I'm reading a book right now entitled Hellraisers: The Inebriated Life and Times of Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Richard Harris & Oliver Reed, and it's lead me to realize that I have never seen a Richard Burton film, and have really only seen O'Toole, Harris, and Reed in more modern things. I don't remember Camelot (Harris) or Oliver! (Reed). The only thing I can think of having seen w/O'Toole in it is Stardust, although someday we'll get around to Lawrence of Arabia. I love Harris and Reed in Gladiator, and truthfully, I have loved Reed ever since, and only because of, Black Arrow, which is lamentably unavailable on DVD. WTF, Disney??
All of this is just to comment on my increasing commitment to movie geekdom. In the last year or so I read a Gene Kelly bio and a Judy Garland one, and have plans to read one on Chaplin at some point ... Hollywood's fascinating. I think we forget that the antics of the obnoxious celebutantes and crazy actors of today is truthfully nothing new. Seriously, read Hellraisers and you'll realize that today's gang is pretty tame by comparison. The writing's kind of a mess, but it's terribly entertaining.
At any rate, I've now added Becket, Cleopatra, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to the old Netflix queue ... Camelot's already on it, as is A Lion in Winter and Oliver!. Fun times ahead! Any recommendations to add?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Monday, May 10, 2010
New focus?
I'm not necessarily turning into a movie blogger just yet, but when the fabulous RTM asked me to do a guest post about new favorite, up-and-comer Mark Strong, how could I say no? Read it here, and of course, many thanks to RTM for the honor!
Iron Man 2
Despite the amount of movies I see, I have long resisted writing reviews, for a variety of reasons. Mostly, I think I just don't have the attention span. However, I read a lot of reviews, and in this case, having seen the movie now, I feel the need to offer up my own opinion in order to set the record straight. I am not a snooty movie critic. My main desire in seeing a film is usually just to be entertained (although sometimes it's to see a specific actor). I am, admittedly, a huge fan of Robert Downey, Jr. I have what I consider to be a reasonable amount of geek cred, so I am usually down with the newest comic book film, and I do love a good popcorn flick. I hated The Dark Knight for being far too overwrought and overrated. So, with that disclosure, read on, if you wish.
We watched the first Iron Man movie on Friday night as a refresher course, and I think that was a good choice. It reminded me of the things I loved: the banter, RDJ, the scenes where it's just Tony Stark with his computers and robots, the sheer badassness of Iron Man himself, Jeff Bridges; and of the things I was less thrilled with: Terrence Howard (seriously, ugh) and the big finale fight scene, mainly.
SO, Iron Man 2. Let me start out by saying that, for my money, all of the things I liked about the first movie were still present. I had most feared for the "Stark working" scenes, thinking there just wouldn't be a need for them, but they're still there (along with Paul Bettany as Jarvis, who, seriously, I want to help walk me through my day). AND, they fixed the things I didn't like. Switching Don Cheadle for Terrence Howard was a brilliant move, IMO ... he just fits right in. And the final fight scenes were much better this time around. Good stuff. Now, as for the rest of the film.
First of all, one of the things that a lot of critics complained about was the slightly more serious tone of the second movie as compared to the first. I actually found this to be completely appropriate and enjoyable. In the first movie, Tony Stark had his world changed. He created a superhero suit that looks really fun, and he accordingly enjoyed it. For the second go-round, the bottom should drop out. Consequences should arise, troubles should multiply, characters (I'm looking at you, Pepper) should be more stressed out. All of that seemed completely natural to me, and completely understandable within a greater story arc. And there were still light/fun moments, heightened, I think, by a slightly more cohesive cast.
About that cast: Cheadle, as mentioned, is awesome. Paltrow's Potts has been accused of not being as "good" this time around, but again, I think that within the framework of the story, she was right on. Scarlett Johanssen, as Stark's new assistant/possible double agent, has been called "wooden" by numerous sources. There again, though, I would argue that to me, that just seemed like her character. She was supposed to be apart from "the gang" and of questionable motive. She delivered. Mickey Rourke was a fun bad guy. Maybe not as fun as Jeff Bridges, but so what? And finally, Sam Rockwell was just fabulous. He pulled off being a knock-off Tony Stark perfectly. Where Tony is charismatic enough to hardly ever seem slimy, Rockwell's Justin Hammer was a complete little shit, and I thought he was perfect. Bonus points for director Jon Favreau's slightly stepped-up role as Happy Hogan. About RDJ, I'm not sure what needs to be said. The man is a revelation. He can convey more in the blink of one eye than most actors can do in their entire body of work. Call me biased if you want, but the guy's incredible, and I love that we have a comic book franchise with a lead who can seriously act.
On to other matters -- like the plot/story. Critics complain here, but may I remind you that this is a comic book movie? Plots are always a bit ridiculous, maybe a little hole-y, usually fairly busy. This one is no exception, but I really didn't think it was overloaded. Didn't feel there were too many villains, really liked the character development (in terms of Stark) ... I actually wished they'd done a little bit more with Rourke's character. Overall, though, it was easy to follow (unlike some - *cough*Dark Knight*cough*), and it set up things to come while deepening what was already there. That equals success in my book.
In summary, I think that in terms of critical reception, expectations were simply too high. I totally loved this movie, and my main complaints were that RDJ didn't spend enough time in a tank top, hammering things, and that ScarJo's fight sequences were a little too fast and blurry to be properly enjoyed. We need to remember that in good trilogies (see: Star Wars) the second act is always the dark one, and that's usually a good thing. If you liked the first one, go see this one with an open mind and/or lowered expectations, and I think you'll have a good time. Unless you liked Terrence Howard as Rhodes, in which case, I cannot help you.
We watched the first Iron Man movie on Friday night as a refresher course, and I think that was a good choice. It reminded me of the things I loved: the banter, RDJ, the scenes where it's just Tony Stark with his computers and robots, the sheer badassness of Iron Man himself, Jeff Bridges; and of the things I was less thrilled with: Terrence Howard (seriously, ugh) and the big finale fight scene, mainly.
SO, Iron Man 2. Let me start out by saying that, for my money, all of the things I liked about the first movie were still present. I had most feared for the "Stark working" scenes, thinking there just wouldn't be a need for them, but they're still there (along with Paul Bettany as Jarvis, who, seriously, I want to help walk me through my day). AND, they fixed the things I didn't like. Switching Don Cheadle for Terrence Howard was a brilliant move, IMO ... he just fits right in. And the final fight scenes were much better this time around. Good stuff. Now, as for the rest of the film.
First of all, one of the things that a lot of critics complained about was the slightly more serious tone of the second movie as compared to the first. I actually found this to be completely appropriate and enjoyable. In the first movie, Tony Stark had his world changed. He created a superhero suit that looks really fun, and he accordingly enjoyed it. For the second go-round, the bottom should drop out. Consequences should arise, troubles should multiply, characters (I'm looking at you, Pepper) should be more stressed out. All of that seemed completely natural to me, and completely understandable within a greater story arc. And there were still light/fun moments, heightened, I think, by a slightly more cohesive cast.
About that cast: Cheadle, as mentioned, is awesome. Paltrow's Potts has been accused of not being as "good" this time around, but again, I think that within the framework of the story, she was right on. Scarlett Johanssen, as Stark's new assistant/possible double agent, has been called "wooden" by numerous sources. There again, though, I would argue that to me, that just seemed like her character. She was supposed to be apart from "the gang" and of questionable motive. She delivered. Mickey Rourke was a fun bad guy. Maybe not as fun as Jeff Bridges, but so what? And finally, Sam Rockwell was just fabulous. He pulled off being a knock-off Tony Stark perfectly. Where Tony is charismatic enough to hardly ever seem slimy, Rockwell's Justin Hammer was a complete little shit, and I thought he was perfect. Bonus points for director Jon Favreau's slightly stepped-up role as Happy Hogan. About RDJ, I'm not sure what needs to be said. The man is a revelation. He can convey more in the blink of one eye than most actors can do in their entire body of work. Call me biased if you want, but the guy's incredible, and I love that we have a comic book franchise with a lead who can seriously act.
On to other matters -- like the plot/story. Critics complain here, but may I remind you that this is a comic book movie? Plots are always a bit ridiculous, maybe a little hole-y, usually fairly busy. This one is no exception, but I really didn't think it was overloaded. Didn't feel there were too many villains, really liked the character development (in terms of Stark) ... I actually wished they'd done a little bit more with Rourke's character. Overall, though, it was easy to follow (unlike some - *cough*Dark Knight*cough*), and it set up things to come while deepening what was already there. That equals success in my book.
In summary, I think that in terms of critical reception, expectations were simply too high. I totally loved this movie, and my main complaints were that RDJ didn't spend enough time in a tank top, hammering things, and that ScarJo's fight sequences were a little too fast and blurry to be properly enjoyed. We need to remember that in good trilogies (see: Star Wars) the second act is always the dark one, and that's usually a good thing. If you liked the first one, go see this one with an open mind and/or lowered expectations, and I think you'll have a good time. Unless you liked Terrence Howard as Rhodes, in which case, I cannot help you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)