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 movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Friday, May 3, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
They do good things. They read...
I read! Whole books sometimes. It's kind of a new thing for me. Reading always seemed like a chore for high school English. 'Read two books by the end of each quarter and take some pointless test on them for a grade.' It wasn't until after college that I got bored and started reading. And I haven't stopped. I obsessively have to get through a story as quickly as possible. And if it's a series, well...look out. I read Foundation by Isaac Asimov. Two weeks and fourteen books later I had read the entire Foundation series. Oops.
And on that note, let me get to the point of this post: Stephen King. My mom is a huge fan of his, and so I have been familiar with his work since long before it was appropriate for me to read it. I'm not going to review his work or anything like that. Not in this post anyway. It's just I realized how impressive it is that he is still relevant. This guy has been writing for what, forty years now. He has no problem producing a 1000-page epic novel every year or so, with other short stories and volumes in his Gunslinger series to fill the time between. I won't say all of his work is pure gold, but you have to hand it to the guy for having so many original stories. Chances are, if you somehow do not know him by name, you have seen his work in one form or another.
What I find even more impressive is how so much of his work is constantly being adapted to film and television. And it shows no sign of slowing down. Carrie was already a movie, but is now being remade. Under the Dome, published only in 2009, is being made into a (mini-)series, starting this summer. They are now almost definitely remaking Cujo. The Shining is getting a prequel movie, and there is a separate documentary out now about the Kubrick adaptation of the novel. I had heard a few months back some rumors about rebooting It and/or The Stand, which were both miniseries in the 90's.
It must feel really cool to sit back and see how people are still being fascinated and terrified by your storytelling. And to know that your characters -- Carrie White, Jack Torrance, Annie Wilkes, among others -- are among the most compelling (and disturbing) literary characters of our time (in my humble opinion). If you haven't read any of his works, get on it. Be it horror, sci-fi, or fantasy, his work is easy to read and will draw you in. You'll be finished before you even realize how quickly the shit hit the fan. Just be sure to keep a nightlight plugged in.
And on that note, let me get to the point of this post: Stephen King. My mom is a huge fan of his, and so I have been familiar with his work since long before it was appropriate for me to read it. I'm not going to review his work or anything like that. Not in this post anyway. It's just I realized how impressive it is that he is still relevant. This guy has been writing for what, forty years now. He has no problem producing a 1000-page epic novel every year or so, with other short stories and volumes in his Gunslinger series to fill the time between. I won't say all of his work is pure gold, but you have to hand it to the guy for having so many original stories. Chances are, if you somehow do not know him by name, you have seen his work in one form or another.
What I find even more impressive is how so much of his work is constantly being adapted to film and television. And it shows no sign of slowing down. Carrie was already a movie, but is now being remade. Under the Dome, published only in 2009, is being made into a (mini-)series, starting this summer. They are now almost definitely remaking Cujo. The Shining is getting a prequel movie, and there is a separate documentary out now about the Kubrick adaptation of the novel. I had heard a few months back some rumors about rebooting It and/or The Stand, which were both miniseries in the 90's.
It must feel really cool to sit back and see how people are still being fascinated and terrified by your storytelling. And to know that your characters -- Carrie White, Jack Torrance, Annie Wilkes, among others -- are among the most compelling (and disturbing) literary characters of our time (in my humble opinion). If you haven't read any of his works, get on it. Be it horror, sci-fi, or fantasy, his work is easy to read and will draw you in. You'll be finished before you even realize how quickly the shit hit the fan. Just be sure to keep a nightlight plugged in.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
They're Real, And They're Spectacular
Well, this is how my mind works. I was stacking firewood on my front porch. It was quite cold. Naturally, in the monotony of the task my mind wandered on to better things. It took the usual route. First it was food. Then breasts. It lingered there for a while, before switching to movies.
In the end I thought about the X-Men. They have two movies currently in production: one is the sequel to X-Men: First Class (called X-Men: Days of Futures Past) which is supposed to merge the prequel/reboot with the original trilogy. The other is The Wolverine. Both movies will feature Hugh Jackman in the role of Wolverine. And I thought, Hugh Jackman is like the definitive Wolverine. He has played the role in every X-Men feature and spinoff because not only is Wolverine everyone's favorite member of the team, but Hugh Jackman nails it. The thing is, Wolverine does not age. Hugh Jackman does. So what happens when Jackman is too old for Wolverine? I mean, he has already been reprising the role for nearly 15 years, eventually it's going to show.
I guess the answer would be to move on to another actor. It's not impossible to find someone else who could handle the role. Who knows, maybe he be an even better Wolverine. But, I've been thinking. Does that really have to happen? This is the 21st century! Nowadays, they can do just about anything with CGI. Just look at Avatar. Actually, don't. That movie was kind of stupid. Look at Lord of the Rings instead, and how Gollum is played by a dude in a green suit.
One thing they have been toying with, but haven't quite perfected yet, is creating a three-dimensional model of a recognizable human face. And they've tried a few times. In Tron: Legacy, the character CLU was played by a body-double with a computerized model of Jeff Bridges head from a 1980s movie superimposed onto it. And Bridges did voiceover work for the part. It was mostly convincing, but obviously not a real human.There is also Terminator Salvation, which did the same thing with a model of a younger Arnold Schwarzenegger's head in order to recreate the Terminator. The only other example I can think of is actually a commercial for Galaxy Chocolate, in which Audrey Hepburn's likeness is completely artificial (and quite eerie, as she smiles and eats chocolate).
So I was thinking, if Fox owns the rights to the character Wolverine, they can make him look like whatever they want, right? Even if it happens to look exactly like Hugh Jackman? So once Hugh can no longer keep up with the physical needs of the Wolverine character, they could just make a mold of his features and create a digital model that can be used whenever they need it. I suppose he'd have to contribute voice work for a while. But it's only a matter of time before they figure out how to replicate the voice too.
My point is, just like 3D, CG facial likenesses are probably going to get used more and more, for better and worse. And one interesting use would be to keep Hugh Jackman in the role of Wolverine for another 10 or 15 X-Men movies. What do you think? Would it be more traditional/sensible to eventually get a new actor in the role? Or should the studio just say 'what the hell' and keep Jackman in the role forever? It would be pretty cinematically groundbreaking, not just technologically, but also because it would actually immortalize an immortal character. Think about it.
And for those of you who were wondering how the wood stacking went...some of it was kind of wet. And even though it's early March, there were snails and fungus clinging to some of the downward-facing pieces. That's why it's important to wear gloves.
Oh, and here's a link to the Audrey Hepburn Galaxy Chocolate commercial.
In the end I thought about the X-Men. They have two movies currently in production: one is the sequel to X-Men: First Class (called X-Men: Days of Futures Past) which is supposed to merge the prequel/reboot with the original trilogy. The other is The Wolverine. Both movies will feature Hugh Jackman in the role of Wolverine. And I thought, Hugh Jackman is like the definitive Wolverine. He has played the role in every X-Men feature and spinoff because not only is Wolverine everyone's favorite member of the team, but Hugh Jackman nails it. The thing is, Wolverine does not age. Hugh Jackman does. So what happens when Jackman is too old for Wolverine? I mean, he has already been reprising the role for nearly 15 years, eventually it's going to show.
I guess the answer would be to move on to another actor. It's not impossible to find someone else who could handle the role. Who knows, maybe he be an even better Wolverine. But, I've been thinking. Does that really have to happen? This is the 21st century! Nowadays, they can do just about anything with CGI. Just look at Avatar. Actually, don't. That movie was kind of stupid. Look at Lord of the Rings instead, and how Gollum is played by a dude in a green suit.
One thing they have been toying with, but haven't quite perfected yet, is creating a three-dimensional model of a recognizable human face. And they've tried a few times. In Tron: Legacy, the character CLU was played by a body-double with a computerized model of Jeff Bridges head from a 1980s movie superimposed onto it. And Bridges did voiceover work for the part. It was mostly convincing, but obviously not a real human.There is also Terminator Salvation, which did the same thing with a model of a younger Arnold Schwarzenegger's head in order to recreate the Terminator. The only other example I can think of is actually a commercial for Galaxy Chocolate, in which Audrey Hepburn's likeness is completely artificial (and quite eerie, as she smiles and eats chocolate).
So I was thinking, if Fox owns the rights to the character Wolverine, they can make him look like whatever they want, right? Even if it happens to look exactly like Hugh Jackman? So once Hugh can no longer keep up with the physical needs of the Wolverine character, they could just make a mold of his features and create a digital model that can be used whenever they need it. I suppose he'd have to contribute voice work for a while. But it's only a matter of time before they figure out how to replicate the voice too.
My point is, just like 3D, CG facial likenesses are probably going to get used more and more, for better and worse. And one interesting use would be to keep Hugh Jackman in the role of Wolverine for another 10 or 15 X-Men movies. What do you think? Would it be more traditional/sensible to eventually get a new actor in the role? Or should the studio just say 'what the hell' and keep Jackman in the role forever? It would be pretty cinematically groundbreaking, not just technologically, but also because it would actually immortalize an immortal character. Think about it.
And for those of you who were wondering how the wood stacking went...some of it was kind of wet. And even though it's early March, there were snails and fungus clinging to some of the downward-facing pieces. That's why it's important to wear gloves.
Oh, and here's a link to the Audrey Hepburn Galaxy Chocolate commercial.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Sorry, We Already Have a George
So what's the deal with two or more movies coming out in the same year that have essentially the same premise. And I am not talking about the straight-to-DVD copycats with similar titles, like Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies and Hansel and Gretel: Warriors of Witchcraft. I mean theatrical features produced by the top studios. I suppose it's not a new concept, but it seems to be more popular this year and last. To celebrate the current lack of originality in Hollywood, which is wrought with sequels, reboots, and, parodies, I thought I would honor some of the most original unoriginal ideas.
The oldest pair that comes to mind is A Bug's Life and Antz. Do I really have to explain what they're about? Both are animated. One represents America's premier animation studio (Pixar) in the early stages of its eventual empire, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone. One is entertaining for children and adults of all ages, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone.
A year or two ago there we saw No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits. And when I say 'we saw', what I mean is, 'maybe some people saw it, but I wasn't one of them'. Nevertheless they are both about friends having sex with each other and, I assume, falling in love. They both feature actresses who were much better in Black Swan. And they both feature leading men who should stop stepping in front of cameras: Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher.
A year before that, Kutcher also gave us Killers, which is the age old romantic comedy about a seemingly normal guy who is actually a secret agent, and the dumb blonde who follows him around and falls in love with him. It's a carbon copy of the Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz masterpiece, Knight and Day.
There was that period where all we wanted to see was grim, post-apocalyptic movies where the cause of the end of the world is unknown, but everything is cold, dead, and brownish-colored. Now let me just point out that all other pairs of movies in this post came out in the same year. Which is my point. And I say that, because technically The Road and The Book of Eli were released in two different years, but it was only by a couple months, so I'm still including. And yes, you can argue that they are completely different, and original movies. To which I reply: Eh, not really.
The Dark Knight showed us that not all superhero movies have to be Superhero Movies. So in one year we got a pair of films about guys who are tired of the crime around them, and so they dress up in shitty outfits and try to take down mobsters. Those films are Kick-Ass and Super.
Speaking of Christopher Nolan, The Prestige was an awesome mind-bending movie with clones and magic and David Bowie. The Illusionist was about...well, illusions, I guess.
Which brings me to 2012. It's not like a studio doesn't know that another studio is doing the same thing. So...is it a race? Is it a competition? I haven't seen Paranorman or Frankenweenie, but they both appear to be reimagined horror stories with Tim Burton-style animation, for kids. And even their covers are too similar to care if either of them are any good. Also last year we got two different interpretations of Honest Abe, one Oscar-bait biopic starring Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) and the other a what-if scenario in which the Confederates are actually vampires (the aptly titles Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). Finally, we were treated to not one, but two dramatized live-action reinterpretations of the Snow White fairy tale: Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman.
This year seems to be continuing with the fairy tales, as we have already gotten Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Jack the Giant Slayer. Okay, so maybe these movies are not quite about the exact same thing. It just seems like in the long run they are using similar source material to accomplish the same things, and are unsuccessful in both cases. Later on this year we will get two competing movies featuring A-list actors (Tom Cruise again, and Will Smith) returning to Earth after some futuristic war forced humanity to abandon it, in After Earth and Oblivion. And we'll also get two movies with the EXACT same plot -- Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down -- which, if the titles aren't clear enough, are both about terrorists taking over the White House.
Those are the only ones I bothered to come up with. If you can think of more, feel free to point them out in the comments. One could also make the same argument with TV shows. Just watch this video:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/48e76dcdab/i-can-t-believe-these-are-all-tv-shows
UPDATE:
Let's Add:
The Movie 43 and Inappropriate Comedy
Scary Movie 5 and A Haunted House
Red Planet and Mission to Mars
Colombiana and Haywire
The oldest pair that comes to mind is A Bug's Life and Antz. Do I really have to explain what they're about? Both are animated. One represents America's premier animation studio (Pixar) in the early stages of its eventual empire, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone. One is entertaining for children and adults of all ages, and the other...has Sylvester Stallone.
A year or two ago there we saw No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits. And when I say 'we saw', what I mean is, 'maybe some people saw it, but I wasn't one of them'. Nevertheless they are both about friends having sex with each other and, I assume, falling in love. They both feature actresses who were much better in Black Swan. And they both feature leading men who should stop stepping in front of cameras: Justin Timberlake and Ashton Kutcher.
A year before that, Kutcher also gave us Killers, which is the age old romantic comedy about a seemingly normal guy who is actually a secret agent, and the dumb blonde who follows him around and falls in love with him. It's a carbon copy of the Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz masterpiece, Knight and Day.
There was that period where all we wanted to see was grim, post-apocalyptic movies where the cause of the end of the world is unknown, but everything is cold, dead, and brownish-colored. Now let me just point out that all other pairs of movies in this post came out in the same year. Which is my point. And I say that, because technically The Road and The Book of Eli were released in two different years, but it was only by a couple months, so I'm still including. And yes, you can argue that they are completely different, and original movies. To which I reply: Eh, not really.
The Dark Knight showed us that not all superhero movies have to be Superhero Movies. So in one year we got a pair of films about guys who are tired of the crime around them, and so they dress up in shitty outfits and try to take down mobsters. Those films are Kick-Ass and Super.
Speaking of Christopher Nolan, The Prestige was an awesome mind-bending movie with clones and magic and David Bowie. The Illusionist was about...well, illusions, I guess.
Which brings me to 2012. It's not like a studio doesn't know that another studio is doing the same thing. So...is it a race? Is it a competition? I haven't seen Paranorman or Frankenweenie, but they both appear to be reimagined horror stories with Tim Burton-style animation, for kids. And even their covers are too similar to care if either of them are any good. Also last year we got two different interpretations of Honest Abe, one Oscar-bait biopic starring Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) and the other a what-if scenario in which the Confederates are actually vampires (the aptly titles Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter). Finally, we were treated to not one, but two dramatized live-action reinterpretations of the Snow White fairy tale: Mirror Mirror and Snow White and the Huntsman.
This year seems to be continuing with the fairy tales, as we have already gotten Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters and Jack the Giant Slayer. Okay, so maybe these movies are not quite about the exact same thing. It just seems like in the long run they are using similar source material to accomplish the same things, and are unsuccessful in both cases. Later on this year we will get two competing movies featuring A-list actors (Tom Cruise again, and Will Smith) returning to Earth after some futuristic war forced humanity to abandon it, in After Earth and Oblivion. And we'll also get two movies with the EXACT same plot -- Olympus Has Fallen and White House Down -- which, if the titles aren't clear enough, are both about terrorists taking over the White House.
Those are the only ones I bothered to come up with. If you can think of more, feel free to point them out in the comments. One could also make the same argument with TV shows. Just watch this video:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/48e76dcdab/i-can-t-believe-these-are-all-tv-shows
UPDATE:
Let's Add:
The Movie 43 and Inappropriate Comedy
Scary Movie 5 and A Haunted House
Red Planet and Mission to Mars
Colombiana and Haywire
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Silent Movies
The other day I attended a screening of the black and white silent film Sherlock Jr., starring Buster Keaton. Now, I never took a film class in college. Mainly because all of the interesting classes were upper-level and I didn't have the time or the desire to take the introductory prerequisites. So I am not really familiar with film technology in the first decades of the twentieth century, nor am I more than casually versed in the works of iconic performers like Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton. But, I have to say, the sophistication of Sherlock Jr. really surprised and amazed me.
First off, I personally find Buster Keaton more entertaining than Charlie Chaplin, despite the latter being generally accepted as the more influential celebrity. For one thing, Keaton wears a constant frown that perfectly mixes the gloomy moroseness of his character with an adorably juvenile innocence. It exemplifies his character much like the mustache and walking stick for Chaplin. Keaton rarely speaks; his thoughts and feelings are expressed purely through the tones of his frown, and his actions, which, again unlike Chaplin, are very subtle and contemplative.
In Sherlock Jr. what impressed me most were the visual effects that seemed decades ahead of their time. In particular, there was a dream sequence in which Keaton falls asleep in the projection room of a movie theater. A semi-transparent out-of-body Keaton appears and visualizes himself in the movie playing on the screen. To show this happening, the players on the screen are shown at the same scale as live actors on a stage. It was barely noticeable when the switch happened, and I was almost confused when Keaton, watching the movie, ran up and jumped into the scene.
What happened next was even more impressive. The scene was still set up as to be on a movie screen, two-dimensional and bordered. But as Keaton tried to go to the woman in the scene, the setting kept changing, while his body, clearly inside each scene, remained independent. It's hard to explain, but it reminded me of a black and white version of the movie Jumper. At first he is on a lawn with a bench. As he goes to sit down, the entire set changes to a desert and he falls over. It was simple and comical, but it must required an immense about of planning and editing to make his movements flow smoothly through ten or fifteen settings.
There were also some stunts, performed by Keaton, that were so quick and nonchalant they must have been real. For example, from a second- or third-story rooftop he jumps and grabs onto a railroad crossing pole and hangs on while it falls to the ground, landing perfectly in the back seat of an open-top car. The camera gives a wide, steady shot of the whole sequence, so you know there are no camera tricks, no support cables, and certainly no mattresses between the pole and roof in case he fell.
The last thing I wanted to mention was a scene where Keaton is playing pool. The gag is that his enemies have placed an explosive '13' ball on the table, hoping that Keaton will hit it. Miraculously, Keaton -- again, without every hesitating or changes his facial expression -- perfectly pockets every ball except the rigged one, which is never touched. The camera only switches away a few times, but there are several shots of Keaton taking four or five shots -- trick shots included -- and perfectly pocketing his target without moving the explosive ball at all. Either I am missing some very sophisticated camera work, or Keaton is a master pool player.
My point is, you don't really expect a black and white movie to be that entertaining. And if anything you expect the humor to be outdated and awkward. But I was surprised at how funny and relatable this story is and how well-done the creative the stunts and illusions are. It is strange to think that movies that didn't even have sound could feature convincing and sophisticated camera tricks. If you ever get the urge to watch something different, I would recommend Buster Keaton.
First off, I personally find Buster Keaton more entertaining than Charlie Chaplin, despite the latter being generally accepted as the more influential celebrity. For one thing, Keaton wears a constant frown that perfectly mixes the gloomy moroseness of his character with an adorably juvenile innocence. It exemplifies his character much like the mustache and walking stick for Chaplin. Keaton rarely speaks; his thoughts and feelings are expressed purely through the tones of his frown, and his actions, which, again unlike Chaplin, are very subtle and contemplative.
In Sherlock Jr. what impressed me most were the visual effects that seemed decades ahead of their time. In particular, there was a dream sequence in which Keaton falls asleep in the projection room of a movie theater. A semi-transparent out-of-body Keaton appears and visualizes himself in the movie playing on the screen. To show this happening, the players on the screen are shown at the same scale as live actors on a stage. It was barely noticeable when the switch happened, and I was almost confused when Keaton, watching the movie, ran up and jumped into the scene.
What happened next was even more impressive. The scene was still set up as to be on a movie screen, two-dimensional and bordered. But as Keaton tried to go to the woman in the scene, the setting kept changing, while his body, clearly inside each scene, remained independent. It's hard to explain, but it reminded me of a black and white version of the movie Jumper. At first he is on a lawn with a bench. As he goes to sit down, the entire set changes to a desert and he falls over. It was simple and comical, but it must required an immense about of planning and editing to make his movements flow smoothly through ten or fifteen settings.
There were also some stunts, performed by Keaton, that were so quick and nonchalant they must have been real. For example, from a second- or third-story rooftop he jumps and grabs onto a railroad crossing pole and hangs on while it falls to the ground, landing perfectly in the back seat of an open-top car. The camera gives a wide, steady shot of the whole sequence, so you know there are no camera tricks, no support cables, and certainly no mattresses between the pole and roof in case he fell.
The last thing I wanted to mention was a scene where Keaton is playing pool. The gag is that his enemies have placed an explosive '13' ball on the table, hoping that Keaton will hit it. Miraculously, Keaton -- again, without every hesitating or changes his facial expression -- perfectly pockets every ball except the rigged one, which is never touched. The camera only switches away a few times, but there are several shots of Keaton taking four or five shots -- trick shots included -- and perfectly pocketing his target without moving the explosive ball at all. Either I am missing some very sophisticated camera work, or Keaton is a master pool player.
My point is, you don't really expect a black and white movie to be that entertaining. And if anything you expect the humor to be outdated and awkward. But I was surprised at how funny and relatable this story is and how well-done the creative the stunts and illusions are. It is strange to think that movies that didn't even have sound could feature convincing and sophisticated camera tricks. If you ever get the urge to watch something different, I would recommend Buster Keaton.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
An Evening with James Bond and Bruce Wayne
Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of watching the movie Skyfall again, which I had seen previously in theaters over the summer. Afterwards, I made a fairly obvious but for some reason untold observation: Skyfall and The
Before I continue, let me make it clear that I think both movies are fantastic, and they are among my favorite films. I am not attacking either of them, or in any way accusing one of plagiarizing the other. But the fact is, the characters, themes, imagery, and even dialogue, is so similar that it is hard to ignore.
Now, maybe I am just having a false revelation here. Maybe all movies in this genre have the same general structure and I just never noticed. But that can't be, because for one thing, both of these movies are instant classics; they seemingly take what we already know and do something different and awesome with it.
James Bond/007 is obviously Bruce Wayne/Batman. Both are orphans who come from money, but are set on their life course by the tragic events surrounding their parents' deaths. They run off at an early age and are taken in and trained to be deadly weapons (in Skyfall, M hints at this during a conversation with Bond. In The Dark Knight, it is expounded in the prequel, Batman Begins). In a way, both of them develop dual identities from their experiences in order to hide the pain of their childhood. Bruce Wayne turns his inner fears into his outward strength, by creating the Batman. While there is an external struggle of Batman trying to be the hero, Bruce Wayne is in fact, the man bogged down by his demons. He is human, and even though he believes the Batman is a necessity, he yearns to take off the mask, and pursue a life with Rachel. Likewise, 007 is a role James Bond must play in order to be the hero, but over the course of the movie we see that his status as the poster child for MI6 is taking a significant mental and physical toll on him.
Silva, Skyfall's villain is pretty much the Joker, with less makeup. Both of them are bad guys the likes of which no one has really seen before. Gotham, a city constantly dealing with mobsters and internal corruption, is caught off guard by the lunatic Joker, only interested in chaos and misery. MI6 is unprepared for the high-tech assault by Silva. Both villains represent the antithesis to the hero. Silva was, like Bond, an agent at MI6. He points out that he and Bond are victims of M's mother-like control over them, but that they are survivors—the two remaining rats in the barrel, as he puts it. He also warns that eventually M will turn against Bond, just as she did with him. In The Dark Knight, the Joker gives Batman a similar piece of advice: "To them you're just a freak, like me. They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out. Like a leper." He insists that Batman's talents are wasted on his commitment to justice and his inability to take a life. The Joker targets Harvey Dent, in the hopes of turning 'Gotham's white knight' in a villain. Silva wants to destroy M's reputation and villainize her before the rest of England's government. Both of them are successful. Even their methods are sort of equal and opposite. The Joker believes in low-tech terrorism; he repeats how much damage one can do with dynamite, gasoline and bullets. He threatens to kill more Gothamites each day until Batman reveals his true identity. Silva, on the other hand, uses technology to terrorize England. He hacks MI6, and then uses YouTube to release the identities of their undercover operatives each week. Furthermore, Silva and Joker both come off as being overly theatrical weirdos with mysterious aliases, and then turn out to be ten steps ahead of the good guys for 90% of the movie. Interestingly, both have somewhat startling facial deformities as a result of their past transgressions, and both give disturbing accounts of how they got those deformities.
M is equivalent to Harvey Dent. Both of them represent the public face of the hero's questionable methods of justice. M at first makes the mistake of thinking 007 is expendable, and allows him to be shot. This, combined with Silva's actions, call into question the effectiveness of the '00' program, which M has to defend in court. Over the course of the film, she realizes that Bond is necessary for the security of Great Britain (and the world). Harvey Dent wants to have the Batman arrested and is suspicious of his intentions, but then realizes the value of an incorruptible symbol of justice working behind the scenes. Eventually, both become the target of the respective villains, and have to be protected by the hero throughout the movie. And (spoiler alert) both of them eventually meet their demise in the arms of the hero, but only after the villain is apprehended/killed.
Q and Lucius Fox are identical in that they are technological geniuses with humorous dispositions. They have access to, for all intents and purposes, unlimited resources. They do not work directly for the hero, and they outfit the hero with exciting gadgetry. Lucius Fox even creates a sonar-based map of the entire city, much like the subterranean map of London that Q comes up with while searching through Silva's encrypted software.
One could also argue that Mallory and Commissioner Gordon are analogous. Gordon and Dent have different methods and goals for cleaning up Gotham, and they argue over what the role of the Batman should be. When Dent eventually dies, Gordon becomes Batman's closest ally. Likewise, Mallory at first butts heads with M about the necessity of the '00' program and the usefulness of Bond. But over the course of the film, he comes to respect M and Bond, and when M is killed, he takes over M's job as the director of MI6. There is even the courtroom in which Silva attacks M, but is protected by Mallory until Bond can come to the rescue, which is fairly similar to when the Joker attacked Dent's convoy, and Gordon had to keep him safe until Batman neutralized the threat.
The supporting cast also seems to fill the same the roles in either film. For example, Severine and Rachel are love interests who represent a way out for the hero. But in both cases, the villain gives the hero an ultimatum that results in the woman's death, reinforcing the hero's rage and desire for revenge. Kincade (the man at the Skyfall estate) and Alfred, are both caretakers that have known the hero since they were children and understand the events that created the hero's inner struggles.
The settings in both movies are like characters as well. Batman's mansion and access to his bat-cave were destroyed in Batman Begins. So in The Dark Knight he is using an underground facility somewhere in Gotham. In Skyfall, MI6 is compromised, so Bond has to report to the new headquarters in a WWII bunker. In both cases, the setting represents how the hero has been stripped of what he is used to, and must retool with what is available to him. (Interesting sidebar about settings: both heroes fight and capture a minor villain in a poorly-lit -- but also kind of blue-tinted -- skyscraper in China.)
Even the themes in each movie are the same. Much like Dent's two-headed coin, Dent and Batman are opposite faces of justice in Gotham, but both of them are essential. A great line from The Dark Knight, by Dent is: "You either die the hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." In a way, he is talking about himself and Bruce Wayne alike. If he had died in the explosion that the Joker orchestrated, he would have died the white knight of Gotham. Instead, he lived, and the Joker warped him into Two-Face. Batman survived to take down the Joker and-Two Face, but was then accused of murdering Dent and became public enemy number one. The same quote applies to Skyfall. Silva is like an earlier version of Bond; he was favored by M and a hero to his country. But he became too ambitious and rebellious, and M turned him over to the enemies of MI6. After being tortured and attempting suicide, and surviving, he turned his anger and frustration against his former masters.
There are a number of more specific plot and dialogue connections that I just don't see the point of going into. But the fact is, these movies match up astonishingly well. In a way, one could argue that they deserve to be the same. Both have similar histories. Batman has been around on the big screen since the sixties, and has undergone a number of renovations and reinterpretations. He started out as a goofy hero with absurd gadgets, and peculiar villains. But has since been reborn into a much more vivid and believable world. All of this describes the history of James Bond as well. And for both franchises, these two movies in particular represent benchmarks in the story. They take the classic ideas of the franchise and reinterpret it for a modern, more realistic world.
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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Bane revisited
Earlier I wrote a bit about Christopher Nolan's version of Bane and how the character did not get enough attention in the movie The Dark Knight Rises. Well, since then I have been continuing on my Bane crusade, and I wanted to provide an update of where it has lead me.
Last month, for Christmas, I received what is without a doubt one of the greatest gifts a Dark Knight fan can ask for. It is a 12:1 scale replica of masked man himself. Look!
Now, I know what you're thinking. "That replica isn't accurate. For one thing, at no time in the movie does Bane hold up Batman's cowl level or above his own head. And even when he is holding the cowl in the movie, it is broken."
Well, these things are true, but who cares? Look at the amazing detail that went into the armor, the muscles, veins, and scars, and the way Bane's fingers loop through the eye holes of the cowl. It is extremely impressive craftsmanship. Needless to say, Bane is now the commander of the nick-knacks in my room, and he stands triumphantly on the coffee table whenever I am watching The Dark Knight Rises.
I also mentioned in that earlier post that I often envision Tom Hardy's Bane as the villain in other movies, but that I am not creative enough to flesh out the details of how he would replace Voldemort or the Wicked Witch or whatever. Well, along those same lines, I happen to come across an awesome youtube video of what The Dark Knight Rises would have been like if Bane's intentions were a little different. The link is below. Obviously the credit goes to those who made the video, and did a fantastic job. I wish I was half as pointlessly clever as they are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkMPZ7WeDck
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.
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Death Blow! (Bane)
This is a silly thought, but I feel like writing about it. I really like Bane as a villain, the way he was portrayed in The Dark Knight Rises. Let me rephrase that. While I think Bane deserved more screen time and more back story (and less love story), I found Tom Hardy's performance just the right mixture of menacing, disturbing, brutal, and smart. And since that movie, I can only ever picture Tom Hardy as Bane.
Lawless is Bane kicking the shit out of people in the Prohibition-era South. Warrior is Bane kicking the shit out of people as an MMA fighter. And Bronson is Bane kicking the shit out of people... because he enjoys the attention. I'm not saying Hardy is a typecast actor; on the contrary, he is very talented. But something about the character Bane left such an impression on me.
Lately my obsession over the Bane character has overflowed into other movies. I now envision Bane as the ultimate villain, finding his way into other movie franchises. For example, I am right now watching a Lord of the Rings marathon. The fell beast just grabbed Theodin and his horse and threw them across the battlefield. And as the Witch King of Angmar instructs the beast to "feast on his flesh", I, for some reason, picture Bane dismounting, cracking his knuckles and saying, in his raspy, slightly mechanical voice "now I will break you".
And then my imagination just gets out of control. Thus my envisioning Bane as every villain in Lord of the Rings. Or Bane as a Bond villain. Bane working for Gustavo Fring. Bane in the zombie apocalypse. Bane tasting half-and-half and getting some on his mask. Bane waiting on a bench at a bus stop in Alabama. Bane going through airport security. Bane on a blind date....
I think I have a problem.
Lawless is Bane kicking the shit out of people in the Prohibition-era South. Warrior is Bane kicking the shit out of people as an MMA fighter. And Bronson is Bane kicking the shit out of people... because he enjoys the attention. I'm not saying Hardy is a typecast actor; on the contrary, he is very talented. But something about the character Bane left such an impression on me.
Lately my obsession over the Bane character has overflowed into other movies. I now envision Bane as the ultimate villain, finding his way into other movie franchises. For example, I am right now watching a Lord of the Rings marathon. The fell beast just grabbed Theodin and his horse and threw them across the battlefield. And as the Witch King of Angmar instructs the beast to "feast on his flesh", I, for some reason, picture Bane dismounting, cracking his knuckles and saying, in his raspy, slightly mechanical voice "now I will break you".
And then my imagination just gets out of control. Thus my envisioning Bane as every villain in Lord of the Rings. Or Bane as a Bond villain. Bane working for Gustavo Fring. Bane in the zombie apocalypse. Bane tasting half-and-half and getting some on his mask. Bane waiting on a bench at a bus stop in Alabama. Bane going through airport security. Bane on a blind date....
I think I have a problem.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
A strange, erotic journey (The Hobbit)
I do not want to get into the habit of writing movie reviews on here. There are plenty of professionals who are paid to watch and critique movies, and they usually have an education in film making and analysis. Then again, there are plenty of people out there with opinions who have no idea what they are talking about. I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.
First and foremost, I will say that I really enjoyed The Hobbit. I have been aching for another visit to Middle Earth and this expansion of the universe was the answer to my prayers. It is because of how much I love the story and how much anticipation I had leading up to this film that I feel the need to write about it now.
Now for the critique. I saw the movie in IMAX 3D. I made the mistake of thinking that the new 48 frames per second version was standard to the IMAX, and I was wrong. So I cannot comment on that, though I really would like to experience it. My main complaint is with the 3D. I just do not see the appeal of 3D, especially in life-action movies. The only movie I saw where the 3D really added to the experience was Toy Story 3. And since then, whenever I see an animated movie, I go for the 3D. But in live-action, it just seems like the 3D distorts and ruins the action. There were some well-choreographed and entertaining action sequences here that I just couldn't make out on the screen because the images became dark and blurry. Maybe this is not the case in the 48 fps version. The Hobbit features a lot of panoramic landscapes and sweeping CG environments, and this is where the 3D really adds to the story, but for close-up action it just does not work.
Even optimistically, The Hobbit is at least an hour too long. It seems that Peter Jackson had three main goals: 1) to be very faithful to the source material, 2) to parallel the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and 3) to personally revisit the excitement of Middle Earth. Because of 2) and 3), we are getting three long movies from a single book that, alone, is shorter than any one of the three Lord of the Rings novels. And so, despite being very loyal to the novel, Jackson and his team have written in an entirely separate story about the emergence Sauron that is meant to connect the Hobbit trilogy to the Lord of the Rings. This is my main complaint about the movie. The story is meant to be about thirteen dwarves, Bilbo, and Gandalf going on a quest to destroy a dragon and reclaim the dwarves' kingdom. But their story keeps getting halted to talk about Sauron and a greater evil. Well, if there's a greater evil, then why am I following these uninteresting dwarves, whose are fairly forgettable compared to the fellowship, which is what they are clearly being compared to.
And that brings me to my other comment on Jackson's third goal. He obviously loves Middle Earth and his own experiences on the set of the movies. The man permanently build a town in a hillside to film the Shire scenes, which is now a tourist attraction in New Zealand. And because of this, he goes to extra lengths to showcase landscapes and characters that sort of conflict with the story as we know it. Frodo, Galadriel, Radagast, and Saruman really have no reason to be in this movie except to remind us that they exist and to talk about Sauron (except for Frodo, who essentially just walks around Bilbo's home for a few minutes). Even the actors seem like they are playfully parodying themselves from the other films. There's no question Jackson and co. got a kick out of donning the same costumes and flying helicopters all over New Zealand, but the movie sidetracks from the storytelling and becomes more of a video blog of production. There are even times when a voice over essentially reads the book verbatim while the camera sweeps over empty hills and fields.
I will stop there, because, while I do have other comments, it isn't really fair to talk about them unless it is with someone who has also seen the movie already. I hope that with the next two movies, we get an idea of what the movie is actually supposed to be about. This movie tried too hard to remind us that a better version of the movie already exists, at the expense of the main plot. While I enjoyed it, I think the sequel needs to raise the bar - maybe by actually cutting some of the extra material - in order to compete with the original trilogy.
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)