I could make a general statement about remakes, lumping movies in one category or another, or create some rule that governs the caliber of modern remakes, but ultimately any statement I make would just have a million exceptions. Not to mention it's all subjective to begin with.
So I'm not going to talk about all remakes. Just this one. And since I haven't seen the original recently enough to make any comparisons, I won't be reviewing it as a remake either.
First off, since it was all that was left playing at the theater, I saw the movie in 3d. I don't understand the appeal of 3d. It in no way enhances the movie for me. Usually, it just give me a headache. With this particular movie, the 3d didn't even seem that strong as I'm still not sure what parts were 3d.
Second off, the trailers are a bit misleading. This movie seems like a large sweeping epic about the dissidence among men and gods. It's not. It's actually much more comedic and "fun." Not saying it's more fun, just saying it's that type of movie, far closer to King Arthur (2005) or The 13th Warrior than Lord of the Rings.
For the technical aspects: The actors all did well, the movie looked good, and the story wasn't overcomplicated but interesting enough to keep you moving along with it.
Also, remember that this film has created its own version of mythology. It uses names and characters in ways separate from Greek mythology. Try to remember that when you get tempted to yell at the screen.
While the film is higher than a three, it isn't a four, so 3/5
Monday, May 17, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Iron Man 2
The first question always asked of sequels: Is it as good as the original?
Well, while the movie didn't hold the same "oh-my-god-this-is-spectacular"-ness of the first film, I think I would have to say, yes, it's as good as the original.
In some ways, for example the main character's behavior, it was exactly like the first movie. And don't get me wrong, Robert Downey, Jr. is the perfect Tony Stark. But since we already knew the character, it didn't require the same character development as the first movie. So they filled that space with additional characters.
Which would have been fine but the extra characters felt very much like comic relief. There was little or no sense of menace about them. Whiplash was a great character so I'll leave him out of the pack. Especially since if he had been the only comic character, it would all have been fine.
But I think Justin Hammer was slightly unforgivable. I understand changing a character to suit the actor you've selected, but what was wrong with finding an actor to suit the character. As an elderly man, the Hammer character would have complimented Whiplash. With the younger, exceedingly obnoxious character presented, I felt like someone had revived the villain from the first Charlie's Angels movie. He was just annoying on the screen.
For the other actors, Don Cheadle did an excellent job picking up the character of WarMachine. Paltrow was excellent, again, as Pepper Potts. Fury was made for Samuel Jackson (literately) and it was nice to see the character do something (And I loved that one of his lines caused a theater-wide groan). And Johannson was tolerable as the Black Widow. As much as it pains me to say it, any flaws in the character may not have been her fault. She carried the action scenes well, the character just lacked any sort of menace or weight.
As always the special effects were fantastic. The action scenes were great. The plot was well-written. Boiled down, the flaw in this movie is: Iron Man 2 is trying too hard to capitalize on all the things that sold the first movie, rather than working at being just a great movie. It's still a good movie, but it could have been better.
Still, 4/5
Well, while the movie didn't hold the same "oh-my-god-this-is-spectacular"-ness of the first film, I think I would have to say, yes, it's as good as the original.
In some ways, for example the main character's behavior, it was exactly like the first movie. And don't get me wrong, Robert Downey, Jr. is the perfect Tony Stark. But since we already knew the character, it didn't require the same character development as the first movie. So they filled that space with additional characters.
Which would have been fine but the extra characters felt very much like comic relief. There was little or no sense of menace about them. Whiplash was a great character so I'll leave him out of the pack. Especially since if he had been the only comic character, it would all have been fine.
But I think Justin Hammer was slightly unforgivable. I understand changing a character to suit the actor you've selected, but what was wrong with finding an actor to suit the character. As an elderly man, the Hammer character would have complimented Whiplash. With the younger, exceedingly obnoxious character presented, I felt like someone had revived the villain from the first Charlie's Angels movie. He was just annoying on the screen.
For the other actors, Don Cheadle did an excellent job picking up the character of WarMachine. Paltrow was excellent, again, as Pepper Potts. Fury was made for Samuel Jackson (literately) and it was nice to see the character do something (And I loved that one of his lines caused a theater-wide groan). And Johannson was tolerable as the Black Widow. As much as it pains me to say it, any flaws in the character may not have been her fault. She carried the action scenes well, the character just lacked any sort of menace or weight.
As always the special effects were fantastic. The action scenes were great. The plot was well-written. Boiled down, the flaw in this movie is: Iron Man 2 is trying too hard to capitalize on all the things that sold the first movie, rather than working at being just a great movie. It's still a good movie, but it could have been better.
Still, 4/5
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Losers
A very nice action film. There's a decent amount of laughs mixed with rock-star type action. But I think what impressed me most about this film is that all of the characters seemed like they were actually special-force soldiers. Even the computer geek. Because in most films the computer geek is the guy who runs around screaming and doesn't know how to use a gun and is basically just an obnoxious wimp. In this movie, he's actually capable of firing a weapon and handling himself in a combat situation.
True, he's still kind of a whinny wimp, but he's not obnoxious about it.
There's definitely a comic-book quality to the movie though. The violence is very much comic-book violence. It's tongue in cheek. Not overly gruesome but not exactly people merely getting shot and dying. There's a certain visceral quality to it.
I have to say though that Zoe Saldana's character didn't make a ton of sense. I like the character, don't get me wrong, but her background, while nice for its dramatic effect, didn't seem entirely plausible.
Still, 4/5
True, he's still kind of a whinny wimp, but he's not obnoxious about it.
There's definitely a comic-book quality to the movie though. The violence is very much comic-book violence. It's tongue in cheek. Not overly gruesome but not exactly people merely getting shot and dying. There's a certain visceral quality to it.
I have to say though that Zoe Saldana's character didn't make a ton of sense. I like the character, don't get me wrong, but her background, while nice for its dramatic effect, didn't seem entirely plausible.
Still, 4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)