Recently in Movies Category
So over the last few weeks I've been watching a fair bit of movies and TV simply because I have to spend about 4 hours a day lying in bed doing nothing. In addition to watching all of the commentaries and extra features in my Freaks and Geeks boxed set (which, by the way, is well worth it -- I'm still horribly disappointed I never caught it when it was first airing and that it got canceled), I upped my Netflix subscription to two movies at a time to try and fill the hours.
The first bunch of DVDs I got were the third season of Forever Knight. I'm more than willing to admit that the first two seasons of the show were a lot cheesier than I remembered (though I don't really regret having them on DVD), but the third season really struck me as a very Silk Stalkings-ified version of the show when I saw the first few episodes on USA (and promptly gave up on it, after staying up at weird hours to watch the second season). I figured I might as well watch to see if it was as bad as I thought (and see the last episode, which I had never seen). On the whole, it ended up being probably a little better than what I expected, but I think it was definitely still a big step down from the first two seasons, which had quite a few episodes that were far better than the usual late night syndicated junk. Probably the worst change was the loss of John Kapelos and Deborah Duchene (Schanke and Janette) for Lisa Ryder and Ben Bass, something that always struck me as kind of a lowest-common-denominator move. And the last episode was....well, really pretty disappointing and a definite downer.
That was followed, however, by probably the best find I've come across in quite a while, No Maps For These Territories, a documentary that's basically an hour and a half discussion with William Gibson on his writing, information age society, futurism, and a variety of other topics while he rides around in the back of a limo. If you are a big Gibson fan (and I am), you will probably enjoy it; if you aren't that interested in William Gibson, there's no reason for you to see this movie (well, duh). He talks about almost every aspect of his life, and his discussion of Neuromancer was especially interesting for me, going a long way towards explaining why it is so different from most of his other books. I'll probably end up buying this one actually, simply because I didn't get enough time to really digest the movie or the associated extras (including more interview snippets that didn't make it into the body of the movie itself). The only thing I can say is that the movie is made in such a way that it is a little more "artistic" than it had to be for me, since I was mostly interested in what he was saying and not the visuals of the movie.
The next on this list is Ben Affleck's directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. Honestly, if I hadn't been told that this was his first movie as a director, I would never have known. Almost every aspect of the movie is done in a way that really shows a good eye for the camera and for getting the actors to really bring their characters to life. I suspect that the fact that the movie takes place (and was shot in) Affleck's hometown of Boston helped contribute to this in the same way it did with Good Will Hunting; many of the people in this movie are simply residents of the Boston neighborhood where it was being shot. The plot is well-written, and while I may agree slightly with Chesnut, who said it seemed a little convoluted for his tastes, I did not feel like the "twists" were just thrown in to be twists -- each one highlighted the moral choices the characters had to make. Really, without them, the movie would not have been worth making because those twists are in the movie to highlight the central point. I highly recommend seeing this movie, though I will say it will probably not leave you with a good feeling at the end.
Michael Clayton is a movie that probably won't leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling at the end either, but it too is a good movie. Unlike Gone Baby Gone, though, this film feels a bit more formulaic and not nearly as authentic (but maybe it wasn't trying to be). The performances, by George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, and Tilda Swinton most notably, were as good as I'd expect from actors of that caliber, and the writing for each scene was well done, but the plot that holds it all together, as Chesnut wrote in his capsule review, seems kind of like Another Lawyer Movie. Still worth watching, though, and I think the actors and writers probably deserved their Oscar nominations, but on the other hand, I am glad that it didn't win the Best Picture Oscar, though so far I've only seen one of the other nominees.
Last for this installment was The Golden Compass, which I just watched the other night. Obviously made as a Narnia-like attempt to cash in on the Lord of the Rings' success (which doesn't necessarily make it bad), this suffers from the fact that it feels like half of a movie and there was no guarantee the other half was going to get made. The film's climax seems like should be about where the Mines of Moria scene was in Fellowship, but instead it ends with the film's real conflict hanging in the wind. That being said, I didn't think the movie was really bad, it just felt like it fell short of what it was trying to be. The CGI, which was a large part of the movie, was competently done, and for the most part looked real, and I liked the sort of Victorian steampunk style aesthetic. It sounds like the sequel is still going to be made (largely due to its strength overseas, it sounds like), so maybe I'll like it more with the next part. I was disappointed by how bare-bones the DVD is though; there's no commentary, no deleted scenes (and I know there were quite a few), no behind the scenes stuff. For a movie like this, you'd think there'd at least be a little of that on the DVD, but maybe with the perceived failure of the movie at the box office no one wanted to put any money into it.
The first bunch of DVDs I got were the third season of Forever Knight. I'm more than willing to admit that the first two seasons of the show were a lot cheesier than I remembered (though I don't really regret having them on DVD), but the third season really struck me as a very Silk Stalkings-ified version of the show when I saw the first few episodes on USA (and promptly gave up on it, after staying up at weird hours to watch the second season). I figured I might as well watch to see if it was as bad as I thought (and see the last episode, which I had never seen). On the whole, it ended up being probably a little better than what I expected, but I think it was definitely still a big step down from the first two seasons, which had quite a few episodes that were far better than the usual late night syndicated junk. Probably the worst change was the loss of John Kapelos and Deborah Duchene (Schanke and Janette) for Lisa Ryder and Ben Bass, something that always struck me as kind of a lowest-common-denominator move. And the last episode was....well, really pretty disappointing and a definite downer.
That was followed, however, by probably the best find I've come across in quite a while, No Maps For These Territories, a documentary that's basically an hour and a half discussion with William Gibson on his writing, information age society, futurism, and a variety of other topics while he rides around in the back of a limo. If you are a big Gibson fan (and I am), you will probably enjoy it; if you aren't that interested in William Gibson, there's no reason for you to see this movie (well, duh). He talks about almost every aspect of his life, and his discussion of Neuromancer was especially interesting for me, going a long way towards explaining why it is so different from most of his other books. I'll probably end up buying this one actually, simply because I didn't get enough time to really digest the movie or the associated extras (including more interview snippets that didn't make it into the body of the movie itself). The only thing I can say is that the movie is made in such a way that it is a little more "artistic" than it had to be for me, since I was mostly interested in what he was saying and not the visuals of the movie.
The next on this list is Ben Affleck's directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. Honestly, if I hadn't been told that this was his first movie as a director, I would never have known. Almost every aspect of the movie is done in a way that really shows a good eye for the camera and for getting the actors to really bring their characters to life. I suspect that the fact that the movie takes place (and was shot in) Affleck's hometown of Boston helped contribute to this in the same way it did with Good Will Hunting; many of the people in this movie are simply residents of the Boston neighborhood where it was being shot. The plot is well-written, and while I may agree slightly with Chesnut, who said it seemed a little convoluted for his tastes, I did not feel like the "twists" were just thrown in to be twists -- each one highlighted the moral choices the characters had to make. Really, without them, the movie would not have been worth making because those twists are in the movie to highlight the central point. I highly recommend seeing this movie, though I will say it will probably not leave you with a good feeling at the end.
Michael Clayton is a movie that probably won't leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling at the end either, but it too is a good movie. Unlike Gone Baby Gone, though, this film feels a bit more formulaic and not nearly as authentic (but maybe it wasn't trying to be). The performances, by George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, and Tilda Swinton most notably, were as good as I'd expect from actors of that caliber, and the writing for each scene was well done, but the plot that holds it all together, as Chesnut wrote in his capsule review, seems kind of like Another Lawyer Movie. Still worth watching, though, and I think the actors and writers probably deserved their Oscar nominations, but on the other hand, I am glad that it didn't win the Best Picture Oscar, though so far I've only seen one of the other nominees.
Last for this installment was The Golden Compass, which I just watched the other night. Obviously made as a Narnia-like attempt to cash in on the Lord of the Rings' success (which doesn't necessarily make it bad), this suffers from the fact that it feels like half of a movie and there was no guarantee the other half was going to get made. The film's climax seems like should be about where the Mines of Moria scene was in Fellowship, but instead it ends with the film's real conflict hanging in the wind. That being said, I didn't think the movie was really bad, it just felt like it fell short of what it was trying to be. The CGI, which was a large part of the movie, was competently done, and for the most part looked real, and I liked the sort of Victorian steampunk style aesthetic. It sounds like the sequel is still going to be made (largely due to its strength overseas, it sounds like), so maybe I'll like it more with the next part. I was disappointed by how bare-bones the DVD is though; there's no commentary, no deleted scenes (and I know there were quite a few), no behind the scenes stuff. For a movie like this, you'd think there'd at least be a little of that on the DVD, but maybe with the perceived failure of the movie at the box office no one wanted to put any money into it.
I've taken a week and a half now to digest this movie, to try and separate the hype and the anticipation from the substance. I've seen it twice now, once at the Art and once at an IMAX theatre up in Chicago, and I feel like I've been able to take a step back and judge the film on its merits.
I suspect most people are not going to be surprised to hear that I liked the movie (and so does every other critic, it seems, from the film's 95% score at rottentomatoes), but there's a lot more to this than simply a popcorn flick. It is a seriously dark and emotionally complicated film, and it is significantly elevated even over its predecessor, which was an excellent film in its own right. It's definitely the best movie I've seen this year, probably in several years.
Before I get into that too much though, a few words about the Watchmen trailer. I got to see this on the IMAX screen last night, and now I'm really excited about seeing this next year. A bit late to the party, I read the graphic novel for the first time a couple years ago, and while it wasn't quite so earthshattering twenty years after the original release, it was just as good as people claimed. And now, from everything I've seen, from the production stills to the trailer, I'm considerably less worried about the movie not standing up to the graphic novel. The movie uses a much more modernized aesthetic (Ozymandias, for instance, does not have his bright purple and gold costume), but I don't see that being as much of a problem; audiences today expect those things from a "modern" superhero, despite the fact that the movie still takes place in 1985. The original Minutemen, however, still have the look they had before, as you can see from this photo. The trailer, to me, managed to capture the dark, doomed tone of the novel, and if the movie can do the same, and back it up with good performances, I'll be very happy, so long as they keep the storyline at least mostly intact.
Back to The Dark Knight. This is definitely a movie that needs to be seen as free of preconceptions and spoilers as possible; I noticed a distinct change in my reactions to many of the movie's twists and turns on a second viewing, just because I knew what to expect. I'll discuss exactly what those are behind the cut, but there's plenty more to say before we get to that point.
I don't think there's any part of this movie that isn't expertly done. The sets and cinematography are amazing, with great detail -- not quite Blade Runner levels (someone I know mentioned the fact that they can't seem to decided if the police are "GPD" or "GCPD", both of which appear many times in different places), but there are a lot of other things you can catch; I noticed last night that there are a lot of Gotham-specific things on Harvey Dent's desk in one scene, including a Gotham phone book, for instance. The action scenes drop you into the middle of things in a visceral way (especially in IMAX), and it seemed like the shakycam Greengrass-style shooting of the fight scenes had been dialed back considerably, making it much easier to follow the action.
But even that doesn't stand up to the true strength of this movie, which is the writing and acting. While Heath Ledger's performance is every bit as good as it has been hyped to be, the frightening portrayal of his Joker owes as much to the excellent script as it does to his acting. This is not the Joker that Jack Nicholson portrayed -- that Joker was kuh-raaaaazy! and goofy, and it's probably fair to say that a lot of it was just Nicholson playing Nicholson. While his performance was appropriate to the Burton-aesthetic of the 1989 Batman, it wouldn't have fit with the style set up by Batman Begins.
Ledger's Joker is not goofy...he is fucking insane. His "jokes" are twisted and sadistic, his motivations are far deeper than simple amusement, and he is utterly frightening, one thing that I think was deeply lacking from Nicholson's portrayal. He has a few moments of levity (the "magic trick" he does early on brought out some nervous laughter, though it made a lot more people squirm), but for the most part, the only one that finds his antics funny is himself. He also does a great laugh that seems to be a more sinister version of Mark Hamill's voice acting.
The only problem with Ledger's portrayal is that it overshadows some other performances that are worthy of note. While Christian Bale does a good job, as do the other returning actors from the first movie (plus Maggie Gyllenhaal), but really, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is also worthy of special praise. I won't go into it too much, since it will go a bit too close to spoiler territory, but he does an admirable job with Dent's descent into Two-Face and brings across the change from one to the other.
One note on Bale's "Batman voice" -- I know a lot of people give him crap over this, but I don't think it is as bad as they claim. I think Michael Keaton did it a bit better, but Bale doesn't do too bad when his lines are kept to short sentences rather than long soliloquies, something that this movie failed on a bit. Of course, the person who has done this better than all of them is Kevin Conroy -- but then, it perhaps shouldn't be surprising that a trained voice actor manages to convey the difference between Batman and Bruce Wayne (sorry, couldn't find a good example) the best.
For me, the biggest measure of how different this movie was from all the other movies I've seen this summer, and even how different it was from its predecessor, was how emotionally wrecked I felt when I left the theatre the first time I saw it. It was blunted the second time, but I still felt like someone had punched me in the gut at the end, and I remember squeezing Marc's hand pretty hard. This is not a "fun" movie, like Iron Man; it is extremely dark and it will push you around emotionally if you let it. I compared the experience to that of something like The Godfather or Platoon; leaving aside whether it is as good a film as those for a moment, I think that kind of experience is most like what I took out of The Dark Knight. There are very few moments of levity, even less so than in Batman Begins; I can probably count them all on the fingers of one hand.
To cut a long story short (too late!), this is an excellent movie; I have to concur with Todd Alcott's assessment that it elevates itself from a "good superhero movie" to simply "a good film" in the same way that The Godfather elevated itself above preconceptions of gangster movies at the time. It is well worth seeing, especially if you can see it on an IMAX screen. You won't regret it.
For more specific comments, read on...
I suspect most people are not going to be surprised to hear that I liked the movie (and so does every other critic, it seems, from the film's 95% score at rottentomatoes), but there's a lot more to this than simply a popcorn flick. It is a seriously dark and emotionally complicated film, and it is significantly elevated even over its predecessor, which was an excellent film in its own right. It's definitely the best movie I've seen this year, probably in several years.
Before I get into that too much though, a few words about the Watchmen trailer. I got to see this on the IMAX screen last night, and now I'm really excited about seeing this next year. A bit late to the party, I read the graphic novel for the first time a couple years ago, and while it wasn't quite so earthshattering twenty years after the original release, it was just as good as people claimed. And now, from everything I've seen, from the production stills to the trailer, I'm considerably less worried about the movie not standing up to the graphic novel. The movie uses a much more modernized aesthetic (Ozymandias, for instance, does not have his bright purple and gold costume), but I don't see that being as much of a problem; audiences today expect those things from a "modern" superhero, despite the fact that the movie still takes place in 1985. The original Minutemen, however, still have the look they had before, as you can see from this photo. The trailer, to me, managed to capture the dark, doomed tone of the novel, and if the movie can do the same, and back it up with good performances, I'll be very happy, so long as they keep the storyline at least mostly intact.
Back to The Dark Knight. This is definitely a movie that needs to be seen as free of preconceptions and spoilers as possible; I noticed a distinct change in my reactions to many of the movie's twists and turns on a second viewing, just because I knew what to expect. I'll discuss exactly what those are behind the cut, but there's plenty more to say before we get to that point.
I don't think there's any part of this movie that isn't expertly done. The sets and cinematography are amazing, with great detail -- not quite Blade Runner levels (someone I know mentioned the fact that they can't seem to decided if the police are "GPD" or "GCPD", both of which appear many times in different places), but there are a lot of other things you can catch; I noticed last night that there are a lot of Gotham-specific things on Harvey Dent's desk in one scene, including a Gotham phone book, for instance. The action scenes drop you into the middle of things in a visceral way (especially in IMAX), and it seemed like the shakycam Greengrass-style shooting of the fight scenes had been dialed back considerably, making it much easier to follow the action.
But even that doesn't stand up to the true strength of this movie, which is the writing and acting. While Heath Ledger's performance is every bit as good as it has been hyped to be, the frightening portrayal of his Joker owes as much to the excellent script as it does to his acting. This is not the Joker that Jack Nicholson portrayed -- that Joker was kuh-raaaaazy! and goofy, and it's probably fair to say that a lot of it was just Nicholson playing Nicholson. While his performance was appropriate to the Burton-aesthetic of the 1989 Batman, it wouldn't have fit with the style set up by Batman Begins.
Ledger's Joker is not goofy...he is fucking insane. His "jokes" are twisted and sadistic, his motivations are far deeper than simple amusement, and he is utterly frightening, one thing that I think was deeply lacking from Nicholson's portrayal. He has a few moments of levity (the "magic trick" he does early on brought out some nervous laughter, though it made a lot more people squirm), but for the most part, the only one that finds his antics funny is himself. He also does a great laugh that seems to be a more sinister version of Mark Hamill's voice acting.
The only problem with Ledger's portrayal is that it overshadows some other performances that are worthy of note. While Christian Bale does a good job, as do the other returning actors from the first movie (plus Maggie Gyllenhaal), but really, Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is also worthy of special praise. I won't go into it too much, since it will go a bit too close to spoiler territory, but he does an admirable job with Dent's descent into Two-Face and brings across the change from one to the other.
One note on Bale's "Batman voice" -- I know a lot of people give him crap over this, but I don't think it is as bad as they claim. I think Michael Keaton did it a bit better, but Bale doesn't do too bad when his lines are kept to short sentences rather than long soliloquies, something that this movie failed on a bit. Of course, the person who has done this better than all of them is Kevin Conroy -- but then, it perhaps shouldn't be surprising that a trained voice actor manages to convey the difference between Batman and Bruce Wayne (sorry, couldn't find a good example) the best.
For me, the biggest measure of how different this movie was from all the other movies I've seen this summer, and even how different it was from its predecessor, was how emotionally wrecked I felt when I left the theatre the first time I saw it. It was blunted the second time, but I still felt like someone had punched me in the gut at the end, and I remember squeezing Marc's hand pretty hard. This is not a "fun" movie, like Iron Man; it is extremely dark and it will push you around emotionally if you let it. I compared the experience to that of something like The Godfather or Platoon; leaving aside whether it is as good a film as those for a moment, I think that kind of experience is most like what I took out of The Dark Knight. There are very few moments of levity, even less so than in Batman Begins; I can probably count them all on the fingers of one hand.
To cut a long story short (too late!), this is an excellent movie; I have to concur with Todd Alcott's assessment that it elevates itself from a "good superhero movie" to simply "a good film" in the same way that The Godfather elevated itself above preconceptions of gangster movies at the time. It is well worth seeing, especially if you can see it on an IMAX screen. You won't regret it.
For more specific comments, read on...
Continue reading The Dark Knight (and the Watchmen trailer).
I had to be up in Chicago today for my second surgery letter, so I went up on Saturday to spend the weekend so I could see Sam, Gracie, and Marc. Sam and Gracie are always gracious hosts (no pun intended), and as always I had a great time with them (and obviously with Marc).
Saturday I didn't get up to Chicago until almost 1800, so Sam, Gracie and I just stayed in for the night and watched some movies while I caught up on some email (Deidei also introduced me to the Totally Rad Show over IRC Saturday, which I encourage folks to check out if you have some time to waste).
Sunday, Sam dropped me off downtown where I met up with Marc near Union Station and we went to the Art Institute, which is the last of the "big" Chicago museums I hadn't yet been too. I have to admit that I am not exactly a huge art buff, but I do like to consider myself at least a bit cultured, so I figured this was as good a chance as any to see the museum (and frankly, to live this close and never visit some of the most important artistic works in the world seems a bit neglectful). Marc and I spent most of the day there, and I definitely enjoyed myself -- we managed to see most of the museum, though some of it is closed for the construction of the new Modern Wing, and I got to see Nighthawks, which is one of my favorite pieces of "real" art. I think the biggest deal for me is just seeing things that are hundreds of years old sitting right there in front of me; knowing that something can survive that long and wondering about everyone else who has been in that position during their entire history.
After the museum, we walked from there to Fogo de Chao to meet Sam, Gracie, CK and Mel for dinner. This was Marc's first time there and he was very impressed (and very full) after the experience as usually happens with a visit to Fogo. Stuffed to the gills, Marc and I went back to the Hotel Blake where we were staying for the night. After checking in, we went to see Hancock since we were too full to really do anything else. :) I have to say that I wasn't quite as impressed with the movie as Mike was; my opinion is pretty close to that of Roger Ebert, though I don't know that I would give it three out of four stars; it was a solid two and a half though. I certainly don't feel like it was a waste of time or money, but the movie wasn't really anything super-special to me; if we had chosen something else to see instead I think I would have been just as happy. Worth checking out if there's nothing else you are particularly interested in seeing at the theatre though.
Monday morning, after dropping Marc off at his office, I went back to Sam and Gracie's and hung out with Gracie for the day, catching up on some of the writing I've been slacking off on, and then the three of us went to the Greek Islands for dinner (unfortunately, Marc was stuck at work; I'm definitely looking forward to when he'll be done with this project!) and I had saganaki for the first time, as well as some very tasty calamari and their ambrosia dessert, which was delicious.
Today I had to go to Evanston for my appointment, which was a pleasant commute, once I actually figured where I was actually going (I need to learn to trust Google Maps instead of my own sense of direction -- I spent about 15 minutes looking for Western Avenue when I was actually on Western Avenue to start with *sigh*), and I was back on the road by about 1300 and home by 1530, so it wasn't too bad a day of driving, despite some construction on the Kennedy.
All in all a good and fairly productive weekend -- I think that's the last of the preliminaries for my surgery, which is probably a good thing with it only six weeks off now (which means the first half of my payment is due this week). I am not looking forward to writing a ten thousand dollar check, but on the other hand, I've been saving that money for a reason, and it's about time I did something with it.
Saturday I didn't get up to Chicago until almost 1800, so Sam, Gracie and I just stayed in for the night and watched some movies while I caught up on some email (Deidei also introduced me to the Totally Rad Show over IRC Saturday, which I encourage folks to check out if you have some time to waste).
Sunday, Sam dropped me off downtown where I met up with Marc near Union Station and we went to the Art Institute, which is the last of the "big" Chicago museums I hadn't yet been too. I have to admit that I am not exactly a huge art buff, but I do like to consider myself at least a bit cultured, so I figured this was as good a chance as any to see the museum (and frankly, to live this close and never visit some of the most important artistic works in the world seems a bit neglectful). Marc and I spent most of the day there, and I definitely enjoyed myself -- we managed to see most of the museum, though some of it is closed for the construction of the new Modern Wing, and I got to see Nighthawks, which is one of my favorite pieces of "real" art. I think the biggest deal for me is just seeing things that are hundreds of years old sitting right there in front of me; knowing that something can survive that long and wondering about everyone else who has been in that position during their entire history.
After the museum, we walked from there to Fogo de Chao to meet Sam, Gracie, CK and Mel for dinner. This was Marc's first time there and he was very impressed (and very full) after the experience as usually happens with a visit to Fogo. Stuffed to the gills, Marc and I went back to the Hotel Blake where we were staying for the night. After checking in, we went to see Hancock since we were too full to really do anything else. :) I have to say that I wasn't quite as impressed with the movie as Mike was; my opinion is pretty close to that of Roger Ebert, though I don't know that I would give it three out of four stars; it was a solid two and a half though. I certainly don't feel like it was a waste of time or money, but the movie wasn't really anything super-special to me; if we had chosen something else to see instead I think I would have been just as happy. Worth checking out if there's nothing else you are particularly interested in seeing at the theatre though.
Monday morning, after dropping Marc off at his office, I went back to Sam and Gracie's and hung out with Gracie for the day, catching up on some of the writing I've been slacking off on, and then the three of us went to the Greek Islands for dinner (unfortunately, Marc was stuck at work; I'm definitely looking forward to when he'll be done with this project!) and I had saganaki for the first time, as well as some very tasty calamari and their ambrosia dessert, which was delicious.
Today I had to go to Evanston for my appointment, which was a pleasant commute, once I actually figured where I was actually going (I need to learn to trust Google Maps instead of my own sense of direction -- I spent about 15 minutes looking for Western Avenue when I was actually on Western Avenue to start with *sigh*), and I was back on the road by about 1300 and home by 1530, so it wasn't too bad a day of driving, despite some construction on the Kennedy.
All in all a good and fairly productive weekend -- I think that's the last of the preliminaries for my surgery, which is probably a good thing with it only six weeks off now (which means the first half of my payment is due this week). I am not looking forward to writing a ten thousand dollar check, but on the other hand, I've been saving that money for a reason, and it's about time I did something with it.
Friday night, after I picked up Marc from the train station and we had a tasty dinner (and my first martini -- fine, foofootini -- at Guido's of the summer), the two of us went to see the new Incredible Hulk movie at the Art Theatre downtown (which appears to have gotten new seats since the last time I went there, clearing up one of the complaints I've seen about it in the past).
The non-spoilerific review is that, while not up to the high standard set by Iron Man, it isn't a bad flick and it's certainly an above average action movie. The plot moved along pretty quickly -- almost too quickly, with some of the slower scenes feeling like they were just there to get you to the next action scene -- and the acting was above average, led of course by the always-excellent Ed Norton. It still fell short in a lot of places though; Tim Roth's villain feels kind of poorly written, the Hulk's CGI looks very conspicuous (but I'm not sure there was any way for it not to be), it lacked some of the humor of Iron Man, and while Liv Tyler is a bit more believable as a cellular biologist than Denise Richards was as a nuclear physicist, she also doesn't have to spout much in the way of technobabble either.
It's not a horrible movie by any stretch, however, and it's well worth seeing if you're at all interested in seeing it. I haven't seen Ang Lee's Hulk, but from what I understand, this movie is a much more conventional action movie than that one was, but that it is basically a direct sequel.
For the spoilerific review, have a look behind the cut.
The non-spoilerific review is that, while not up to the high standard set by Iron Man, it isn't a bad flick and it's certainly an above average action movie. The plot moved along pretty quickly -- almost too quickly, with some of the slower scenes feeling like they were just there to get you to the next action scene -- and the acting was above average, led of course by the always-excellent Ed Norton. It still fell short in a lot of places though; Tim Roth's villain feels kind of poorly written, the Hulk's CGI looks very conspicuous (but I'm not sure there was any way for it not to be), it lacked some of the humor of Iron Man, and while Liv Tyler is a bit more believable as a cellular biologist than Denise Richards was as a nuclear physicist, she also doesn't have to spout much in the way of technobabble either.
It's not a horrible movie by any stretch, however, and it's well worth seeing if you're at all interested in seeing it. I haven't seen Ang Lee's Hulk, but from what I understand, this movie is a much more conventional action movie than that one was, but that it is basically a direct sequel.
For the spoilerific review, have a look behind the cut.
Continue reading That Big Green Guy.
So this week marked the release of one of the most highly anticipated movies of the summer, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I've now seen it twice -- once in a mostly-empty theatre on opening day with the guys from work, and once in a pretty crowded theatre on Sunday with Marc. I'm a big fan of pulp stories -- I am probably one of the few people that really enjoyed The Shadow movie, I guess -- and of course, the Indy movies are some my favorite movies of all time, so I was pretty excited about this. However, I was prepared for disappointment; let's face it, the Star Wars prequels definitely weren't up the hype, Harrison Ford is in his 60s, and there's no Nazis in the movie, even though it takes place in South America. The Boys from Brazil, anyone?
After the first viewing, I admit I was really disappointed. I felt really let down, and I had some gripes, but I couldn't really put them into anything solid. However, I have to admit I was in the minority of the people I saw it with (CK and Pat). Knowing I was going to be seeing it again with Marc, I decided to reserve judgement until I watched a second showing with a bigger crowd and reevaluate. I also got pointed by RPGnet to Todd Alcott's blog posts on the movie, which made me think a bit more about it thematically and I decided maybe I hadn't given it quite a fair shake (by the way, if you've never read Todd's dissections of the Bond movies or anything else, you owe it to yourself to take the time to do so, especially if you're interested in film).
So, after seeing it twice, the second time with a real crowd, I can say that I definitely feel I was too hard on the movie at first. It still isn't as good as the others, I think -- even the much maligned Temple of Doom was better, in my humble opinion (but I admit I have a weakness for Mola Ram as an iconic villian). However, it's still a serviceable movie, even if I'm not totally thrilled with every aspect of it. Do yourself a favor and either see it with a crowd or wait for DVD though -- there's a definite difference in seeing the movie with a big group and feeling the reaction of the audience, as is often the case with big spectacle movies like this. Unfortunately, coming immediately after the completely awesome Iron Man and right before what promises to be an amazing movie in The Dark Knight, the movie suffers from just being "good enough."
I have some more specific comments about what I did and didn't like behind the cut, since I don't want to spoil the movie for people who haven't seen it yet. For those of you who have, I'm very curious to hear what you guys think (especially the esteemed Mr. Chesnut).
After the first viewing, I admit I was really disappointed. I felt really let down, and I had some gripes, but I couldn't really put them into anything solid. However, I have to admit I was in the minority of the people I saw it with (CK and Pat). Knowing I was going to be seeing it again with Marc, I decided to reserve judgement until I watched a second showing with a bigger crowd and reevaluate. I also got pointed by RPGnet to Todd Alcott's blog posts on the movie, which made me think a bit more about it thematically and I decided maybe I hadn't given it quite a fair shake (by the way, if you've never read Todd's dissections of the Bond movies or anything else, you owe it to yourself to take the time to do so, especially if you're interested in film).
So, after seeing it twice, the second time with a real crowd, I can say that I definitely feel I was too hard on the movie at first. It still isn't as good as the others, I think -- even the much maligned Temple of Doom was better, in my humble opinion (but I admit I have a weakness for Mola Ram as an iconic villian). However, it's still a serviceable movie, even if I'm not totally thrilled with every aspect of it. Do yourself a favor and either see it with a crowd or wait for DVD though -- there's a definite difference in seeing the movie with a big group and feeling the reaction of the audience, as is often the case with big spectacle movies like this. Unfortunately, coming immediately after the completely awesome Iron Man and right before what promises to be an amazing movie in The Dark Knight, the movie suffers from just being "good enough."
I have some more specific comments about what I did and didn't like behind the cut, since I don't want to spoil the movie for people who haven't seen it yet. For those of you who have, I'm very curious to hear what you guys think (especially the esteemed Mr. Chesnut).
Continue reading The Man in the Hat.
