Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, William Hurt, Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson, Lou Ferrigno
Dir. Louis Leterrier
Scr. Zak Penn
After the truly off-the-mark Ang Lee Hulk movie of 2003, it seemed inevitable Hollywood would try again. And although the result is ten times better than Lee’s version, this outing is by no means perfect. But they are working with perhaps the most boring superhero of all time – the film, for instance, is completely humourless, but how do you make a big, stupid green monster funny? He gets angry and roars and creates mayhem – not a lot of nuance to be had. What is interesting about The Hulk are all the bits when he’s not The Hulk and this version certainly keeps the audience engaged on that front. A largely enjoyable film, The Incredible Hulk will ensure the survival of this newly revived franchise.
The Incredible Hulk picks up with fugitive Dr Bruce Banner hiding out in Brazil, desperately trying to find a cure for his “hulk-like” tendencies, having fled the US, leaving his lady love – fellow scientist Betty Ross – and all those chasing him, behind. We see Banner working on his anger issues – deep breathing and so on – and communicating with “Dr Blue” in an effort to get rid of what’s inside him. It doesn’t take long for an accident at work to betray his whereabouts to General Thaddeus Ross and his team of top-class soldiers, including enigmatic and brilliant Emil Blonsky, and Banner decides enough is enough. He returns to the US in an effort to find that cure and live happily ever after. And, well, it nearly turns out that way.
This film looks pretty good and is paced just about perfectly. The scenes in Brazil are an interesting insight into Banner and once he returns to the US, it’s just a rollercoaster until the end. While Ang Lee wanted us to understand the Hulk and make him more humane, director Leterrier and writer Penn understand that this is not a winning formula – understanding Banner and his attempts to stop the Hulk getting out is much more interesting. The Hulk is a big lug and that’s about it. And while he recognises and protects Betty, that’s really just a plot device to make sure she doesn’t die (although I think the film might have been vastly improved if she did). When the Hulk is unleashed, we want to see the Hulk – end of story.
The acting is mostly pretty solid in The Incredible Hulk. Edward Norton does a good job as Banner – he’s believable as a scientist and as a strongman. It helps, as is the case in Batman and Ironman, to have a skilled actor in an exaggerated and clichéd role – a less capable actor is prone to hamming it up and the result can be terrible. The only kink in Norton’s armour is the lack of chemistry between himself and Liv Tyler, who plays love interest Betty Ross. Tyler is not believable as a scientist. Or even an actress, for that matter. That look in Norton’s eyes is not love; it’s disbelief at her attempts at acting. She is bad and that’s all there is to say. Fine performances are delivered by both Hurt (as General Ross) and Roth (as Blonsky) – gutsy, strong, horribly evil. Watch out for a nicely played cameo from the TV hulk, Lou Ferrigno, who also provides the voice for the Hulk for such inspired lines as “HULK … SMASH!”
An inspired, cryptic final scene guarantees The Incredible Hulk II (or will it be Ironman II?) an eager audience. This Hulk is entertaining and a good night out. It’s not going to ever be in the same league as Batman Begins or Ironman, but then the big green guy is not exactly known for his charm or wit. If you’re a fan of action, Marvel or big lugs, go see it.
---------------------------------
General Ross: As far as I'm concerned that man's whole body is property of the US Army.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Sex and the City: The Movie
Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis, Chris Noth, Jennifer Hudson, Candice Bergen, David Eigenberg
Dir. & Scr. Michael Patrick King
SPOILERS AHEAD – do not read if you don’t want to know!
I, for one, am a Sex and the City fan. Loved the series, though it did get tired towards the end (as so many long-running TV shows do). Loved the characters, even when they annoyed the hell out of me. Loved the humour and the friendships. I was, therefore, both incredibly excited and extremely nervous about this movie. It was unlikely to satisfy everyone – you can split most fans into pro-Big and anti-Big for a start – and it had to appeal to those who were unfamiliar with the series. So I knew that there would be bits I liked, bits I less-than-liked and probably bits I hated. And, well, that was about right – I was amused, shocked, frustrated, appalled and shed a tear or two. In the end though, I’m glad I saw it and I’m glad they made it – it was great to spend time with the girls again.
We pick up the lives of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte three years after the last episode of the series. Miranda is still in Brooklyn with Steve and their son; Charlotte is blissfully happy with Harry and their adopted Chinese daughter; Samantha has moved to LA with her lover/client Smith; Carrie and Big are still together (shock horror!!!) and about to combine lives in the most unbelievably gorgeous New York apartment. A clumsy, unromantic conversation results in Carrie and Big deciding to get married and wedding madness ensues. And, anyone who has seen the show knows what’s coming next, things don’t exactly go to plan – in short, Big gets cold feet, Carrie smacks him around the head with her bouquet, and the girls end up in Mexico on Carrie’s intended honeymoon. On her return to New York, Carrie hires herself a personal assistant (Louise) to help retain her senses and return all the wedding gifts, and life goes on. Meanwhile, Charlotte falls pregnant, Miranda leaves Steve after an indiscretion, and Samantha has second thoughts about LA and about her relationship. The usual stuff really.
There are multiple happy endings ahead however. Miranda and Steve work things out. Charlotte has her miracle baby. Samantha moves back to New York. And Carrie and Big, well, they end up as Mr and Mrs Big. I don’t usually completely give away the ending of a film, but I really wanted to talk about these endings. So, tough cheese.
Charlotte is Charlotte and, well, hers is the most uninteresting story to be told. Personally, I’ve always found the character to be the most annoying and this doesn’t change in the film. Samantha, on the other hand, is a great character and, although it’s sad that things don’t work out with Smith, it was nice to see her character remain true – she isn’t a relationship type of gal and she certainly isn’t LA material. Nice work on this Mr King. What happens between Miranda and Steve really has me in two minds. Miranda did what many a strong woman would do when they found out about a cheating spouse – no ifs, no buts, no second chances, she was out the door – and this was very true to her character. The fact they got back together, well, I don’t know about that. True, things are nearly never as black and white as they first appear. And, true, Miranda wouldn’t be the easiest person to be married to. But, still, the Miranda/Steve plot of this film troubles me and will probably keep troubling me for some time. That leaves us with Carrie and Big. I’m a fan of Mr Big. Obviously he’s been a cad in the past, but I always had a soft spot. And, to be honest, I think Michael Patrick King was really spot on with this storyline. It was so obviously a case of two hugely flawed people, who were both to blame for a wedding fiasco, and who finally found their way back to what brought them together in the first place.
There are some really, really annoying and frustrating moments in this movie. The extent to which Carrie is devastated after being jilted by Big is hugely extreme, especially when you consider that Miranda has just been cheated on by her husband (surely a bigger and more shocking betrayal of trust). Charlotte is given little to do but be a plot device. Miranda gets unfairly treated in a major way by Carrie – theirs was always the closest and most interesting friendship, and perhaps that’s why such an argument and fall-out was staged, but I still thought it was completely unreasonable. I didn’t quite understand the point of the character of Louise (Carrie’s assistant) except to showcase Jennifer Hudson – yeah, sure, she’s young and looking for love (like Carrie once was) but it felt like a distraction more than a compelling sub-plot. These things grated on my nerves but didn’t ruin what was a mostly enjoyable film.
The acting on offer in Sex and the City was flawless. The actors are so used to these characters; there was no need for warming up or finding the right mix. There’s a chemistry between Carrie and Big, between Miranda and Steve, between the four friends, that is tried and true. A special mention has to go to Sarah Jessica Parker – she really gives her all in this film and it is the best acting I have ever seen from her, in anything. The scene where she confronts Big after he, then she, flees from the wedding venue, is brilliant – shocking and real and ever so slightly amusing. Carrie has always been the most multi-dimensional of the characters and the movie is no exception.
If you would rather stick a blunt spoon in your eye than watch a Sex and the City episode (I’m guessing that is most straight men out there), you should definitely avoid this film. If you’re a fan, you’ll see it, of course you will. Expect to be thrilled and shocked and saddened and amused and annoyed. You will be. But in the end, you will not regret spending another 148 minutes with these flawed, frustrating, wonderful characters.
------------------------------------------
Miranda: Is it just me or is Valentine's Day on steroids this year?
Carrie: No, it's the same, we just played for the other team.
Dir. & Scr. Michael Patrick King
SPOILERS AHEAD – do not read if you don’t want to know!
I, for one, am a Sex and the City fan. Loved the series, though it did get tired towards the end (as so many long-running TV shows do). Loved the characters, even when they annoyed the hell out of me. Loved the humour and the friendships. I was, therefore, both incredibly excited and extremely nervous about this movie. It was unlikely to satisfy everyone – you can split most fans into pro-Big and anti-Big for a start – and it had to appeal to those who were unfamiliar with the series. So I knew that there would be bits I liked, bits I less-than-liked and probably bits I hated. And, well, that was about right – I was amused, shocked, frustrated, appalled and shed a tear or two. In the end though, I’m glad I saw it and I’m glad they made it – it was great to spend time with the girls again.
We pick up the lives of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte three years after the last episode of the series. Miranda is still in Brooklyn with Steve and their son; Charlotte is blissfully happy with Harry and their adopted Chinese daughter; Samantha has moved to LA with her lover/client Smith; Carrie and Big are still together (shock horror!!!) and about to combine lives in the most unbelievably gorgeous New York apartment. A clumsy, unromantic conversation results in Carrie and Big deciding to get married and wedding madness ensues. And, anyone who has seen the show knows what’s coming next, things don’t exactly go to plan – in short, Big gets cold feet, Carrie smacks him around the head with her bouquet, and the girls end up in Mexico on Carrie’s intended honeymoon. On her return to New York, Carrie hires herself a personal assistant (Louise) to help retain her senses and return all the wedding gifts, and life goes on. Meanwhile, Charlotte falls pregnant, Miranda leaves Steve after an indiscretion, and Samantha has second thoughts about LA and about her relationship. The usual stuff really.
There are multiple happy endings ahead however. Miranda and Steve work things out. Charlotte has her miracle baby. Samantha moves back to New York. And Carrie and Big, well, they end up as Mr and Mrs Big. I don’t usually completely give away the ending of a film, but I really wanted to talk about these endings. So, tough cheese.
Charlotte is Charlotte and, well, hers is the most uninteresting story to be told. Personally, I’ve always found the character to be the most annoying and this doesn’t change in the film. Samantha, on the other hand, is a great character and, although it’s sad that things don’t work out with Smith, it was nice to see her character remain true – she isn’t a relationship type of gal and she certainly isn’t LA material. Nice work on this Mr King. What happens between Miranda and Steve really has me in two minds. Miranda did what many a strong woman would do when they found out about a cheating spouse – no ifs, no buts, no second chances, she was out the door – and this was very true to her character. The fact they got back together, well, I don’t know about that. True, things are nearly never as black and white as they first appear. And, true, Miranda wouldn’t be the easiest person to be married to. But, still, the Miranda/Steve plot of this film troubles me and will probably keep troubling me for some time. That leaves us with Carrie and Big. I’m a fan of Mr Big. Obviously he’s been a cad in the past, but I always had a soft spot. And, to be honest, I think Michael Patrick King was really spot on with this storyline. It was so obviously a case of two hugely flawed people, who were both to blame for a wedding fiasco, and who finally found their way back to what brought them together in the first place.
There are some really, really annoying and frustrating moments in this movie. The extent to which Carrie is devastated after being jilted by Big is hugely extreme, especially when you consider that Miranda has just been cheated on by her husband (surely a bigger and more shocking betrayal of trust). Charlotte is given little to do but be a plot device. Miranda gets unfairly treated in a major way by Carrie – theirs was always the closest and most interesting friendship, and perhaps that’s why such an argument and fall-out was staged, but I still thought it was completely unreasonable. I didn’t quite understand the point of the character of Louise (Carrie’s assistant) except to showcase Jennifer Hudson – yeah, sure, she’s young and looking for love (like Carrie once was) but it felt like a distraction more than a compelling sub-plot. These things grated on my nerves but didn’t ruin what was a mostly enjoyable film.
The acting on offer in Sex and the City was flawless. The actors are so used to these characters; there was no need for warming up or finding the right mix. There’s a chemistry between Carrie and Big, between Miranda and Steve, between the four friends, that is tried and true. A special mention has to go to Sarah Jessica Parker – she really gives her all in this film and it is the best acting I have ever seen from her, in anything. The scene where she confronts Big after he, then she, flees from the wedding venue, is brilliant – shocking and real and ever so slightly amusing. Carrie has always been the most multi-dimensional of the characters and the movie is no exception.
If you would rather stick a blunt spoon in your eye than watch a Sex and the City episode (I’m guessing that is most straight men out there), you should definitely avoid this film. If you’re a fan, you’ll see it, of course you will. Expect to be thrilled and shocked and saddened and amused and annoyed. You will be. But in the end, you will not regret spending another 148 minutes with these flawed, frustrating, wonderful characters.
------------------------------------------
Miranda: Is it just me or is Valentine's Day on steroids this year?
Carrie: No, it's the same, we just played for the other team.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Shine a Light
Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood, Charlie Watts, Martin Scorsese, Jack White, Buddy Guy, Christina Aguilera, Bill Clinton (all appearing as themselves)
Dir. Martin Scorsese
This weekend, my better half and I went to a Rolling Stones concert. This is not entirely true – we went to see the movie Shine a Light. But, to be honest, it was probably better than a live concert. Now, I’m not a huge Rolling Stones fan, but even I was swept along by the music, the atmosphere, the dancing. Shine a Light was a fantastically filmed, insightful, entertaining movie about some truly talented and energetic musicians.
Shine a Light was filmed during the Stones’ “A Bigger Bang” tour, specifically the night of a benefit concert hosted by Bill Clinton and his Mrs in New York. Enter, stage right, Marty Scorsese, the original anal, control freak director. Enter, stage left, The Rolling Stones, a laid back bunch, who don’t finalise their set list until the lights go up. The juxtaposition will have you chuckling, and the result is simply great – it’s wonderfully intimate, flawlessly edited, consistently engaging. Along the way we are treated to footage of interviews with the Stones, from their very very very early beginnings, to their thoughts on being aged rockers.
Particular highlights include the guest appearances by Jack White, Buddy Guy and Christina Aguilera, who are obviously thrilled to be part of the gig. In fact my favourite number was White’s duet with Mick on “Loving Cup” – two gritty, wonderful voices. Keith Richards’ solo effort on “You Got the Silver” was also a treat to watch.
Obviously I recommend this film for fans of the Stones. But even if you’re not particularly enamoured, I’d recommend giving it a go. You won’t see a better concert on film.
----------------------------
Martin Scorsese: We cannot set Mick Jagger on fire.
Dir. Martin Scorsese
This weekend, my better half and I went to a Rolling Stones concert. This is not entirely true – we went to see the movie Shine a Light. But, to be honest, it was probably better than a live concert. Now, I’m not a huge Rolling Stones fan, but even I was swept along by the music, the atmosphere, the dancing. Shine a Light was a fantastically filmed, insightful, entertaining movie about some truly talented and energetic musicians.
Shine a Light was filmed during the Stones’ “A Bigger Bang” tour, specifically the night of a benefit concert hosted by Bill Clinton and his Mrs in New York. Enter, stage right, Marty Scorsese, the original anal, control freak director. Enter, stage left, The Rolling Stones, a laid back bunch, who don’t finalise their set list until the lights go up. The juxtaposition will have you chuckling, and the result is simply great – it’s wonderfully intimate, flawlessly edited, consistently engaging. Along the way we are treated to footage of interviews with the Stones, from their very very very early beginnings, to their thoughts on being aged rockers.
Particular highlights include the guest appearances by Jack White, Buddy Guy and Christina Aguilera, who are obviously thrilled to be part of the gig. In fact my favourite number was White’s duet with Mick on “Loving Cup” – two gritty, wonderful voices. Keith Richards’ solo effort on “You Got the Silver” was also a treat to watch.
Obviously I recommend this film for fans of the Stones. But even if you’re not particularly enamoured, I’d recommend giving it a go. You won’t see a better concert on film.
----------------------------
Martin Scorsese: We cannot set Mick Jagger on fire.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Scr. David Koepp
There was no need to make this film. No need. It wasn’t awful; at times it was entertaining. And it’s always a pleasure to hear that wonderful John Williams score. But this will go down as worst Indy movie – it lacked that signature gentle wit; it was self-indulgent; it was forgettable (so much so I can’t even muster the energy to write a full-length review). And for goodness sake, please don’t make any more Steven!
----------------------------
Mutt Williams: You know for an old man you ain't bad in a fight. What are you, like 80?
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Scr. David Koepp
There was no need to make this film. No need. It wasn’t awful; at times it was entertaining. And it’s always a pleasure to hear that wonderful John Williams score. But this will go down as worst Indy movie – it lacked that signature gentle wit; it was self-indulgent; it was forgettable (so much so I can’t even muster the energy to write a full-length review). And for goodness sake, please don’t make any more Steven!
----------------------------
Mutt Williams: You know for an old man you ain't bad in a fight. What are you, like 80?
Sunday, May 18, 2008
I'm Not There
Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Ben Whishaw, Richard Gere, Marcus Carl Franklin, Bruce Greenwood, Charlotte Gainsbourg
Dir. Todd Haynes
Scr. Todd Haynes & Oren Moverman
I was desperate to see this film. It fascinated me – six actors (including a woman and a child) playing Bob Dylan, but none of them actually playing Bob Dylan. Critically acclaimed, I’m Not There is an interesting and highly quotable film. It is also frustrating, extremely self-aware and, at times, yawn-inducing. The problem with this ambitious movie is that director/writer Haynes is under the mistaken assumption that everyone knows as much about Dylan has he does. I don’t. I think you’d struggle to find one in twenty people who do. This doesn’t necessarily make I’m Not There a failure, but it certainly makes it an unusual trip to the cinema.
I’m not going to try and summarise the plot of this film. It’s probably the least linear American film I have ever seen. Basically, we follow six different characters and the people surrounding them, in different eras and cities, who all represent an aspect of Bob Dylan’s life. Some of the characters are made up – an actor, a couple of singers. Some of the characters have existed in real life – Arthur Rimbaud, for example, was a French poet in the late 19th century; Billy the Kid was a famous American outlaw. All help tell the story of Dylan’s life – his many personalities and incarnations. Does it work? Well, kind of. Some were spot-on and easily recognisable. Some were a bit of a stretch. And some just didn’t make sense – for example, unless you know that (a) Dylan wrote the music for a movie about Billy the Kid and (b) Dylan vanished from the public eye for a number of years, how on earth does an elderly, in-hiding Billy the Kid represent Dylan? It’s problematic.
What saved I’m Not There for me was a number of fantastic performances. The six “Dylans” were all great. Gere, as Billy the Kid, was nicely weathered and noble. Ledger, as an actor who played one of the other “Dylans” (a singer) in a film – confusing, sorry! – was both unlikeable and immensely human. (Special mention also to Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays Ledger’s wife – beautiful and haunting). Marcus Carl Franklin, a young black kid who christened himself Woody Guthrie (one of Dylan’s heroes), was heart-breaking and a great singer. For me, however, the stand outs were the three actors who played the most recognisable incarnations of Dylan – Whishaw as Rimbaud (think Dylan, the poet), Bale as singer Jack Rollins (think early Dylan), and Blanchett as singer Jude Quinn (think post-acoustic Dylan). Whishaw and Bale were outstanding and, sadly, underutilised. Both tortured and profound, this is the Dylan most know. The show really does belong to Blanchett however, who’s “Dylan” we get to know the most. Just like Dylan lost many, many fans when he “abandoned” folk music and plugged in his guitar, Blanchett’s Jude Quinn is suffering from the heavy weight of public expectation and stereotyping. As Whishaw’s Rimbaud warns “never create anything …it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life”. Blanchett is phenomenal in this role – she really becomes “Dylan”.
I’m not going to completely dismiss I’m Not There. If you’re a huge Dylan fan, definitely see it - I am certain I missed half the point of the film because of my lack of Dylan knowledge. If you’re not, well, maybe not. But once it hits DVD, I may in fact watch it again. This movie would benefit greatly from the fast-forward button. If I could just watch the bits I really, really liked (and there were several), I would be a very happy camper.
------------------------------------------
Arthur Rimbaud: Seven simple rules of going into hiding: one, never trust a cop in a raincoat. Two, beware of enthusiasm and of love, both are temporary and quick to sway. Three, if asked if you care about the world's problems, look deep into the eyes of he who asks, he will never ask you again. Four, never give your real name. Five, if ever asked to look at yourself, don’t. Six, never do anything the person standing in front of you cannot understand. And finally seven, never create anything, it will be misinterpreted, it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life.
Dir. Todd Haynes
Scr. Todd Haynes & Oren Moverman
I was desperate to see this film. It fascinated me – six actors (including a woman and a child) playing Bob Dylan, but none of them actually playing Bob Dylan. Critically acclaimed, I’m Not There is an interesting and highly quotable film. It is also frustrating, extremely self-aware and, at times, yawn-inducing. The problem with this ambitious movie is that director/writer Haynes is under the mistaken assumption that everyone knows as much about Dylan has he does. I don’t. I think you’d struggle to find one in twenty people who do. This doesn’t necessarily make I’m Not There a failure, but it certainly makes it an unusual trip to the cinema.
I’m not going to try and summarise the plot of this film. It’s probably the least linear American film I have ever seen. Basically, we follow six different characters and the people surrounding them, in different eras and cities, who all represent an aspect of Bob Dylan’s life. Some of the characters are made up – an actor, a couple of singers. Some of the characters have existed in real life – Arthur Rimbaud, for example, was a French poet in the late 19th century; Billy the Kid was a famous American outlaw. All help tell the story of Dylan’s life – his many personalities and incarnations. Does it work? Well, kind of. Some were spot-on and easily recognisable. Some were a bit of a stretch. And some just didn’t make sense – for example, unless you know that (a) Dylan wrote the music for a movie about Billy the Kid and (b) Dylan vanished from the public eye for a number of years, how on earth does an elderly, in-hiding Billy the Kid represent Dylan? It’s problematic.
What saved I’m Not There for me was a number of fantastic performances. The six “Dylans” were all great. Gere, as Billy the Kid, was nicely weathered and noble. Ledger, as an actor who played one of the other “Dylans” (a singer) in a film – confusing, sorry! – was both unlikeable and immensely human. (Special mention also to Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays Ledger’s wife – beautiful and haunting). Marcus Carl Franklin, a young black kid who christened himself Woody Guthrie (one of Dylan’s heroes), was heart-breaking and a great singer. For me, however, the stand outs were the three actors who played the most recognisable incarnations of Dylan – Whishaw as Rimbaud (think Dylan, the poet), Bale as singer Jack Rollins (think early Dylan), and Blanchett as singer Jude Quinn (think post-acoustic Dylan). Whishaw and Bale were outstanding and, sadly, underutilised. Both tortured and profound, this is the Dylan most know. The show really does belong to Blanchett however, who’s “Dylan” we get to know the most. Just like Dylan lost many, many fans when he “abandoned” folk music and plugged in his guitar, Blanchett’s Jude Quinn is suffering from the heavy weight of public expectation and stereotyping. As Whishaw’s Rimbaud warns “never create anything …it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life”. Blanchett is phenomenal in this role – she really becomes “Dylan”.
I’m not going to completely dismiss I’m Not There. If you’re a huge Dylan fan, definitely see it - I am certain I missed half the point of the film because of my lack of Dylan knowledge. If you’re not, well, maybe not. But once it hits DVD, I may in fact watch it again. This movie would benefit greatly from the fast-forward button. If I could just watch the bits I really, really liked (and there were several), I would be a very happy camper.
------------------------------------------
Arthur Rimbaud: Seven simple rules of going into hiding: one, never trust a cop in a raincoat. Two, beware of enthusiasm and of love, both are temporary and quick to sway. Three, if asked if you care about the world's problems, look deep into the eyes of he who asks, he will never ask you again. Four, never give your real name. Five, if ever asked to look at yourself, don’t. Six, never do anything the person standing in front of you cannot understand. And finally seven, never create anything, it will be misinterpreted, it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Iron Man
Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Shaun Toub, Faran Tahir
Dir. Jon Favreau
Scr. Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (based on
Marvel characters)
As soon as AC/DC’s Back in Black assaulted my ears in the opening scene and Robert Downey Jr. eased into the snappy dialogue, I knew I was going to enjoy Iron Man. Sure, it requires you to suspend disbelief in a huge way. And, sure, it’s pretty darn violent. And, yeah okay, it’s not the most thought-provoking movie out there. But if you’re looking for laughs and sheer crash-bang-explosive entertainment, Iron Man is the film for you. As long as Downey Jr. is on board, I cannot wait for Iron Man 2.
Iron Man tells the story of Tony Stark, the head of multi-million dollar weapons producer Stark Industries. Stark is an engineering genius, with a weakness for women and scotch. The ultimate playboy, Stark is comfortable in the knowledge his weapons kill bad guys. When Stark is kidnapped in Afghanistan, he realises his weapons have fallen into some seriously dodgy hands and he is forced to build his newest, most destructive weapon for the enemy. Instead, Stark creates what will become his alter-ago – Iron Man.
Iron Man, both the superhero and the movie, looks astonishingly cool. This film is a gadget paradise and Stark’s home is packed with all the useful and unlikely technology I assume fills Bill Gates’s house. There are enough explosions to keep the most highly attention-deficit 12-year-old boy engaged. The special effects come pretty thick and fast, but in the high-tech world of Tony Stark and his creations, they don’t appear out of place or beyond belief.
By far the most engaging aspect of Iron Man is the dialogue and acting. And, specifically, Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr. is, in my opinion, one of the finest actors of his generation and I’m extremely pleased to see him back in the saddle. 2005’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a treat. And in Iron Man, Downey Jr. doesn’t disappoint. He is immensely likeable (in a “loveable rogue” sort of way), extremely sharp and looking every inch the superhero. Downey Jr. had a large part to play in the writing process and it shows – earlier drafts of the script were reportedly lacking in the humour that Downey Jr. brought to the project. And thank goodness! A major problem with superhero movies is the holier-than-thou attitude – I’m sorry, I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than spend a day with Superman. Boring! Stark is not Mr Do-Right. In fact, quite the opposite. He is spurred into action only when faced with the very real and close up repercussions of his life’s work. And, even then, he kills when necessary and likes to blow things up. Downey Jr.’s Iron Man is much like Batman, but with a sense of humour. And this humour, much of it ad-libbed by Downey Jr., is what sets Iron Man apart.
Downey Jr. is supported by some really great acting. It’s refreshing to see Jeff Bridges (who plays Stark’s business partner Obadiah Stane) be a true bad guy. We’re so used to seeing Bridges play the “everyman” role. He’s clearly having fun in Iron Man and he’s a hoot. Terrence Howard (as Stark’s long time friend and top military contact Jim Rhodes) is excellent. And Gwyneth (as Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts) is, well, not objectionable. And that’s all I really ask of Gwyneth.
I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man. It won’t be everyone’s cup of tea – you know who you are, you snobby action-film haters … But its well worth the price of admission – you’ll be entertained, I promise.
-------------------------------------
Tony Stark: Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?
Dir. Jon Favreau
Scr. Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (based on
Marvel characters)
As soon as AC/DC’s Back in Black assaulted my ears in the opening scene and Robert Downey Jr. eased into the snappy dialogue, I knew I was going to enjoy Iron Man. Sure, it requires you to suspend disbelief in a huge way. And, sure, it’s pretty darn violent. And, yeah okay, it’s not the most thought-provoking movie out there. But if you’re looking for laughs and sheer crash-bang-explosive entertainment, Iron Man is the film for you. As long as Downey Jr. is on board, I cannot wait for Iron Man 2.
Iron Man tells the story of Tony Stark, the head of multi-million dollar weapons producer Stark Industries. Stark is an engineering genius, with a weakness for women and scotch. The ultimate playboy, Stark is comfortable in the knowledge his weapons kill bad guys. When Stark is kidnapped in Afghanistan, he realises his weapons have fallen into some seriously dodgy hands and he is forced to build his newest, most destructive weapon for the enemy. Instead, Stark creates what will become his alter-ago – Iron Man.
Iron Man, both the superhero and the movie, looks astonishingly cool. This film is a gadget paradise and Stark’s home is packed with all the useful and unlikely technology I assume fills Bill Gates’s house. There are enough explosions to keep the most highly attention-deficit 12-year-old boy engaged. The special effects come pretty thick and fast, but in the high-tech world of Tony Stark and his creations, they don’t appear out of place or beyond belief.
By far the most engaging aspect of Iron Man is the dialogue and acting. And, specifically, Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr. is, in my opinion, one of the finest actors of his generation and I’m extremely pleased to see him back in the saddle. 2005’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a treat. And in Iron Man, Downey Jr. doesn’t disappoint. He is immensely likeable (in a “loveable rogue” sort of way), extremely sharp and looking every inch the superhero. Downey Jr. had a large part to play in the writing process and it shows – earlier drafts of the script were reportedly lacking in the humour that Downey Jr. brought to the project. And thank goodness! A major problem with superhero movies is the holier-than-thou attitude – I’m sorry, I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than spend a day with Superman. Boring! Stark is not Mr Do-Right. In fact, quite the opposite. He is spurred into action only when faced with the very real and close up repercussions of his life’s work. And, even then, he kills when necessary and likes to blow things up. Downey Jr.’s Iron Man is much like Batman, but with a sense of humour. And this humour, much of it ad-libbed by Downey Jr., is what sets Iron Man apart.
Downey Jr. is supported by some really great acting. It’s refreshing to see Jeff Bridges (who plays Stark’s business partner Obadiah Stane) be a true bad guy. We’re so used to seeing Bridges play the “everyman” role. He’s clearly having fun in Iron Man and he’s a hoot. Terrence Howard (as Stark’s long time friend and top military contact Jim Rhodes) is excellent. And Gwyneth (as Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts) is, well, not objectionable. And that’s all I really ask of Gwyneth.
I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man. It won’t be everyone’s cup of tea – you know who you are, you snobby action-film haters … But its well worth the price of admission – you’ll be entertained, I promise.
-------------------------------------
Tony Stark: Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?
27 Dresses
Katherine Heigl, James Marsden, Edward Burns, Malin Akerman
Dir. Anne Fletcher
Scr. Aline Brosh McKenna
If there was a Movie God, who righted movie wrongs, I would get these 107 minutes of my life back. Alas, no such deity exists.
‘Nuff said.
----------------------------------
Jane's Aunt: Must be so hard to watch your younger sister get married before you.
Jane: Yes. Then I remember that I still get to have hot hate sex with random strangers and I feel SO much better!
Dir. Anne Fletcher
Scr. Aline Brosh McKenna
If there was a Movie God, who righted movie wrongs, I would get these 107 minutes of my life back. Alas, no such deity exists.
‘Nuff said.
----------------------------------
Jane's Aunt: Must be so hard to watch your younger sister get married before you.
Jane: Yes. Then I remember that I still get to have hot hate sex with random strangers and I feel SO much better!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)