It's really disappointing when you have high expectations for a movie, and then that movie doesn't deliver. In the last five summers or so, only twice did I leave the theater thinking I had just seen something brilliant. And that was after The Dark Knight and Skyfall, which, as I pointed out in an earlier post, are essentially the same movie.
Ever since then, I go into a big nerdy action fest, expecting greatness, only to be let down. The Dark Knight Rises was way too convoluted and had a bunch of useless characters and plot jumps that were inexcusable, all detracting from the most interesting character, Bane. The Avengers was pretty spectacular, if not for the completely pointless aliens who blindly shot at stuff until something punched them. Oh, and then they all conveniently dropped dead once the mother ship was destroyed. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was such a mess, I...I just can't get into that right now.
Last night I saw Iron Man 3, and of course, everyone was saying how it's the best of the trilogy and it tops The Avengers and what not. But all I saw was a step-for-step action movie, filled with plot holes and shallow characters. My friends and I walked out of the theater saying "well, I guess that was good." It seemed like everyone else in the theater felt the same way; most people left before the post-credits scene, which is odd when you figure this was a premiere showing, so the people in the audience are probably big fans anticipating that final cliffhanger.
Well, if I'm going to review this bitch, I guess I should get started. My main complaint is that it wasn't what I expected. Literally. There is a point in the movie, about halfway through, where the entire plot changes, and you have to decide either to stick with it or completely lose interest. I don't want to give away what that point is, but you'll absolutely know it when it happens.
Then you have these bad guys, who have undergone some sort of medical procedure in which their DNA has been enhanced. We see that the positive effect is bodily regeneration and perfection. The creator, Aldrich Killina, cures his own handicap; other people who are missing arms and legs and what not -- soldiers, children with birth defects, etc. -- can grow their limbs back. It's definitely a world-changing serum, or at least the beginnings of one. Except the side effect is that those who undergo the procedure have some sort of ability to heat their bodies to extreme temperatures, which, for some reason, gives Killian super strength, super speed, and the ability to, well, breathe fire. The true nature of this serum, how it works, and how it factors into the plot or the larger universe, is never really fleshed out. As with the alien invasion in The Avengers, it should definitely have effects that continue to ripple through this shared universe, but...it doesn't.
Which brings me to my next point. Tony Stark has PTSD after his near-death experience in The Avengers. To cope with this, he has been building Iron Man, I guess in preparation for the next attack. But here, I have to say, the trailers put more emphasis on his inner turmoil than the movie did. He had a couple of panic attacks that really didn't affect his plot or his character, beyond being a reason for him to build neat suits, which, in turn, only exist for the epic finale. Seriously, after the finale, Tony just blows them up because...he's cured...I guess.
One of the worst things to happen to movies with sequels is that the villains all have the same motive and the same strategy over and over again. In the original Spider-Man trilogy, it always came down to villains luring Spider-Man into a trap by using Mary Jane as a decoy. With Iron Man, each villain has a grudge against Tony and tries to use their technological expertise to overcome his. Obadiah Stane thinks he should run Stark Industries, so he funds some terrorists, puts Pepper in danger, and tries to kill Tony; Justin Hammer wants to eliminate the superior competition in weapons manufacturing, so he hires Ivan Vanko (pretty much a terrorist), puts Pepper in danger, and tries to kill Tony. Well, I don't want to give anything away, but the villain in Iron Man 3 has, for all intents and purposes, the same idea. I realize 'kill the bad guy, save the girl, and live happily ever after' is the go-to scenario, but come on. At least in The Dark Knight, Nolan just said 'fuck it, let's kill off the love interest.'
Now, I am a sucker for Marvel movies, especially the Avengers mega-franchise. But as a complete nerd for these movies, I just wasn't satisfied. The Mandarin is hinted at in the first two movies, but the average viewer most likely didn't notice. In this installment we learn that the Mandarin has in fact had it in for Tony since before the events of the first movie. And therefore it probably would have been smart and clever to reference those hints from the earlier films, just so people can go back and be like "holy shit, they were planning this all along. Awesome!" But instead they don't mention any of that. We get one flashback, and that is supposed to justify the actions of two central antagonists. Also, there were a ton of theories about where this movie would leave us, in terms of The Avengers 2. Would they introduce any new characters (fans theorized about The Wasp or Ant-Man)? Would Tony end up in outer space, perhaps leading into the Guardians of the Galaxy movie? The answers to these questions is simply no. The post-credits scene features Bruce Banner (which is irritating, because it forces you to wonder where he -- and S.H.I.E.L.D. and Cap -- are the entire time terrorists are blowing up Americans) but it isn't very exciting.
In a way, that plot shift in the middle of the movie that I mentioned earlier is kind of a 'fuck you' to the hardcore fans. I chalk up my complaints to crappy writing. We are told that Tony has inner demons, but he just deals with them the same way he deals with everything else: witty sarcasm. He and Pepper are never in mortal danger, and his PTSD never affects his ability to kill bad guys and save the day.
Overall, the movie is action-packed and humorous, but for people like me, expecting an amazing entrance into The Avengers: Phase II, don't get your hopes up.
Showing posts with label Marvel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marvel. Show all posts
Friday, May 3, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Iron Man vs. Boba Fett
This is a big week for Disney movie news. On the one hand, Marvel Studios has been revealing tidbits of information about what the future holds for their ever-expanding Marvel Universe, centered around the Avengers. And on the other, Disney/Lucasfilm has just announced that, in addition to the new Star Wars trilogy being arranged, there will also be accompanying stand alone features. I can't help but wonder if the two situations are connected.
Marvel Studios is seeing immense success with their growing number of interlocking franchises, including Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. We already have a schedule for 'Phase II' of the Marvel Universe, which gives us sequels for these three characters, as well as the premier of the Guardians of the Galaxy, all coalescing into an Avengers sequel. But it doesn't stop there; the people at Marvel Studios are already brainstorming ideas for 'Phase III'. It has been confirmed that Ant-Man and Doctor Strange will get their own films, and rumors have been circulating about future Hulk ideas, as well as the Inhumans.
I, personally, think all of this is a great idea. I'm not saying there is any reason to expect that every one of these movies will be cinematic gold. But it is a revolutionary concept to produce so many films with immersing characters and worlds, that have a unifying story, in a short period of time. And that is the double-edged sword of comic book movies. The comics have been around for decades; there is an extraordinary wealth of source material from which to draw story-lines for films. The problem is producing movies fast enough to 1) keep people interested, and 2) keep around the same actors. Then again, maybe the studio will keep finding ways around that (no one really minds that three different actors have portrayed the Incredible Hulk in the last decade).
So please, Marvel Universe, get while the getting is good, sign up your actors for 15, even 20, films and do as much as you, while you can. Money obviously is no longer an issue. Don't sell out, but continue to expand the universe and give us interesting characters and stories before the actors get too old or someone suggests rebooting a character in a different direction. Because even this decade-long wave of films is only temporary. I am predicting that 20 years from now, when Disney has managed to purchase the rights to the X-Men and Spider-Man, there will be an entire Marvel Universe reboot!
And that brings me to the Star Wars Universe. Maybe the folks at Disney/Lucasfilm are realizing that they are facing a similar situation. There are tons of Star Wars material out there that would make great films. Give us a trilogy. Give us solo films! ...hey wait. See what I did there? 'solo films', as in Han Solo films. Anyways... expand the universe! And the great thing that Star Wars has that the Marvel Universe doesn't, is longevity. The Star Wars mythos spans hundred (and I assume, thousands) of years. Whereas the Marvel Universe only has maybe 15 years before their films either have to address the characters' aging or make some cast changes, the Star Wars Universe is not limited by time. We won't need any reboots, or really too many recurring characters; we can just have new stories that are briefly or vaguely interlocking, for the next 50 years. Marvel Studios has shown us that you don't need to confine an epic story to a trilogy; just keep telling us new stories!
Now, I'm sure there is a downside. Worst case scenario, these studios start producing shit titles, just to get people into theaters (ala Pixar). I mean, this is basically Disney 101. I'm looking at you, Cars 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean 4. But in the case of Star Wars, you don't have to rely on a Jack Sparrow to carry four movies. If people get tired of a character, just move on to a different story.
So anyways, I am really excited about what happens with these - franchises? universes? I'm not even sure what they're called - developments. There is so much potential. I hope they don't screw it up.
Marvel Studios is seeing immense success with their growing number of interlocking franchises, including Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America. We already have a schedule for 'Phase II' of the Marvel Universe, which gives us sequels for these three characters, as well as the premier of the Guardians of the Galaxy, all coalescing into an Avengers sequel. But it doesn't stop there; the people at Marvel Studios are already brainstorming ideas for 'Phase III'. It has been confirmed that Ant-Man and Doctor Strange will get their own films, and rumors have been circulating about future Hulk ideas, as well as the Inhumans.
I, personally, think all of this is a great idea. I'm not saying there is any reason to expect that every one of these movies will be cinematic gold. But it is a revolutionary concept to produce so many films with immersing characters and worlds, that have a unifying story, in a short period of time. And that is the double-edged sword of comic book movies. The comics have been around for decades; there is an extraordinary wealth of source material from which to draw story-lines for films. The problem is producing movies fast enough to 1) keep people interested, and 2) keep around the same actors. Then again, maybe the studio will keep finding ways around that (no one really minds that three different actors have portrayed the Incredible Hulk in the last decade).
So please, Marvel Universe, get while the getting is good, sign up your actors for 15, even 20, films and do as much as you, while you can. Money obviously is no longer an issue. Don't sell out, but continue to expand the universe and give us interesting characters and stories before the actors get too old or someone suggests rebooting a character in a different direction. Because even this decade-long wave of films is only temporary. I am predicting that 20 years from now, when Disney has managed to purchase the rights to the X-Men and Spider-Man, there will be an entire Marvel Universe reboot!
And that brings me to the Star Wars Universe. Maybe the folks at Disney/Lucasfilm are realizing that they are facing a similar situation. There are tons of Star Wars material out there that would make great films. Give us a trilogy. Give us solo films! ...hey wait. See what I did there? 'solo films', as in Han Solo films. Anyways... expand the universe! And the great thing that Star Wars has that the Marvel Universe doesn't, is longevity. The Star Wars mythos spans hundred (and I assume, thousands) of years. Whereas the Marvel Universe only has maybe 15 years before their films either have to address the characters' aging or make some cast changes, the Star Wars Universe is not limited by time. We won't need any reboots, or really too many recurring characters; we can just have new stories that are briefly or vaguely interlocking, for the next 50 years. Marvel Studios has shown us that you don't need to confine an epic story to a trilogy; just keep telling us new stories!
Now, I'm sure there is a downside. Worst case scenario, these studios start producing shit titles, just to get people into theaters (ala Pixar). I mean, this is basically Disney 101. I'm looking at you, Cars 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean 4. But in the case of Star Wars, you don't have to rely on a Jack Sparrow to carry four movies. If people get tired of a character, just move on to a different story.
So anyways, I am really excited about what happens with these - franchises? universes? I'm not even sure what they're called - developments. There is so much potential. I hope they don't screw it up.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Monsieur Incroyable! (The Incredibles)
I don't consider myself to be an expert on superhero movies. Especially all of the stuff that came out before Marvel really got going with X-Men. But lately I have been thinking about The Incredibles, and how, despite being one of the less popular Pixar titles, and not being live action, it sort of transformed the standard of the superhero movie. People seem to think that Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins was the first time a superhero was put into a very dark but believable reality. I would agree that the three-dimensionality of Nolan's interpretation of the classic characters made for a much richer and compelling narrative. But I would argue that The Incredibles gives us an equally macabre and believable story, more so when one considers that it is a kids movie.
In the universe of The Incredibles, you have a world full of supers (superheroes) and villains. But when Mr. Incredible saves someone who was attempting to commit suicide, a lawsuit makes it illegal to be a vigilante, and forces all supers to assimilate to normal society. Before this happens, Mr. Incredible is confronted by a boy who asks to be his sidekick. He claims that he prefers to work alone, and the kid grows up to become the villain Syndrome. Syndrome kills a bunch of the other supers until Mr. Incredible, his wife, and their two kids, who also have super powers, defeat Syndrome.
Doesn't that sound pretty dark? The world decides they don't want heroes anymore because they cause too much damage and interfere with people's lives. It is believed that the only reason supervillains show up and hurt people is to antagonize the supers; and in the case of Syndrome, this is pretty much true. In fact, in The Dark Knight, the Joker explains that Batman is the reason people like him even exist.
And then you have all of witty observations The Incredibles makes about the typical superhero story, my favorite two being monologuing and capes. It is pointed out that the downfall of most villains is the need to hear themselves talk; rather than outright kill the super while hes down, they go on and on until the super has a chance to retaliate. And capes are a terrible costume idea because they are always getting caught in things like jet engines and propellers. Every superhero movie after this had to give good reasons why the heroes wear their silly outfits (Captain America's suit is transformed to look like WWII armor; Batman loses the tights and has to meet with Lucius Fox every time he has a problem with mobility or defense; and it is finally questioned how Bruce Banner's pants stay on when he transforms into the Hulk).
And when a villain is monologuing, it removes all the tension from a scene, because it becomes painfully obvious. Talia's exposition at the end of Dark Knight Rises gave Commissioner Gordon just enough time to break the signal between the bomb and the detonator. In Thor and The Avengers, Loki is caught monologuing on numerous occasions, often resulting in him getting his ass handed to him.
My point is that for a children's movie, The Incredibles explores some of the more serious aspects of the superhero genre that have since then become mainstream. I think it is definitely one of the best superhero movies of all time, and it is unfortunate that it doesn't seem to be recognized as such.
In the universe of The Incredibles, you have a world full of supers (superheroes) and villains. But when Mr. Incredible saves someone who was attempting to commit suicide, a lawsuit makes it illegal to be a vigilante, and forces all supers to assimilate to normal society. Before this happens, Mr. Incredible is confronted by a boy who asks to be his sidekick. He claims that he prefers to work alone, and the kid grows up to become the villain Syndrome. Syndrome kills a bunch of the other supers until Mr. Incredible, his wife, and their two kids, who also have super powers, defeat Syndrome.
Doesn't that sound pretty dark? The world decides they don't want heroes anymore because they cause too much damage and interfere with people's lives. It is believed that the only reason supervillains show up and hurt people is to antagonize the supers; and in the case of Syndrome, this is pretty much true. In fact, in The Dark Knight, the Joker explains that Batman is the reason people like him even exist.
And then you have all of witty observations The Incredibles makes about the typical superhero story, my favorite two being monologuing and capes. It is pointed out that the downfall of most villains is the need to hear themselves talk; rather than outright kill the super while hes down, they go on and on until the super has a chance to retaliate. And capes are a terrible costume idea because they are always getting caught in things like jet engines and propellers. Every superhero movie after this had to give good reasons why the heroes wear their silly outfits (Captain America's suit is transformed to look like WWII armor; Batman loses the tights and has to meet with Lucius Fox every time he has a problem with mobility or defense; and it is finally questioned how Bruce Banner's pants stay on when he transforms into the Hulk).
And when a villain is monologuing, it removes all the tension from a scene, because it becomes painfully obvious. Talia's exposition at the end of Dark Knight Rises gave Commissioner Gordon just enough time to break the signal between the bomb and the detonator. In Thor and The Avengers, Loki is caught monologuing on numerous occasions, often resulting in him getting his ass handed to him.
My point is that for a children's movie, The Incredibles explores some of the more serious aspects of the superhero genre that have since then become mainstream. I think it is definitely one of the best superhero movies of all time, and it is unfortunate that it doesn't seem to be recognized as such.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Bizarro World (Superhero Movies)
Marvel vs. DC. I love comic books movies and I love the tug-of-war between Marvel and DC comics that has been going on since live-action comic book movies have gone mainstream. Marvel has a number of successful franchises, including the X-Men, Spider-Man, and the Avengers (wherein each Avengers has a franchise of his own). DC, thanks to the brilliant Christopher Nolan, is being held up pretty much by the Dark Knight Trilogy alone.
Marvel knew five or six years ago that they were going to attempt an Avengers movie. Franchise crossovers don't happen very often, but when they do, we get things like Freddy vs. Jason and AvP: Alien vs. Predator. But a staple of comic books is character/storyline intersections, and it was only a matter of time before the film adaptations attempted this. DC, on the other hand, only recently decided that in order to compete they would have to do something similar; this idea has led to the Justice League movie slated for 2015. However, instead of having standalone movies for each member of team - as Marvel did preceding the Avengers - they intend to make up time by going straight for the Justice League.
At least that was the plan. The latest news is that Joseph Gordon Levitt from the Dark Knight Trilogy and Henry Cavill's superman from next year's Man of Steel will fill the Batman and Superman roles in the JL movie. My first reaction was that this seems like a complete cop-out by DC. The Dark Knight Trilogy is a unique Batman story and was not intended to tie in with the rest of the DC universe. So it seems that they are going to try to ride the success of Nolan's Batman right into a Justice League movie.
However, having given it some thought, I think this is a pretty good idea. Marvel had to repeat to us again and again that the four Avenger characters all live in the same universe (mainly by having them acknowledge each other and occasionally sit down with Phil Coulson). If the film stage of the DC universe is going to be in any way unique, I think it would be wise to have each member of the Justice League stay in his own universe. This has two benefits: 1) we will never expect to see the Justice League in any individual movie. The challenge facing every Avengers movie from here on out is giving us reasons why the Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D. don't face the problems of each individual hero. This problem would be even greater in the DC universe, where there is virtually no challenge Batman could spend a whole movie dealing with that Superman couldn't handle in a few minutes. By keeping all of the characters blatantly, almost ignorantly separate, in their individual franchises, there is much more freedom for the writers. 2) This makes more sense as far as how DC comics are. Most Marvel heroes are assumed to exist in the same world, with some exceptions. But in the DC universe, there are plenty of worlds, dimensions, alternate realities; all things that would make it more sensible to avoid overlap outside of the Justice League movies.
Hopefully this is their plan. In addition, the villain in JL will be Darkseid, who is the Marvel counterpart to Thanos, the villain in the Avengers 2. And since both movies are set for the summer of 2015, it will be very interesting to see what each studio comes up with.
Marvel knew five or six years ago that they were going to attempt an Avengers movie. Franchise crossovers don't happen very often, but when they do, we get things like Freddy vs. Jason and AvP: Alien vs. Predator. But a staple of comic books is character/storyline intersections, and it was only a matter of time before the film adaptations attempted this. DC, on the other hand, only recently decided that in order to compete they would have to do something similar; this idea has led to the Justice League movie slated for 2015. However, instead of having standalone movies for each member of team - as Marvel did preceding the Avengers - they intend to make up time by going straight for the Justice League.
At least that was the plan. The latest news is that Joseph Gordon Levitt from the Dark Knight Trilogy and Henry Cavill's superman from next year's Man of Steel will fill the Batman and Superman roles in the JL movie. My first reaction was that this seems like a complete cop-out by DC. The Dark Knight Trilogy is a unique Batman story and was not intended to tie in with the rest of the DC universe. So it seems that they are going to try to ride the success of Nolan's Batman right into a Justice League movie.
However, having given it some thought, I think this is a pretty good idea. Marvel had to repeat to us again and again that the four Avenger characters all live in the same universe (mainly by having them acknowledge each other and occasionally sit down with Phil Coulson). If the film stage of the DC universe is going to be in any way unique, I think it would be wise to have each member of the Justice League stay in his own universe. This has two benefits: 1) we will never expect to see the Justice League in any individual movie. The challenge facing every Avengers movie from here on out is giving us reasons why the Avengers and S.H.I.E.L.D. don't face the problems of each individual hero. This problem would be even greater in the DC universe, where there is virtually no challenge Batman could spend a whole movie dealing with that Superman couldn't handle in a few minutes. By keeping all of the characters blatantly, almost ignorantly separate, in their individual franchises, there is much more freedom for the writers. 2) This makes more sense as far as how DC comics are. Most Marvel heroes are assumed to exist in the same world, with some exceptions. But in the DC universe, there are plenty of worlds, dimensions, alternate realities; all things that would make it more sensible to avoid overlap outside of the Justice League movies.
Hopefully this is their plan. In addition, the villain in JL will be Darkseid, who is the Marvel counterpart to Thanos, the villain in the Avengers 2. And since both movies are set for the summer of 2015, it will be very interesting to see what each studio comes up with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)