For the first time since I don't know when, Kate and I have gone to see movies in a theater on two consecutive weekends. I'm pretty sure this hasn't happened in at least two years.
Anyway, before my general (spoiler-free) movie comments, some trailers:
You Don't Mess With the Zohan. Seriously, this is a movie? I thought it was just a fake commercial slapped together for SNL that had somehow come unmoored from the show and started turning up on other channels.
The Love Guru. Mike Myers has outdone himself: I hate this character already.
Australia. For everyone who has been dying to see a movie in which Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman don't have to fake their accents. I'm not sure I see the attraction other than that.
Hancock. Enh. The concept sounds interesting, but the trailer didn't look that great. It's possible that it was just cut in a way that appeals to people other than me.
The Dark Knight. Looks terrific, actually. I liked Batman Begins in spite of the dopey plot, because Batman is the one superhero whose origin story is the interesting part, but Heath Ledger looks wonderfully creepy.
The Incredible Hulk. Edward Norton as David Banner... Tim Roth as a psycho... It has possibilities.
And now, comments on the feature presentations:
Robert Downey Jr. vs. The League of Evil Bald Guys-- er, I mean, Iron Man. I came to this blissfully unencumbered by actual knowledge of the comic book character, so I can't speak to the authenticity of the adaptation. It was an enjoyable comic-book movie, though. Downey did a terrific job, and Jeff Bridges did a great cross between Lex Luthor and the Dude.
There are a few subtextual elements that are a little icky if you stop to think about them for too long (mostly involving the idea that poor people in other countries exist only as a means of bringing rich white Americans to epiphanies), and the science is utter nonsense even by the standards of comic book adaptations. It does look pretty, though, and there are some great little moments, like Downey's interaction with the robots.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Was really about as good as you could hope for from a 20-year-later sequel. I've seen some complaints that the plot was daft and formulaic, but so are the plots of the first three. If you're going into this movie expecting coherence and nuanced character development, you're doing it all wrong.
The only real complaint I have is that it got to be a bit much before the end. There were probably two big setpieces too many, and the movie would've been better if they'd been trimmed out. The ending was a little too pat, but it's not like they can really do another sequel in 2018, so they might as well wrap the whole thing up.
Short version: Not as good as the first and third, but better than the second.
If you want to see spoiler-y comments, Kate has them: Iron Man and Indiana Jones. And that's where we stand movie-wise, here in Chateau Steelypips.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
re: iron man's authenticity...
pretty good actually, there were two main plotlines in the movie that were disconnected in the comic book... the origin story and the obadiah stane story were separated by years in comicbook land.
side note: In "the Hulk" the character's name is "Bruce" Banner... no one is entirely sure why they changed it to david for the tv show. too alliterative I guess...
god I'm a lonely geek... (sob)
Iron Man perfected cold fusion in an Afghani cave (the palladium ring). No other controlled fusion proposed reduction to practice, cold or otherwise, is as believable. And the headpiece doesn't smile.
Zohan is better played it for laughs. A circumcized Dark Knight with eldritch powers. A Middle Eastern cabal steals a megagallon of Arkansas liquid hog waste impoundment and concentrates it into a small vial of Molochamovis IX. Various frenetic silly events ensue (with a brief pause for drama when Lohan's Chobham matsoh armor fails). The bad guys end up corked in the Mossad Commmunity Center (Philadelphia) wherein all the potbellied males smoke huge smelly cigars, all the fabulously hook-nosed yentas twitter to crack glass, and everybody wears adult diapers to incipient failure.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Walker is Lohan with love child.
_Hancock_ is risky in at least a couple different ways, so it wouldn't surprise me if the trailer was straining to deal with that.
According to Wikipedia (for what it's worth), the director noted, "The ad campaign for this movie is much friendlier than the film."
(That refers to Hancock, by the way.)
I saw Indiana Jones yesterday late afternoon and thought it was worth the $7.50. I want to see Expelled. Loved the lead up to the refrigerator scene.
There was an article on Hancock in the NY Times. Apparently, the original draft of the movie circulated around Hollywood as brilliant but unfilmable. They're trying to keep this one from getting an R it sounds like.
As an Iron Man fan from way back,let me just add a few comments. Way back in the day, Iron Man did in fact run out of energy fairly frequently. He would always be looking for outlets to plug himself in! This was one appeal of the character. And in fact in the intro scene, Stark does mention he can only power his suit at full power for fifteen minutes. Another, which is alluded to in the movie, is that Tony Stark is a prisoner of his armor. He is rather like a patient in a iron lung, only able to live a few minutes without his chestplate. In many ways, the Marvel heroes are Greek tragic heroes. There's always something wrong with them, some fatal flaw which makes them human.
Re #2
They changed the name to David Banner for the TV show because "Bruce" was considered to be too...um...er..."nancy-boy".
(Hey, I think it's disgusting, but it's true, nonetheless)
Costanza,
I guess that was been before Bruce Campbell's big roles, huh?