying to crush Iron Man to death, and then opening his suit and falling to his death, or any number of wonderful things that happen earlier in the film before Stark has his eyes - and chest- opened and begins a not-so non-violent reaction to the Ten Rings.
Don't get me wrong; The Dark Knight is a MUCH harder PG-13 (I'm surprised, at times, it's not an R), but Iron Man is not at all a movie you should show to kids. I'd debate showing it to a 12 year-old, as some of the thematic material at the beginning of the film really surprised me. I honestly didn't remember the movie being so "adults-only" when I saw it the first time. Maybe it was that the development of the Mark II really brought out the "kid" in me, but I instantly regretted ever recommending this movie for an 8 year old.
So hopefully I've made my case, which many of you can simply reply to with, "well, duh." And that's fair, but the Cap'n makes mistakes too, y'know. I watched the remake of Friday the 13th, for crying out loud. Anyway, the moral of the story is that geek parents might want to think twice about bringing their kids to Iron Man 2 this summer, which looks to be darker than the first one by sheer virtue of Mickey Rourke. I mean, just look at him.
* I'm willing to concede that the Cap'n is probably forgetting a LOT of other acts of violence in Spider-Man 2 and X2, but for the purposes of this argument I think I covered the bases pretty well. Yes, I left out the scene where Logan sustains a head shot - which later becomes a joke about spitting the bullet out - but at that point you are aware of his healing abilit
I'm a casual Iron Man reader, so forgive me for not knowing the series as well or catching all of the in jokes, but I did dig the hell out of this movie. While I'd be tempted to say that it could still work with someone else in the suit, Robert Downey Jr is pitch perfect as Tony Stark and kicks the movie from "very good" into "a damn entertaining movie".
And that's what Iron Man is: entertaining. As an origin story, it covers all of the necessary ground quickly and integrates it into the narrative in such a way that things feel organic. In most "origin stories" (think Spider-Man or Batman Begins), there's a dividing line between "hero hones his skill" and "first major test from any villain". Iron Man has three pretty serious tests to the suit, punctuating the film in such a way that the "learning" process scenes in between feel necessary and not, well, "necessary".
The difference is that you're on the ride with Stark as he changes from indifferent playboy to man with a cause, and his adjustments to the suit and his technique don't feel perfunctory because "an origin story needs x, y, and z". Credit for that goes to Jon Favreau, who I felt made a surprisingly good kids film with Zathura a few years ago and is really establishing himself as a great director of summer entertainment.
The cast all seems to be having a great time, with Downey in the lead, but that shouldn't leave out Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Favreau himself who plays Stark's chauffer. What Iron Man has that few comic book movies do is the sense of enjoyment with the material, and a wonder at what unfolds onscreen. In that respect it's a lot like Superman: The Movie.
And yes, there's the Nick Fury scene at the end, setting up the whole "Avengers Initiative", a thread that continues in The Incredible Hulk. Most of the weaponry used by General Ross (William Hurt) against Bruce Banner / The Hulk (Edward Norton) comes from Stark Industries, and Robert Downey Jr makes an appearance in the film as Tony Stark. This is notable because two different studios made Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, but Marvel is asserting its universe whoever finances the film.
To separate itself from Ang Lee's Hulk, the reboot has a Spider-Man 2-like opening which quickly recaps the Hulk origin story in flashes. The movie goes ahead and assumes you've either a) seen Lee's version or b) watched the tv show, so there's not a lot of time spent recapping stuff. There is a lot of staring, running, Edward Norton and William Hurt looking angsty, and Liv Tyler being menaced.
In fact, only Tim Roth seems to be having any fun with the movie, until he too is reduced to the cgi Abomination for the big brawl at the end. I'll give it to The Incredible Hulk for upping the "destruction" quotient in this second go-around, but overall the movie is narratively fractured, edited sloppily, and mostly uninterested in doing more than moping and smashing. I'm not in any hurry to watch it again, or see the "alternate opening" and deleted scenes, which Edward Norton claims are a fraction of what was cut from the film (oh boy, a longer, angstier version of The Hulk awaits...)
They do continue to set up Captain America, particularly since Roth's Emil Blonsky takes the Super Soldier serum to equal Hulk in power, and the aforementioned Iron Man / Avengers connection. I look forward to Iron Man 2, even if the "Terrence Howard / Don Cheadle" situation confuses me a bit. If Kenneth Branagh is still involved with Thor, I'm quite curious, and the announcement of Joe Johnston on Captain America doesn't feel like a detriment. We'll see what Marvel has in store for us.
Bonus: Four Reasons Why Iron Man is Not for Children!
To preface this edition of Four Reasons, allow me to explain what seems like a fairly obvious argument. I made the mistake of telling someone - based on having seen Iron Man once a year and a half ago - that it might be the kind of movie they could show an eight year old. The way I remembered Iron Man, which is admittedly a PG-13 movie, hinged upon the scenes where Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) put together the Mark II and was flying around like a goofball (i.e., Tony hovering in the garage, flying too high and freezing, and the airplane chase).
What I'd forgotten about was the rest of the movie, which is not at all kid-friendly. In fact, I'd say that Iron Man is on the "hard" end of a PG-13. Of course, I had to find this out while watching the movie with said parent, who seemed alarmed I would even suggest this film was appropriate for a kid who liked Iron Man as a character.
But let's make with the specificity, shall we? Then you - like I - can remember exact points of reference and never made the mistake the Cap'n did.
1. Depiction of Women - You could argue that there are, essentially, two women in the story: Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Christine Everhart (Leslie Bibb). Pepper is Stark's loyal assistant, who willingly puts her life aside to serve Tony at whatever whim he indulges in. In exchange, she occasionally gets to make a snarky quip at his expense, which is what passes for comeuppance considering that he twice puts her life at risk and sees her as a "love interest" in the most passing and incidental of ways.
I'd forgive you if you forgot who Christine Everhart was, since she only appears once during the beginning (outside the casino), the middle (at the charity ball), and at the end (the press conference). She's the reporter who sleeps with Stark immediately after some verbal sparring, is suggested by Potts to be part of "occasionally taking out the trash", and then reappears to create the schism between Tony and Obadiah (Jeff Bridges) so the conflict can begin properly, and then gets one parting shot in before Stark announces "I am Iron Man." That's it. That's her character.
While you could make the argument that they're doing this job because they enjoy it, I do feel the need to mention the flight attendants on Stark's private plane who strip down and work out on a stripper pole in mid-flight. One could also argue that this entire sequence exists only so that they could incorporate a Ghostface Killah video into the film (as one of Ghostface's alter egos is named Tony Stark and his first album was called Ironman), which I'd buy, but it doesn't necessarily explain away the "women as objects" argument in Iron Man.
2. Violence - I lost count of how many people Iron Man cripples, maims, or kills during the film (either by burning them, blasting them, or in explosions), but it's a pretty high body count, even for a comic book movie. To put it in perspective, let's look at X2 and Spider-Man 2, which both have higher body counts than the first film, but still nowhere nearly as high as Iron Man*.
Okay, in X2, Wolverine goes on a berserker rage and kills ten to fifteen soldiers in the Xavier Institute. Let's safely assume he wipes out some more in Stryker's lab, plus the presumed killing of Lady Deathstrike (always possibly alive for sequels). All of the other murders are committed by villains; Magneto kills the guard, Mystique kills a bunch of schmoes, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something else. Nightcrawler doesn't kill anyone, per se, in his White House siege, although I'm sure he knocks out several people.
In Spider-Man 2, Spider-Man kills... nobody. He doesn't even accidentally kill someone, like the Green Goblin in the first film. Doctor Octopus kills all of the medical staff, and I'm sure there was some serious collateral damage during the "car thrown into the coffee shop" scene, but he also willingly sacrifices himself to the deep to save Spider-Man and Mary Jane (and the world). I'm reasonably certain less people die in Spider-Man 2 than did in Spider-Man.
Iron Man is not quite The Dark Knight in terms of violence, but there's a lot of carnage in the film. Even when Iron Man and Iron Monger are fighting, Jeff Bridges is talking the entire time, so it's hard to pretend that two cgi robots are kicking the crap out of each other. Speaking of which, that brings us to the second reason...
3. Generally Disturbing Content - See, it's not just that Obadiah has people killed, including two attempts on Tony's life. The way he does is is way too creepy for children. Bear in mind that the "paralyzing" sonic device that he uses is not explained in full until he uses it on Stark, so the first time it comes out on Raza, we don't know what the hell is happening. All the audience knows is that the veins on his head are becoming very pronounced (and blackened) and he's having trouble breathing. Then Obadiah says "that's the least of your worries right now" and leaves. We have no idea what's going to happen. Is there some kind of horrible virus in him?
To make things worse, when Stane uses it on Tony, Stark is at a 45 degree angle on his couch while Obadiah leans over him and explains a) how the device works, and b) his evil plan. Then he uses a device to burn through Tony's shirt and pull out Stark's "heart", leaving him there to die. As someone who watches quite a few horror movies, this would fit nicely in one of the A Nightmare on Elm Street sequels as a Freddy torture dream. Definitely not for kids.
For more examples, let's move along to number four...
4. Again, This Movie is Rated PG-13??? - While I think I've laid out a pretty good case so far, let's push a little further, shall we? I haven't even mentioned the fact that the film opens with Tony Stark under siege and the troops protecting him being wiped out one by one, or the fact that he's captured by the Ten Rings, which is presented as a terrorist organization and makes a video eerily reminiscent of al Qaeda hostage tapes. Or we could talk about the fact that Tony Stark's Mark One is constantly being attacked by his own machine guns. Or Stane trying to crush Iron Man to death, and then opening his suit and falling to his death, or any number of wonderful things that happen earlier in the film before Stark has his eyes - and chest- opened and begins a not-so non-violent reaction to the Ten Rings.
Don't get me wrong; The Dark Knight is a MUCH harder PG-13 (I'm surprised, at times, it's not an R), but Iron Man is not at all a movie you should show to kids. I'd debate showing it to a 12 year-old, as some of the thematic material at the beginning of the film really surprised me. I honestly didn't remember the movie being so "adults-only" when I saw it the first time. Maybe it was that the development of the Mark II really brought out the "kid" in me, but I instantly regretted ever recommending this movie for an 8 year old.
So hopefully I've made my case, which many of you can simply reply to with, "well, duh." And that's fair, but the Cap'n makes mistakes too, y'know. I watched the remake of Friday the 13th, for crying out loud. Anyway, the moral of the story is that geek parents might want to think twice about bringing their kids to Iron Man 2 this summer, which looks to be darker than the first one by sheer virtue of Mickey Rourke. I mean, just look at him.
* I'm willing to concede that the Cap'n is probably forgetting a LOT of other acts of violence in Spider-Man 2 and X2, but for the purposes of this argument I think I covered the bases pretty well. Yes, I left out the scene where Logan sustains a head shot - which later becomes a joke about spitting the bullet out - but at that point you are aware of his healing abilit
Monday, April 30, 2012
May the 4th... Be with Marvel!
Again, take that George Lucas. That will keep me satisfied considering that I forgot that in trading up from a dead phone to a newer one that I inadvertently chose the one that gives Lucasfilm kickbacks. Anyway, so as you may or may not be aware, The Avengers opens on Friday (or Thursday at midnight, if you aren't one of those "technicalists" who keep late hours and prefer to think of the next day some time around dawn when you're heading to bed). It is a movie where comic book characters we've been getting to know cinematically for the last four years get together to save the Earth, and if not that, presumably avenge it.
I can't imagine anyone who is predisposed to seeing Marvel's The Avengers based on the comic book Marvel's The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes does not know who Joss Whedon is, but for the rest of you he's the semi-classic definition of a "cult" hero. The reason that most of you wouldn't know who he was is because if you've heard anything he's created, it's usually in a derisive way, like "oh, the guy that Fox hires and then cancels his shows" (Firefly, Dollhouse), or "the guy who made a TV show out of that Kristy Swanson movie" (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), or "oh, guy who had the spinoff of that Kristy Swanson thing with the guy from Bones" (Angel). Maybe it was "the guy that made that movie all those nerdy 'browncoats' wanted me to see but nobody got around to it" (Serenity). Actually, it's probably that "guy who did the musical thing with Neil Patrick Harris that's on Netflix that I didn't see because my annoying nerd friends told me 'OMG it's like the best EVAR!" (Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog).
By the way, I'm not actually bagging on Joss Whedon for any of this, so there's no need to point out that he created Buffy the Vampire Slayer and wrote the movie which was taken away from him and Donald Sutherland refused to use Whedon's dialogue or that you tried your best to get your friends to see Serenity and wrote letters to save Dollhouse and Firefly and that you saw every episode of Buffy and Angel and you've read Whedon's run on The Astonishing X-Men. It's cool. I get it. There's a copy of Serenity behind me and Firefly is upstairs. I'm not trying to get your goad, folks*. This is for people who read this entire paragraph and said "what now?" There is very little "public perception" of Joss Whedon, but even as a fan of the Whedon-verse, I can understand why some people feel we're insufferable in our geekdom.
So where was I? Ah yes, okay Joss Whedon is a writer / director / creative force known to a devoted audience and then not so much by the rest of the world. The Avengers is in almost all certainty going to change that. Then people might finally stop mentioning his period as screenwriter-for-hire / script doctor (Speed, Toy Story, Waterworld, X-Men**, Alien: Resurrection to name a few) and he'll have some leeway to do whatever he wants and also get to make blockbuster comic book movies if he feels like it. This is a good thing, by the way, as he is a tremendously talented fellow that has mostly been just under the radar for the last decade.
I thought it might be fun to revisit the path to The Avengers by looking at reviews for Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger before we get to the main event. And even though I've already seen The Avengers, for reasons I can't get into or discuss at the moment, I'm going to see it again before giving it a proper review. To prove to you that I'm not pulling your chain, here's something that nobody else has mentioned about the film: Harry Dean Stanton has a cameo that's all the funnier because there's no good reason why Harry Dean Stanton should be playing a security guard having a conversation with Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) after the Hulk falls from the sky.
The other fun thing about this recap is that I never actually reviewed Iron Man 2, so you'll get a fresh look at it two years later as I'll be watching it again in the next day or two. Tomorrow, I'll put up a vintage double feature review of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, and then on Wednesday I'll get you a new Iron Man 2 review, followed by Thor on Thursday (how appropriate) and Captain America on Friday. Then we'll close out the week with The Avengers on Saturday. In the mean time, go see The Avengers this weekend. I think you'll really like it. Except for Professor Murder. I can almost guarantee he's not going to like it at all.
* If I were going to do that, I'd mention that I am not a huge fan of Whedon musicals, which means I don't like Dr. Horrible and I really didn't like "Once More with Feeling". Flame on.
** He is singularly responsible for the notorious "do you know what happens when a toad is struck by lightning" line, which in his defense would sound a lot funnier delivered by Sarah Michelle Gellar.
I can't imagine anyone who is predisposed to seeing Marvel's The Avengers based on the comic book Marvel's The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes does not know who Joss Whedon is, but for the rest of you he's the semi-classic definition of a "cult" hero. The reason that most of you wouldn't know who he was is because if you've heard anything he's created, it's usually in a derisive way, like "oh, the guy that Fox hires and then cancels his shows" (Firefly, Dollhouse), or "the guy who made a TV show out of that Kristy Swanson movie" (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), or "oh, guy who had the spinoff of that Kristy Swanson thing with the guy from Bones" (Angel). Maybe it was "the guy that made that movie all those nerdy 'browncoats' wanted me to see but nobody got around to it" (Serenity). Actually, it's probably that "guy who did the musical thing with Neil Patrick Harris that's on Netflix that I didn't see because my annoying nerd friends told me 'OMG it's like the best EVAR!" (Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog).
By the way, I'm not actually bagging on Joss Whedon for any of this, so there's no need to point out that he created Buffy the Vampire Slayer and wrote the movie which was taken away from him and Donald Sutherland refused to use Whedon's dialogue or that you tried your best to get your friends to see Serenity and wrote letters to save Dollhouse and Firefly and that you saw every episode of Buffy and Angel and you've read Whedon's run on The Astonishing X-Men. It's cool. I get it. There's a copy of Serenity behind me and Firefly is upstairs. I'm not trying to get your goad, folks*. This is for people who read this entire paragraph and said "what now?" There is very little "public perception" of Joss Whedon, but even as a fan of the Whedon-verse, I can understand why some people feel we're insufferable in our geekdom.
So where was I? Ah yes, okay Joss Whedon is a writer / director / creative force known to a devoted audience and then not so much by the rest of the world. The Avengers is in almost all certainty going to change that. Then people might finally stop mentioning his period as screenwriter-for-hire / script doctor (Speed, Toy Story, Waterworld, X-Men**, Alien: Resurrection to name a few) and he'll have some leeway to do whatever he wants and also get to make blockbuster comic book movies if he feels like it. This is a good thing, by the way, as he is a tremendously talented fellow that has mostly been just under the radar for the last decade.
I thought it might be fun to revisit the path to The Avengers by looking at reviews for Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger before we get to the main event. And even though I've already seen The Avengers, for reasons I can't get into or discuss at the moment, I'm going to see it again before giving it a proper review. To prove to you that I'm not pulling your chain, here's something that nobody else has mentioned about the film: Harry Dean Stanton has a cameo that's all the funnier because there's no good reason why Harry Dean Stanton should be playing a security guard having a conversation with Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) after the Hulk falls from the sky.
The other fun thing about this recap is that I never actually reviewed Iron Man 2, so you'll get a fresh look at it two years later as I'll be watching it again in the next day or two. Tomorrow, I'll put up a vintage double feature review of Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk, and then on Wednesday I'll get you a new Iron Man 2 review, followed by Thor on Thursday (how appropriate) and Captain America on Friday. Then we'll close out the week with The Avengers on Saturday. In the mean time, go see The Avengers this weekend. I think you'll really like it. Except for Professor Murder. I can almost guarantee he's not going to like it at all.
* If I were going to do that, I'd mention that I am not a huge fan of Whedon musicals, which means I don't like Dr. Horrible and I really didn't like "Once More with Feeling". Flame on.
** He is singularly responsible for the notorious "do you know what happens when a toad is struck by lightning" line, which in his defense would sound a lot funnier delivered by Sarah Michelle Gellar.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Blogorium Review: Galaxy of Terror
In my continued efforts to turn left when you're expecting me to go right, I have opted to review Galaxy of Terror (aka Planet of Horrors and Mindwarp: An Infinity of Terror) instead of Ben-Hur. It is true that I watched them back-to-back, and just like you got a write up for Lockout instead of The Cabin in the Woods, we're going to focus on the much schlockier part of a double feature again. The good news is that you don't have to be drunk to enjoy Galaxy of Terror, a Roger Corman produced flick that's just barely different enough from Alien to not be a ripoff.
The funny thing is that the presence of James Cameron as production designer and second unit director actually lends credibility to the case that Aliens is a ripoff of Galaxy of Terror. It's not a case many people are making, but I'll explain what I mean in a bit. Corman commissioned Mark Siegler and Bruce D. Clark to create a movie about a mysterious planet where something sinister (alien perhaps?) has wiped out an expeditionary crew and is now preying on the rescue team. It's not exactly Alien, but if you were to say "give me a movie that's like Alien but isn't Alien," you might end up with Galaxy of Terror.
When he loses contact with the last ship sent to the planet Morganthus, the Planet Master (SPOILER HIDDEN) informs Commander Ilvar (Bernard Behrens) that the Quest will be dispatched to discover if there are any survivors. The Planet Master assembles a hand-picked team to land or Morganthus: Captain Trantor (Grace Zabriskie), the lone survivor of an older disaster, Baelon (Zalman King), her first officer, Cabren (Edward Albert), Alluma (Erin Moran), a pyschic, Dameia (Taaffe O'Connell) and Ranger (Robert Englund), engineers, scientists, and medics for the team. Also along for the ride are Quuhod (Sid Haig), a weapons expert who specializes in crystal throwing stars, Cos (Jack Blessing), a rookie, and Kore (Ray Walston), the cook. They find what remains of the crew on Morganthus, as well as a mysterious pyramid that hides their deepest fears inside...
So the first thing I think I should mention is the cast. If you were reading the synopsis and saying, "Wow! He's in this? She's in this? Holy cats, they're all in one movie?" the answer is yes. It's a who's who of "Hey, I know that actor / actress," including people who would become Freddy Kreuger, Captain Spaulding, Sarah Palmer, and the creator of The Red Shoe Diaries. Or, maybe they'd already been Joanie Cunningham, My Favorite Martian, one of Blansky's Beauties, or uh, Eddie "Green Acres" Albert's son. It's an eclectic cast for a film that's best remembered for a woman having sex with a giant meal-worm.
Actually, for a film made with very little money (somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million dollars), it has a ton of production value, a pretty good story, some interesting (and gruesome) death scenes, and despite the Giger-esque pyramid design, some neat designs. While Cameron was heavily involved in the look of Galaxy of Terror, I don't want to overshadow other Corman team members: Robert and Dennis Skotak, Alec Gillis, Al Apone, R. Christopher Biggs, Brian Chin, Ron Lizorty, Randall Frakes, Tom Campbell, and Rick Moore. It's interesting that some of the people involved in Galaxy of Terror would go on to work on effects for Aliens, because while Morganthus is supposed to be reminiscent of Ridley Scott's "alien" landscape, it looks much more like Cameron's vision of LV-426 from the 1986 sequel.
Watching Galaxy of Terror, all of the exterior scenes, either mixed with models, rear projection, or both, is eerily reminiscent of the film Cameron would make five years later. While the interior of the Quest looks like a budget-modified version of the Nostromo and the pyramid has designs "inspired" by H.R. Giger (and, at times, Forbidden Planet and The Black Hole), the exteriors of Morganthus are going to seem more like a dry run for the "game over" scene in Aliens. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is an amusing parallel considering that Galaxy of Terror was conceived as a way to cash in on the success of Ridley Scott's Alien.
Now, it is fair to mention that this is a movie where a giant maggot strips down Taaffe O'Connell, lubes her up, and then has sex with her (and they both seem to be enjoying it). It's a movie undercut by comical sound effects (especially during Bernard Behrens' death scene) and even though the story is more interesting that just being stalked by an alien, the ending is abrupt and anticlimactic. There's a character that, despite clearly still being alive, just disappears before the final confrontation, never to be heard from again. This is, make no mistake, still an exploitation picture, so most of the more intriguing concepts from Siegler and Clark tend to get swept aside for gore and (sporadic) nudity. Corman famously shot most of the "rape" scene because Clark refused to, and both director and writer objected to its presence in the film. In the end, it's such a bizarre scene that I had a hard time being disturbed by it, something I was expecting coming into the picture.
Galaxy of Terror is a gory, schlocky, occasionally impressive slice of exploitation best enjoyed late at night, after a few beers (well, maybe you do need to be a little drunk) in the company of friends who don't mind their science fiction / horror on the cheap side. It's the kind of movie I'd imagine people who would come to Cap'n Howdy's Blogorium would watch, because why not? Between this and Lockout, it's not even a discussion. Bring on the space monsters!
The funny thing is that the presence of James Cameron as production designer and second unit director actually lends credibility to the case that Aliens is a ripoff of Galaxy of Terror. It's not a case many people are making, but I'll explain what I mean in a bit. Corman commissioned Mark Siegler and Bruce D. Clark to create a movie about a mysterious planet where something sinister (alien perhaps?) has wiped out an expeditionary crew and is now preying on the rescue team. It's not exactly Alien, but if you were to say "give me a movie that's like Alien but isn't Alien," you might end up with Galaxy of Terror.
So the first thing I think I should mention is the cast. If you were reading the synopsis and saying, "Wow! He's in this? She's in this? Holy cats, they're all in one movie?" the answer is yes. It's a who's who of "Hey, I know that actor / actress," including people who would become Freddy Kreuger, Captain Spaulding, Sarah Palmer, and the creator of The Red Shoe Diaries. Or, maybe they'd already been Joanie Cunningham, My Favorite Martian, one of Blansky's Beauties, or uh, Eddie "Green Acres" Albert's son. It's an eclectic cast for a film that's best remembered for a woman having sex with a giant meal-worm.
Actually, for a film made with very little money (somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million dollars), it has a ton of production value, a pretty good story, some interesting (and gruesome) death scenes, and despite the Giger-esque pyramid design, some neat designs. While Cameron was heavily involved in the look of Galaxy of Terror, I don't want to overshadow other Corman team members: Robert and Dennis Skotak, Alec Gillis, Al Apone, R. Christopher Biggs, Brian Chin, Ron Lizorty, Randall Frakes, Tom Campbell, and Rick Moore. It's interesting that some of the people involved in Galaxy of Terror would go on to work on effects for Aliens, because while Morganthus is supposed to be reminiscent of Ridley Scott's "alien" landscape, it looks much more like Cameron's vision of LV-426 from the 1986 sequel.
Watching Galaxy of Terror, all of the exterior scenes, either mixed with models, rear projection, or both, is eerily reminiscent of the film Cameron would make five years later. While the interior of the Quest looks like a budget-modified version of the Nostromo and the pyramid has designs "inspired" by H.R. Giger (and, at times, Forbidden Planet and The Black Hole), the exteriors of Morganthus are going to seem more like a dry run for the "game over" scene in Aliens. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is an amusing parallel considering that Galaxy of Terror was conceived as a way to cash in on the success of Ridley Scott's Alien.
Galaxy of Terror is a gory, schlocky, occasionally impressive slice of exploitation best enjoyed late at night, after a few beers (well, maybe you do need to be a little drunk) in the company of friends who don't mind their science fiction / horror on the cheap side. It's the kind of movie I'd imagine people who would come to Cap'n Howdy's Blogorium would watch, because why not? Between this and Lockout, it's not even a discussion. Bring on the space monsters!
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Retro Review: The YAD Archives (Part Two)
Welcome back to another special edition of the Retro Review. Today we'll continue looking at a heretofore forgotten collection of reviews from defunct online magazine You're All Doomed. Today I thought it might be fun to take a look at a series of reviews by Professor Murder, titled "Hey Dirtbag!" They range far and wide in the spectrum of cinematic quality, but I continue to laugh at his spoiler for Resident Evil: Apocalypse.
Disclaimer: The only thing I've changed with these reviews is replacing Professor Murder's actual name with his Blogorium moniker. Trust me, his employers wouldn't want this coming up in a Google search.
HEY DIRTBAG! Go see Resident Evil Apocalypse!
by Professor "The Hammer" Murder
I don’t often like movies based on Comic Books so when I heard about Resident Evil 2 you can only imagine my trepidation. But when one of my friends managed to score a rough cut of the movie directly from the studio, I figured, “What the hey! I’ve got some time to kill so I might as well do this as opposed to something else!” I must warn you however, there are spoilers ahead so when you see the word “SPOILER” in all caps like that, skip it if you don’t wanna know what happens.
The movie opens with a couple of cops or something riding in a car. They’re jibber-jabbering about some company called umbrella, and how stuff is going wrong with it. Then I hear the word Zombie and my ears perk up. So after a very impressive CGI scene involving the car, the guy who’s driving it ends up on this street that appears abandoned. UNTIL ZOMBIES START TRYING TO EAT HIM. So he freaks out, after realizing he does not have many bullets and runs toward a, quite conveniently placed I might add, Ammo store. The clerk tries to shoot him yadda yadda, and then gets turned into a zombie. Luckily, for The Cop, there’s some ammo and a box of health lying around. He kills the fresh zombie and runs to a nearby Police station or HQ for the uninitiated. This is where the Producers kick it up a notch, because my friend told me that if I go to the DVD menu, and press some buttons, The cop would get a whole bunch of new weapons that he wouldn’t normally get till later into the movie. So, wanting the best for the Cop, I did. THEN HE GOT A FLAME THROWER! AND A GATLIN GUN. AND A BAZOOKA! Or maybe it was a rocket launcher, something like that. The movie was pretty great from
SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THERE IS A HUGE FREAKING SPIDER IN THE SEWER UNDER THE HQ!
here on out except for one part. Just when the movie hits its cadence as it were, the whole movie starts over with the chick who was riding in the car with the guy cop. Then you have to watch the whole thing over again with a different character. Well, you will if you go see it. I turned it off around there.
---
Run Ronnie Run
by Professor "The Hammer" Murder
"I recommend it."
-also-
"You can give it some stars or something if you want."
---
HEY DIRTBAG! Go see “Kingpin”
This was from before the Farrelly brothers were known crap perpetrators so I will let it slide as I still really like this movie.
by Professor Muder
Seriously. If you have a girlfriend, go see Kingpin. Even if you do not have a girlfriend, Go See freakin Kingpin because, and I sincerely mean this, it could help you get a girlfriend. Ok. The movie starts out with woody from Cheers in this Bowling Alley. So, there are these girls, they must be around 17 and they’re all giggling and stuff and putting on their bowling shoes and then woody is all “hey what lane am I on?” and the clerk says Lane 32 and He goes “cool”. Now I know this sounds boring, but it is all crucial to the plot line. So then Woody starts bowlin’ and what not and then the guy from those vacation movies who’s not chevy chase shows up with a bottle of Everclear. Well Well Well, thinks the audience, Now this party is getting started! So Woody’s all like “Hey Guy from Vacation! Come compete with me on lane 32, which is right next to these young hotties” which makes the young hotties giggle. SO vacation guy is all, yeah, I’ll come and compete with you but you must remember that I am Amish and mistrust machinery. Woody goes, “yah whatever. Hey. Let’s play this game. I’ll say something to the hotties and then you have to do something to top it.” Vacation guy says “werd.” So they do some stuff and get drunk on everclear and Woody turns out to be a pretty good bowler but at the end he looses his hand in the ball retrieval system and Vacation guy is all “I told you not to trust machinery”
---
Hey Dirtbag!
Disclaimer: The only thing I've changed with these reviews is replacing Professor Murder's actual name with his Blogorium moniker. Trust me, his employers wouldn't want this coming up in a Google search.
HEY DIRTBAG! Go see Resident Evil Apocalypse!
by Professor "The Hammer" Murder
I don’t often like movies based on Comic Books so when I heard about Resident Evil 2 you can only imagine my trepidation. But when one of my friends managed to score a rough cut of the movie directly from the studio, I figured, “What the hey! I’ve got some time to kill so I might as well do this as opposed to something else!” I must warn you however, there are spoilers ahead so when you see the word “SPOILER” in all caps like that, skip it if you don’t wanna know what happens.
The movie opens with a couple of cops or something riding in a car. They’re jibber-jabbering about some company called umbrella, and how stuff is going wrong with it. Then I hear the word Zombie and my ears perk up. So after a very impressive CGI scene involving the car, the guy who’s driving it ends up on this street that appears abandoned. UNTIL ZOMBIES START TRYING TO EAT HIM. So he freaks out, after realizing he does not have many bullets and runs toward a, quite conveniently placed I might add, Ammo store. The clerk tries to shoot him yadda yadda, and then gets turned into a zombie. Luckily, for The Cop, there’s some ammo and a box of health lying around. He kills the fresh zombie and runs to a nearby Police station or HQ for the uninitiated. This is where the Producers kick it up a notch, because my friend told me that if I go to the DVD menu, and press some buttons, The cop would get a whole bunch of new weapons that he wouldn’t normally get till later into the movie. So, wanting the best for the Cop, I did. THEN HE GOT A FLAME THROWER! AND A GATLIN GUN. AND A BAZOOKA! Or maybe it was a rocket launcher, something like that. The movie was pretty great from
SPOILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THERE IS A HUGE FREAKING SPIDER IN THE SEWER UNDER THE HQ!
here on out except for one part. Just when the movie hits its cadence as it were, the whole movie starts over with the chick who was riding in the car with the guy cop. Then you have to watch the whole thing over again with a different character. Well, you will if you go see it. I turned it off around there.
---
Run Ronnie Run
by Professor "The Hammer" Murder
"I recommend it."
-also-
"You can give it some stars or something if you want."
---
HEY DIRTBAG! Go see “Kingpin”
This was from before the Farrelly brothers were known crap perpetrators so I will let it slide as I still really like this movie.
by Professor Muder
Seriously. If you have a girlfriend, go see Kingpin. Even if you do not have a girlfriend, Go See freakin Kingpin because, and I sincerely mean this, it could help you get a girlfriend. Ok. The movie starts out with woody from Cheers in this Bowling Alley. So, there are these girls, they must be around 17 and they’re all giggling and stuff and putting on their bowling shoes and then woody is all “hey what lane am I on?” and the clerk says Lane 32 and He goes “cool”. Now I know this sounds boring, but it is all crucial to the plot line. So then Woody starts bowlin’ and what not and then the guy from those vacation movies who’s not chevy chase shows up with a bottle of Everclear. Well Well Well, thinks the audience, Now this party is getting started! So Woody’s all like “Hey Guy from Vacation! Come compete with me on lane 32, which is right next to these young hotties” which makes the young hotties giggle. SO vacation guy is all, yeah, I’ll come and compete with you but you must remember that I am Amish and mistrust machinery. Woody goes, “yah whatever. Hey. Let’s play this game. I’ll say something to the hotties and then you have to do something to top it.” Vacation guy says “werd.” So they do some stuff and get drunk on everclear and Woody turns out to be a pretty good bowler but at the end he looses his hand in the ball retrieval system and Vacation guy is all “I told you not to trust machinery”
---
Hey Dirtbag!
Did you just rent Van Helsing?
This movie is not so bad… as long as your bullshit goggles are appropriately adjusted. Don’t worry if they aren’t yet… they will be by about five minutes in. You see It appears that all the universal movie monsters live in the same world and that Van Helsing’s name is not Abraham as “Bram Stoker” would have us believe but rather the far cooler Gabriel. Oh… and then he gets bitten by a werewolf and is really pissed until he realizes the power he can unleash. Oh yeah also, only werewolves can kill Dræ-kewl. Not to mention the fact that the character who we will for all intents and purposes call ‘Q’ has invented something that can produce light “to the intensity of the sun” but has no idea what to do with it. Idiot. ‘Q’ also gives ‘Gabriel’ a gasoline powered cross bow with which to kill things. Dear Van Helsing, what a great crowsbow you have. The better to kill you with. Fuck the state penn, fuck hos at penn state.
Kate Beckinsale is always hot. That’s all there is to it. Even when she’s trying to be marginal, she’s still really REALLY hot and she’s not trying to be marginal in this movie. She’s just full on screamin’ hot. I’m up in the MGM coked up PSYCHE! Induce sign language, ordered hot coffee with a Danish. RELAX! whispered “they rap entertainers. I love that pepsi commercial with her. I freakin bought UNDERWORLD because she’s so hot. Plus the movie’s really funny but that’s another story.
-Professor Murder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)