Voices by: Scott Menville, Tara Strong, Greg Cipes, Khary Payton, Hynden Walch, Will Arnett, Kristen Bell, Nicolas Cage, Michael Bolton
Directed by: Aaron Horvath, Peter Rida Michail
Written by: Michael Jelenic & Aaron Horvath from characters created by Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Marv Wolfman, George Pérez, Arnold Drake, Bob Kane, Bill Finger, William Moulton Marston
Warner Bros., 2018
PG; 84 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Every time we travel as a family, it seems like at some point we turn on a hotel television and Teen Titans Go! is on. We do it as a way to entertain the kids while we (the adults) try to relax for a few minutes before whatever next big thing, but we always get sucked in and end up watching too. And it's so . . . dumb. But it never fails to make me laugh.
If you're thinking a Teen Titans Go! movie is more or less an extended episode, you're not entirely wrong. You're not entirely right, though, either. I think the humor is more sustainable in smaller bites, but there is plenty here to amuse. The general plot is: Robin really wants a superhero movie to be made about him. So the Teen Titans try to make that happen. They're told that a superhero has to have an arch-nemesis, and they find one in the form of Slade. It goes from there in predictable fashion, with a few songs thrown in.
As I mentioned, there are a number of funny moments. However, the relentless focus on Robin (who, for me, is the least interesting of the characters), and the need to push some jokes into your face rather than let them play in the background (yes, I know, typical of the show), lessened the joy. Not by a ton, but by enough to notice the debit.
Still, I found myself laughing in spite of myself. Which is really all this movie is required to do: entertain and make people laugh. In which case it does a fairly solid job of it.
Showing posts with label superheroes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label superheroes. Show all posts
6.17.2018
Movies: Incredibles 2
Voices By: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Catherine Keener, Bob Odenkirk, Samuel L. Jackson, Sarah Vowell, Huck Milner
Directed by: Brad Bird
Written by: Brad Bird
Disney/Pixar, 2018
PG; 118 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Directed by: Brad Bird
Written by: Brad Bird
Disney/Pixar, 2018
PG; 118 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
A lot of people are loving this movie, and I agree it's pretty cute. But I wasn't as wowed as I expected to be.
I2 picks up right where the first movie left off 14 years ago. The Underminer is attacking, the Parr family must work together (along with Frozone) to neutralize the threat. It doesn't go quite to plan, and superheroes are again slapped with the blame for massive destruction despite their best efforts and intentions.
Then in steps siblings Winston and Evelyn Deavor. (It wasn't lost on me that both first names end in a sound to almost make it "endeavor"? Which feels kind of pointless, but whatever. Ha! "Whatever, Deavor.") Anyway, these two run a huge telecomm company, and they want to find a way to make superheroes legal again. Cue nostalgic back story about how their dad had loved supers and not long after superheroes were made illegal, their dad was killed in a break-in. (I also noticed the dad in the flashbacks looked a wee bit like Ed Catmull? Might've been my imagination though.)
The Deavors choose Helen/Elastigirl as the new face of superhero-dom. Which leaves Robert/Mr. Incredible home with the kids. Hilarity ensues, except not really. At least, not for me. Plenty of people around me laughed, but I was only kind of amused.
My chief problem was the way the film leaned so heavily on Jack-Jack. Sure, he's a cute gag (and in some cases a deus ex machina), but I find it funnier in smaller doses like in the first movie. Meanwhile, Violet and Dash had nearly nothing to do.
Also, the "twist" wasn't one. It was heavily telegraphed, so maybe it wasn't meant to be a surprise. I don't know.
All that said, let's talk about the subtext. One of the arguments in the movie is that people do less when superheroes are around because they expect those heroes to save them. It's a message that feels relevant right now. We all mutter about the problems in society, but we don't act because we expect others will do that for us. Which is a bit backward for a film in which we're supposed to be rooting for the supers, but maybe the flip side is that THOSE WITH POWER SHOULD USE IT TO THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY. Rather than, say, selling it to the highest bidder? Just a thought.
On the whole, I enjoyed it. Just not as much as I thought I would. But that probably would have been asking too much. The first Incredibles movie was such an unexpected delight, so different from pretty much anything else out there. Now superhero movies are a dime a dozen, and the 14-year hiatus gives us time to build [potentially unrealistic] expectations.
I2 is a good movie. It's making a ton of money, too. Not that box office has ever been a very good indicator of quality. But I can recommend this one as a fun and entertaining diversion, even if it doesn't reach the higher heights.
11.04.2017
Movies: Thor: Ragnarok
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Tessa Thompson, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Idris Elba
Directed By: Taika Waititi
Written By: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Marvel, 2017
PG-13; 130 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
A couple of caveats: (1) the sound in our cinema kept going out, which may have influenced my overall sense of the film, even though they did fix it and rewind the scenes for us; (2) I've literally just come home from this movie, which means that I'm on that bit of a film high that one sometimes gets. I considered giving this movie just a 4/5 for a few things, but the fact is, despite the niggling issues, it was highly entertaining. And that's all it's really required to be, right?
On the plus side of this film: lots of comedy and more of the Loki-as-pseudo-hero that we all sort of seem to want. We know Loki is a villain, but we like him so much we want him to win a little, and I feel the franchise is trying to do that for us. It's a very difficult line to walk, though. We don't want him to, you know, go the way of Drax and become base comic relief. We want him to stay smart and wily, and we want him and Thor not to get too close and happy because that won't work either. Anyway, this film balances very carefully on that line, though it does teeter a bit toward Loki as goofy. We're going to want to nudge that a bit in the other direction in the next film. Loki should be darker than this is all I'm saying.
The story in a nutshell: Thor heads home to Asgard after attempting to stop Ragnarok from happening only to find Loki pretending to be Odin. So then they go find Odin (in Norway, cuz where else would he be?), and—stop reading if you don't want to know—Odin dies, which means Thor's and Loki's older sister Hela is released from her prison. Being the oldest, she assumes the throne of Asgard. She's also the goddess of death so, you know, things in Asgard go to Hel . . . a . . .
Meanwhile, the part the trailers all showed: Thor gets captured by a scraper (Thompson) who brings The Grandmaster (Goldblum) fighters for his big Tournament of Champions or whatever it was called. Thor's goal: get away and go save Asgard.
This movie is crowded with cameos and clever casting, and it mostly works. At the same time, it does pull viewers out of the moment sometimes.
My main problem with Thor: Ragnarok is that it tries to subvert expectations and yet the audience is too smart for it. An example: Bruce Banner jumps off a spaceship to face a threat. We're supposed to expect him to land as the Hulk. But he just falls face first and then, moments later, emerges as the Hulk. It's a funny moment but not as much of a cute surprise as I think the writers and filmmakers thought it would be. We as viewers are ahead of the story, and that's not always a good thing. We know Skurge (Urban) is going to have to make a choice, and we know what the choice is going to be and how it's going to end for him. What I'm saying is, this movie hits all the beats, and they're fun ones, but they're also super predictable. The story ends up tied in a neat little bow, and that's weirdly unsatisfying.
Still, this is a largely lighthearted chapter in the ongoing Marvel thread. (Too lighthearted perhaps given the gravitas that the ending needs but lacks.) It seems someone took notes from Guardian of the Galaxy's success and decided to lean in—but not as far in as GOTG Vol. 2, which was a smidge too far. Thor: Ragnarok knows not to take itself too seriously, which is a good thing. As I said, it's highly entertaining, which is all it really needs to be. If the next one could maybe be a little bit more clever or subversive or something, though, I'd appreciate it.
Directed By: Taika Waititi
Written By: Eric Pearson, Craig Kyle, Christopher Yost
Marvel, 2017
PG-13; 130 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
A couple of caveats: (1) the sound in our cinema kept going out, which may have influenced my overall sense of the film, even though they did fix it and rewind the scenes for us; (2) I've literally just come home from this movie, which means that I'm on that bit of a film high that one sometimes gets. I considered giving this movie just a 4/5 for a few things, but the fact is, despite the niggling issues, it was highly entertaining. And that's all it's really required to be, right?
On the plus side of this film: lots of comedy and more of the Loki-as-pseudo-hero that we all sort of seem to want. We know Loki is a villain, but we like him so much we want him to win a little, and I feel the franchise is trying to do that for us. It's a very difficult line to walk, though. We don't want him to, you know, go the way of Drax and become base comic relief. We want him to stay smart and wily, and we want him and Thor not to get too close and happy because that won't work either. Anyway, this film balances very carefully on that line, though it does teeter a bit toward Loki as goofy. We're going to want to nudge that a bit in the other direction in the next film. Loki should be darker than this is all I'm saying.
The story in a nutshell: Thor heads home to Asgard after attempting to stop Ragnarok from happening only to find Loki pretending to be Odin. So then they go find Odin (in Norway, cuz where else would he be?), and—stop reading if you don't want to know—Odin dies, which means Thor's and Loki's older sister Hela is released from her prison. Being the oldest, she assumes the throne of Asgard. She's also the goddess of death so, you know, things in Asgard go to Hel . . . a . . .
Meanwhile, the part the trailers all showed: Thor gets captured by a scraper (Thompson) who brings The Grandmaster (Goldblum) fighters for his big Tournament of Champions or whatever it was called. Thor's goal: get away and go save Asgard.
This movie is crowded with cameos and clever casting, and it mostly works. At the same time, it does pull viewers out of the moment sometimes.
My main problem with Thor: Ragnarok is that it tries to subvert expectations and yet the audience is too smart for it. An example: Bruce Banner jumps off a spaceship to face a threat. We're supposed to expect him to land as the Hulk. But he just falls face first and then, moments later, emerges as the Hulk. It's a funny moment but not as much of a cute surprise as I think the writers and filmmakers thought it would be. We as viewers are ahead of the story, and that's not always a good thing. We know Skurge (Urban) is going to have to make a choice, and we know what the choice is going to be and how it's going to end for him. What I'm saying is, this movie hits all the beats, and they're fun ones, but they're also super predictable. The story ends up tied in a neat little bow, and that's weirdly unsatisfying.
Still, this is a largely lighthearted chapter in the ongoing Marvel thread. (Too lighthearted perhaps given the gravitas that the ending needs but lacks.) It seems someone took notes from Guardian of the Galaxy's success and decided to lean in—but not as far in as GOTG Vol. 2, which was a smidge too far. Thor: Ragnarok knows not to take itself too seriously, which is a good thing. As I said, it's highly entertaining, which is all it really needs to be. If the next one could maybe be a little bit more clever or subversive or something, though, I'd appreciate it.
7.08.2017
Movies: Spider-Man: Homecoming
Starring: Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Robert Downey Jr., Marisa Tomei, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau
Directed By: Jon Watts
Written By: so many people you don't even want to know
Marvel, 2017
PG-13; 133 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
First, some context. (Stop groaning.) I saw the three Tobey Maguire movies, never saw the Andrew Garfield ones. Didn't love Tom Holland's turn at Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War and so wasn't even sure I wanted to see this movie. But I'm glad I did.
On the plus side, we skip the origin story this time. Since Spidey has already been introduced via the last Captain America movie, we're able to go to the head of the line here and assume Peter Parker's transformation and abilities are established. Hooray!
Instead, this film uses Peter's eagerness to help and be a real Avenger as the diving board. Happy (Favreau) is Peter's "handler" and Peter dutifully calls in regularly to let him know all the little things he's done to help his neighborhood: gave directions to a lost woman, kept a bicycle from being stolen. But as Happy—and by extension Tony Stark—continue to give him the brush-off, Peter's frustration mounts.
Then Peter stumbles across something bigger: someone selling really strong weapons. But again he's told to stick to the little stuff.
Of course he doesn't.
And, yes, the school's homecoming dance is a turning point.
Usually a movie written by committee (as, based on the long list of writers this one seems to have been) is a recipe for disaster. But somehow Homecoming bests the odds. It has the right amount of humor, and it's tight—nothing is wasted. Holland as Parker manages to be eager but not quite as obnoxious as I feared. Batalon as Peter's friend Ned is golden, too. And Michael Keaton as a Birdman of another kind . . . In fact, the whole film is incredibly well cast.
Up until now I had really enjoy Macguire's Spider-Man 2 the most, with his first one a close second. Homecoming gives them a run for their money, though. I'm not quite ready to say it's better, but it's at least equal to those. Possibly better. Probably. I don't know; it's been too long since I've seen the others.
I don't usually have the time to see a movie more than once in the cinema, nor the inclination to re-watch very many films, but I'd see this one again. That alone makes it pretty special. I may be tired of the typical Marvel/Avengers/superhero movies that have flooded the market lately, but this one . . . It's just different enough not to feel like I'm being fed reheated leftovers. That may be faint praise, but I'll count it as a win.
Directed By: Jon Watts
Written By: so many people you don't even want to know
Marvel, 2017
PG-13; 133 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
First, some context. (Stop groaning.) I saw the three Tobey Maguire movies, never saw the Andrew Garfield ones. Didn't love Tom Holland's turn at Spider-Man in Captain America: Civil War and so wasn't even sure I wanted to see this movie. But I'm glad I did.
On the plus side, we skip the origin story this time. Since Spidey has already been introduced via the last Captain America movie, we're able to go to the head of the line here and assume Peter Parker's transformation and abilities are established. Hooray!
Instead, this film uses Peter's eagerness to help and be a real Avenger as the diving board. Happy (Favreau) is Peter's "handler" and Peter dutifully calls in regularly to let him know all the little things he's done to help his neighborhood: gave directions to a lost woman, kept a bicycle from being stolen. But as Happy—and by extension Tony Stark—continue to give him the brush-off, Peter's frustration mounts.
Then Peter stumbles across something bigger: someone selling really strong weapons. But again he's told to stick to the little stuff.
Of course he doesn't.
And, yes, the school's homecoming dance is a turning point.
Usually a movie written by committee (as, based on the long list of writers this one seems to have been) is a recipe for disaster. But somehow Homecoming bests the odds. It has the right amount of humor, and it's tight—nothing is wasted. Holland as Parker manages to be eager but not quite as obnoxious as I feared. Batalon as Peter's friend Ned is golden, too. And Michael Keaton as a Birdman of another kind . . . In fact, the whole film is incredibly well cast.
Up until now I had really enjoy Macguire's Spider-Man 2 the most, with his first one a close second. Homecoming gives them a run for their money, though. I'm not quite ready to say it's better, but it's at least equal to those. Possibly better. Probably. I don't know; it's been too long since I've seen the others.
I don't usually have the time to see a movie more than once in the cinema, nor the inclination to re-watch very many films, but I'd see this one again. That alone makes it pretty special. I may be tired of the typical Marvel/Avengers/superhero movies that have flooded the market lately, but this one . . . It's just different enough not to feel like I'm being fed reheated leftovers. That may be faint praise, but I'll count it as a win.
Movies: Logan
For what it is, Logan is a fine movie. Its tone sets it apart from the typical superhero blockbuster; instead it feels much more Terminator. But while the character depth is there, the development of these characters stays very much within the expected and predetermined. There is nothing new or interesting offered.
We all know Logan (aka Wolverine), or if you don't, I'm not sure why you're watching this movie. The future is here, and Logan is the last Mutant. He's got Charles X locked away and is dosing him up with stuff to keep him tame so that his powers don't go out of control. (Sort of like an old man's bladder, Charles can't always hold his powers in.) There's an albino aide named Caliban, too, helping Logan care for Charles.
Logan works as, for lack of a better current analogy, an Über Black driver. He's accosted by a Spanish woman who wants him to take her and a girl to North Dakota. She's willing to pay $50k. But of course this woman and girl are being pursued by a team of tough men because (surprise, not) the girl is actually part of a secret project to create and train mutant fighters.
As I said, it all goes as expected. Logan does it for the money, albeit reluctantly, but then finds himself caring about this girl. We go from action scene to action scene, soft moment to soft moment, until we come to the big finale fight. Shrug.
There are true moments of humor here, at least, that help elevate the otherwise somber mood.
Did I enjoy it? Yes, a bit. But I would have enjoyed it more if there'd been something a little surprising about it. As it stands, Logan is rather rote. Not for a superhero movie—it's better than most of those—but for any movie. It feels like a throwback, which makes it feel like something I've seen before. Maybe not recently, but that's beside the point.
We all know Logan (aka Wolverine), or if you don't, I'm not sure why you're watching this movie. The future is here, and Logan is the last Mutant. He's got Charles X locked away and is dosing him up with stuff to keep him tame so that his powers don't go out of control. (Sort of like an old man's bladder, Charles can't always hold his powers in.) There's an albino aide named Caliban, too, helping Logan care for Charles.
Logan works as, for lack of a better current analogy, an Über Black driver. He's accosted by a Spanish woman who wants him to take her and a girl to North Dakota. She's willing to pay $50k. But of course this woman and girl are being pursued by a team of tough men because (surprise, not) the girl is actually part of a secret project to create and train mutant fighters.
As I said, it all goes as expected. Logan does it for the money, albeit reluctantly, but then finds himself caring about this girl. We go from action scene to action scene, soft moment to soft moment, until we come to the big finale fight. Shrug.
There are true moments of humor here, at least, that help elevate the otherwise somber mood.
Did I enjoy it? Yes, a bit. But I would have enjoyed it more if there'd been something a little surprising about it. As it stands, Logan is rather rote. Not for a superhero movie—it's better than most of those—but for any movie. It feels like a throwback, which makes it feel like something I've seen before. Maybe not recently, but that's beside the point.
6.11.2017
Movies: Wonder Woman
Starring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine
Directed By: Patty Jenkins
Written By: Allan Heinberg (screenplay)
DC Entertainment, 2017
PG-13; 141 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I teared up a few times while watching this movie, seemingly at random. I mean, I honestly don't know why. There's a force of empathy behind this film; it has a depth most superhero movies lack or try to fake. And Gal Gadot is simply amazing. She brings such a blend of wonder and purpose to, well, Wonder Woman.
The story is straight forward enough. Diana, Princess of Themyscira saves a WWI pilot who flies into their bubble and crashes in the ocean. When she learns of the war, Diana feels compelled to go stop it. After all, it is the sacred duty of the Amazons to bring peace to mankind and to put an end to Ares, God of War.
Reluctantly, Diana's mother lets her go.
Cue the fish-out-of-water story in which Diana is introduced to the world. But while it has its funny moments, this is not played so much for laughs as for contrast. Diana sees what is and imagines what could be if only men weren't at war and under the influence of Ares. Her focus on her goal is a through line that holds things together. We see and feel Diana's pain whenever she witnesses some new act of insensible violence, whenever she reacts to seemingly bizarre pronouncements that will doom thousands of men to die. "How can you say that, believe that?" she cries, and we nod. We're used to thinking of war as hell, but here we're shown that war is pretty fucked up, too, and it's the little guy who pays the hefty bill for it.
I'll say some of the plot twists were pretty telegraphed, but that didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie as a whole. This is well written, well acted, and beautifully directed and filmed. (Don't bother sitting through the credits, though; DC has opted not to follow Marvel into the world of little teaser scenes at the ends of their movies, at least in this case.)
Chris Pine does a nice job as the love interest. He's the typical Chris Pine type of character, but without the cocky smugness. In fact, he plays the fish out of water more than Gadot as Diana, as someone trying to steer this strange and beautiful woman through the world, and he does it well.
I'd say more but I don't want to give anything away to those who've yet to see the movie. In short, it's really good, and I was especially glad to be able to see it with my daughter, who was awed by Wonder Woman . . . And really wants some boots like hers?
Directed By: Patty Jenkins
Written By: Allan Heinberg (screenplay)
DC Entertainment, 2017
PG-13; 141 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I teared up a few times while watching this movie, seemingly at random. I mean, I honestly don't know why. There's a force of empathy behind this film; it has a depth most superhero movies lack or try to fake. And Gal Gadot is simply amazing. She brings such a blend of wonder and purpose to, well, Wonder Woman.
The story is straight forward enough. Diana, Princess of Themyscira saves a WWI pilot who flies into their bubble and crashes in the ocean. When she learns of the war, Diana feels compelled to go stop it. After all, it is the sacred duty of the Amazons to bring peace to mankind and to put an end to Ares, God of War.
Reluctantly, Diana's mother lets her go.
Cue the fish-out-of-water story in which Diana is introduced to the world. But while it has its funny moments, this is not played so much for laughs as for contrast. Diana sees what is and imagines what could be if only men weren't at war and under the influence of Ares. Her focus on her goal is a through line that holds things together. We see and feel Diana's pain whenever she witnesses some new act of insensible violence, whenever she reacts to seemingly bizarre pronouncements that will doom thousands of men to die. "How can you say that, believe that?" she cries, and we nod. We're used to thinking of war as hell, but here we're shown that war is pretty fucked up, too, and it's the little guy who pays the hefty bill for it.
I'll say some of the plot twists were pretty telegraphed, but that didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie as a whole. This is well written, well acted, and beautifully directed and filmed. (Don't bother sitting through the credits, though; DC has opted not to follow Marvel into the world of little teaser scenes at the ends of their movies, at least in this case.)
Chris Pine does a nice job as the love interest. He's the typical Chris Pine type of character, but without the cocky smugness. In fact, he plays the fish out of water more than Gadot as Diana, as someone trying to steer this strange and beautiful woman through the world, and he does it well.
I'd say more but I don't want to give anything away to those who've yet to see the movie. In short, it's really good, and I was especially glad to be able to see it with my daughter, who was awed by Wonder Woman . . . And really wants some boots like hers?
5.05.2017
Movies: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista
Directed By: James Gunn
Written By: James Gunn (screenplay)
Marvel Studios, 2017
PG-13; 136 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I don't think I enjoyed it quite as much as the first film, but nearly. There is a lot of humor, as usual, though most of the funny stuff goes to Drax this time. I can't remember the last time I laughed that much at a movie. Visually, this is an eye-catching film, too. And it has the soundtrack you expect as well.
But I was also really aware of stuff in this movie in a way that I wasn't last time. And I don't know if that's a good thing.
The "family" theme—I felt hit over the head with that, with how often they felt the need to even say the word "family." I kept thinking, Yeah, we get it. Same with Quill insisting that he and Gamora have an "unspoken thing." You don't have to keep saying it; we're smart enough to read facial expressions.
Chris Pratt is also only ever Chris Pratt, and the more movies he makes the more obvious that becomes. I wish someone would give him a role that's at least a little bit different. (Then again, if he is terrible at anything but this one thing he does, maybe that's a bad idea. Maybe we just need new types of characters in movies, or else Chris Pratt is going to be in ALL THE THINGS.) Don't get me wrong, I love what he does. It just no longer feels very fresh.
That said, some of the lightness of the first movie is gone from this one thanks to heavy character moments. They've stacked a lot of pathos on top of the humor here. I'm not sure how well it works; I'm still processing some of that, I think. I did feel like we were getting a lot of sobby backstories, though. A lot of exposition via one character feeling the need to tell another character some stuff.
Okay, so what's the actual movie about? Um . . . Quill's father Ego (Kurt Russell, perfectly cast) turns up to take Quill "home" to the planet he created, or maybe actually is, or something. Ego is a "Celestial," which means he's kind of a god. He can manipulate matter, and he wants to teach his son to do the same. I won't give away anything more than that.
Meanwhile, Gamora's sister Nebula continues to pursue her.
And a race called the Sovereign are after the Guardians because Rocket stole some batteries from them. The Sovereign are consistently good for laughs throughout the movie; they are self-important and "fight" remotely by manning ships via what approximates a video game interface. If you're familiar with arcade culture, you'll find it amusing.
Yondu is there, too, facing a mutiny as his men think he's gone too soft.
The script was written to be quoted, pithy with many one-liners. And the movie does what it's meant to do, which is entertain. I'd certainly go see it again, as it's very watchable. The points above are mere nits I'm picking, because any time I find myself noticing something while watching a film, I have to wonder why I'm noticing. What's pulling me out of being totally immersed? But these are small things, and though they distracted me, they did not sink the film for me. And the addition of Pom Klementieff as Mantis is fabulous. She makes a great foil for Drax.*
Meanwhile, my kids think it's the best movie ever made, so . . .
*It's been pointed out that Mantis' role emphasizes the stereotype of subservient Asian women. I hadn't really thought about it; I was too busy enjoying her role. But I can see the problems with it, and also with her being even "stupider" than Drax. The dumb female is another stereotype we could do without. It left me to wonder whether Klementieff cringed at some of the lines she was given?
Directed By: James Gunn
Written By: James Gunn (screenplay)
Marvel Studios, 2017
PG-13; 136 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I don't think I enjoyed it quite as much as the first film, but nearly. There is a lot of humor, as usual, though most of the funny stuff goes to Drax this time. I can't remember the last time I laughed that much at a movie. Visually, this is an eye-catching film, too. And it has the soundtrack you expect as well.
But I was also really aware of stuff in this movie in a way that I wasn't last time. And I don't know if that's a good thing.
The "family" theme—I felt hit over the head with that, with how often they felt the need to even say the word "family." I kept thinking, Yeah, we get it. Same with Quill insisting that he and Gamora have an "unspoken thing." You don't have to keep saying it; we're smart enough to read facial expressions.
Chris Pratt is also only ever Chris Pratt, and the more movies he makes the more obvious that becomes. I wish someone would give him a role that's at least a little bit different. (Then again, if he is terrible at anything but this one thing he does, maybe that's a bad idea. Maybe we just need new types of characters in movies, or else Chris Pratt is going to be in ALL THE THINGS.) Don't get me wrong, I love what he does. It just no longer feels very fresh.
That said, some of the lightness of the first movie is gone from this one thanks to heavy character moments. They've stacked a lot of pathos on top of the humor here. I'm not sure how well it works; I'm still processing some of that, I think. I did feel like we were getting a lot of sobby backstories, though. A lot of exposition via one character feeling the need to tell another character some stuff.
Okay, so what's the actual movie about? Um . . . Quill's father Ego (Kurt Russell, perfectly cast) turns up to take Quill "home" to the planet he created, or maybe actually is, or something. Ego is a "Celestial," which means he's kind of a god. He can manipulate matter, and he wants to teach his son to do the same. I won't give away anything more than that.
Meanwhile, Gamora's sister Nebula continues to pursue her.
And a race called the Sovereign are after the Guardians because Rocket stole some batteries from them. The Sovereign are consistently good for laughs throughout the movie; they are self-important and "fight" remotely by manning ships via what approximates a video game interface. If you're familiar with arcade culture, you'll find it amusing.
Yondu is there, too, facing a mutiny as his men think he's gone too soft.
The script was written to be quoted, pithy with many one-liners. And the movie does what it's meant to do, which is entertain. I'd certainly go see it again, as it's very watchable. The points above are mere nits I'm picking, because any time I find myself noticing something while watching a film, I have to wonder why I'm noticing. What's pulling me out of being totally immersed? But these are small things, and though they distracted me, they did not sink the film for me. And the addition of Pom Klementieff as Mantis is fabulous. She makes a great foil for Drax.*
Meanwhile, my kids think it's the best movie ever made, so . . .
*It's been pointed out that Mantis' role emphasizes the stereotype of subservient Asian women. I hadn't really thought about it; I was too busy enjoying her role. But I can see the problems with it, and also with her being even "stupider" than Drax. The dumb female is another stereotype we could do without. It left me to wonder whether Klementieff cringed at some of the lines she was given?
4.01.2017
Movies: Doctor Strange
Never send a Brit to do an American's job.
I guess they figured since it worked (kind of) with Christian Bale? But at least Batman had a reason to disguise his voice; his hoarseness had purpose. Here it just sounds perpetually like Strange needs to cough something up.
Other problems included the weak attempts at defining character (that music thing, I guess?), the unconvincing arc of Strange's asshole-to-hero story, and Cumberbatch's utter inability to sell a joke. Which became a joke in and of itself, but hanging a lampshade on it does not excuse it.
The plot, meanwhile, had all the usual earmarks. A "regular guy" (by which we mean, of course, a rich jerk, in this case a neurosurgeon) goes through a terrible ordeal (car crash caused by his own assholery) and in the course of recovering discovers amazing abilities that allow him to transform into a superhero. His mentor (the much decried Tilda Swinton) turns out to have a fatal flaw and of course dies and leaves the hero to take on the heavy burden of continuing the goal/quest/whatever.
Oh, and the goal/quest/whatever in this case is to fight someone the mentor trained who then defected, and beyond that to fight the "dark side" or something, and then to continue the job of defending against that dark magic or . . . something . . . that we're never really made to care very much about.
They also shoehorned a romantic subplot into all this that was pointless and held no chemistry.
I suspect what they might ultimately have been going for was: "What if Sherlock—arrogant know-it-all that he is—gotten taken down a few notches and then became magical?" Why else get Cumberbatch, whose high note as an actor is: insufferable? Seriously, half the time Strange simply comes off as a facet of Sherlock anyway.
Also, Cape of Levitation? Really? No, I get that a lot of this comes from the comics, but when the CGI cape is funnier than you are, there are problems.
And just because you learned some magic, you did not suddenly learn martial arts. Those aren't the same thing. That's a different skill set.
There are some nice visual effects here, but they can't make up for the blandness of every other part of this movie. So. Pedantic. So. Rote. Just no charm to it at all.
I guess they figured since it worked (kind of) with Christian Bale? But at least Batman had a reason to disguise his voice; his hoarseness had purpose. Here it just sounds perpetually like Strange needs to cough something up.
Other problems included the weak attempts at defining character (that music thing, I guess?), the unconvincing arc of Strange's asshole-to-hero story, and Cumberbatch's utter inability to sell a joke. Which became a joke in and of itself, but hanging a lampshade on it does not excuse it.
The plot, meanwhile, had all the usual earmarks. A "regular guy" (by which we mean, of course, a rich jerk, in this case a neurosurgeon) goes through a terrible ordeal (car crash caused by his own assholery) and in the course of recovering discovers amazing abilities that allow him to transform into a superhero. His mentor (the much decried Tilda Swinton) turns out to have a fatal flaw and of course dies and leaves the hero to take on the heavy burden of continuing the goal/quest/whatever.
Oh, and the goal/quest/whatever in this case is to fight someone the mentor trained who then defected, and beyond that to fight the "dark side" or something, and then to continue the job of defending against that dark magic or . . . something . . . that we're never really made to care very much about.
They also shoehorned a romantic subplot into all this that was pointless and held no chemistry.
I suspect what they might ultimately have been going for was: "What if Sherlock—arrogant know-it-all that he is—gotten taken down a few notches and then became magical?" Why else get Cumberbatch, whose high note as an actor is: insufferable? Seriously, half the time Strange simply comes off as a facet of Sherlock anyway.
Also, Cape of Levitation? Really? No, I get that a lot of this comes from the comics, but when the CGI cape is funnier than you are, there are problems.
And just because you learned some magic, you did not suddenly learn martial arts. Those aren't the same thing. That's a different skill set.
There are some nice visual effects here, but they can't make up for the blandness of every other part of this movie. So. Pedantic. So. Rote. Just no charm to it at all.
3.27.2017
Television: Legion
I don't even know what episode I'm on now. Four? Five? I'm not convinced I care enough to keep watching. On the Little Gold Men podcast they said it's worth it to get to episode seven, but Jesus, a television show shouldn't make me sit through 6+ hours before it gets good or even coherent. (And LGM mentioned that, too.) Don't waste my time being all weird and visually interesting. Give me a goddamn story, one I can follow at least a little, and give me characters I actually care about. Cuz right now I don't have any of that.
Thing is, I really enjoyed the first episode. It was just the right level of crazy but still cohesive. And then it went off the f***ing rails. In David's head, out of David's head, and who are these people, and why should I care about any of them if I never really get to know them? Oh, but look at all the cool lighting we're doing!
Don't care, don't care, don't care.
That about sums up my feelings for Legion at the moment.
Thing is, I really enjoyed the first episode. It was just the right level of crazy but still cohesive. And then it went off the f***ing rails. In David's head, out of David's head, and who are these people, and why should I care about any of them if I never really get to know them? Oh, but look at all the cool lighting we're doing!
Don't care, don't care, don't care.
That about sums up my feelings for Legion at the moment.
2.10.2017
Television: Legion, "Chapter 1"
David Haller has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and institutionalized. He seems fairly well adjusted to that. Until the day Syd Barrett arrives as another mental patient. She doesn't like to be touched but agrees to be David's girlfriend anyway. Then, on the day she's meant to be released, David impulsively kisses her . . . and everything goes to hell.
I won't go into the play-by-play; you can use a Wikipedia recap for that, or better yet, watch it yourself. I will say—coming from someone who is so done with Marvel this and DC that and superhero s*** in general—I really, REALLY liked Legion.
Okay, yeah, unreliable narrators are so done to death now, but in this case you don't feel like it's David trying to put something over on you. He really doesn't know who or what is real or not. You navigate the show inside his own confusion. And it is confusing at times (lots of times), but intriguing too.
Likewise, it's paced well, and stylistically it looks amazing.
The one drawback: the music drew too much attention to itself for my taste. Was distracting at times, and felt very Stranger Things. Like, I literally wondered if the composer had been told to make the music sound like Stranger Things. (Also: waffles.) I will tip my hat to the soundtrack used here, but when the original score is this invasive, something is wrong. Still, that's a minor beef.
I'm entering this with little to no knowledge of the universe upon which Legion teeters, so comics fans may have a different take. But coming in cold, I just was really engaged. Noah Hawley has made another good one.
I won't go into the play-by-play; you can use a Wikipedia recap for that, or better yet, watch it yourself. I will say—coming from someone who is so done with Marvel this and DC that and superhero s*** in general—I really, REALLY liked Legion.
Okay, yeah, unreliable narrators are so done to death now, but in this case you don't feel like it's David trying to put something over on you. He really doesn't know who or what is real or not. You navigate the show inside his own confusion. And it is confusing at times (lots of times), but intriguing too.
Likewise, it's paced well, and stylistically it looks amazing.
The one drawback: the music drew too much attention to itself for my taste. Was distracting at times, and felt very Stranger Things. Like, I literally wondered if the composer had been told to make the music sound like Stranger Things. (Also: waffles.) I will tip my hat to the soundtrack used here, but when the original score is this invasive, something is wrong. Still, that's a minor beef.
I'm entering this with little to no knowledge of the universe upon which Legion teeters, so comics fans may have a different take. But coming in cold, I just was really engaged. Noah Hawley has made another good one.
2.04.2017
Television: Powerless, "Wayne or Lose"
Um . . . okay. I really like the idea behind this show. It's about people living in Charm City (part of the DC Universe) and dealing with the day-to-day realities of having superheroes constantly fighting all around them. The main characters work for Wayne Enterprises, in particular in the R&D or something like that. Their job is to create cool gadgets and gear for WE to manufacture and sell.
All well and good, but . . . The execution was a little too . . . twee? saccharine? In short, it didn't work for me.
This first episode has the kind of plot line that feels old-fashioned in this day and age: new girl (Vanessa Hudgens) starts her first day at work, and her job is to supervise this motley crew of geeks. Same day, Bruce Wayne calls and says he's shutting them all down because they're obsolete and haven't come up with anything good in a long time. But of course the new girl whips her team into shape and they invent something amazing on the spot and everyone's jobs are saved.
I liked Danny Pudi in Community, and he's kind of doing the same thing here, so . . . I guess that's okay? And I can't help but enjoy Alan Tudyk as Van Wayne, Bruce's cousin who runs the Charm City office but aspires to be relocated to Gotham. But collectively, this is such a strange amalgam. It's like they weren't sure how over-the-top, cartoony to get. The result is, it's too cartoony to take seriously but not cartoony enough to be actually funny.
I don't know. I wonder whether Powerless will find its footing as the characters develop? I remember I didn't love Community or Parks and Rec the first time I watched them but those shows grew on me. Might this one, too? As the characters become more clearly defined and the writers get into the groove? I'll give it another one or two episodes.
All well and good, but . . . The execution was a little too . . . twee? saccharine? In short, it didn't work for me.
This first episode has the kind of plot line that feels old-fashioned in this day and age: new girl (Vanessa Hudgens) starts her first day at work, and her job is to supervise this motley crew of geeks. Same day, Bruce Wayne calls and says he's shutting them all down because they're obsolete and haven't come up with anything good in a long time. But of course the new girl whips her team into shape and they invent something amazing on the spot and everyone's jobs are saved.
I liked Danny Pudi in Community, and he's kind of doing the same thing here, so . . . I guess that's okay? And I can't help but enjoy Alan Tudyk as Van Wayne, Bruce's cousin who runs the Charm City office but aspires to be relocated to Gotham. But collectively, this is such a strange amalgam. It's like they weren't sure how over-the-top, cartoony to get. The result is, it's too cartoony to take seriously but not cartoony enough to be actually funny.
I don't know. I wonder whether Powerless will find its footing as the characters develop? I remember I didn't love Community or Parks and Rec the first time I watched them but those shows grew on me. Might this one, too? As the characters become more clearly defined and the writers get into the groove? I'll give it another one or two episodes.
1.01.2017
Television: Doctor Who, "The Return of Doctor Mysterio"
I finally watched this. Kind of.
Ever think you care about something only to realize you really just don't? At all?
Thing about this particular Christmas special is that there was a perfectly cute story going on about a superhero masquerading as a nanny (or "manny") for the reporter whose infant daughter hecriminally neglected cared for satisfactorily except when saving other people.
But then there was some other, stupid, confusing, boring story about brains in jars. Do. Not. Care.
This just didn't really need to be a Doctor Who special. It would have been fine as its own thing. Or maybe we could retrofit my original TV pilot to be a Doctor Who, too. I mean, we could just make everything DW, right?
Whatever. I don't even care enough to be angry or annoyed, except at their version of New York, which was just ridiculous.
I guess when you can still be bothered, it means you still care. When you're indifferent, it means you've given up on something.
I'm indifferent to Doctor Who now.
Ever think you care about something only to realize you really just don't? At all?
Thing about this particular Christmas special is that there was a perfectly cute story going on about a superhero masquerading as a nanny (or "manny") for the reporter whose infant daughter he
But then there was some other, stupid, confusing, boring story about brains in jars. Do. Not. Care.
This just didn't really need to be a Doctor Who special. It would have been fine as its own thing. Or maybe we could retrofit my original TV pilot to be a Doctor Who, too. I mean, we could just make everything DW, right?
Whatever. I don't even care enough to be angry or annoyed, except at their version of New York, which was just ridiculous.
I guess when you can still be bothered, it means you still care. When you're indifferent, it means you've given up on something.
I'm indifferent to Doctor Who now.
10.01.2016
Television: Luke Cage, "Moment of Truth"
I'm fond of Paul McGuigan's direction, and this pilot episode for Luke Cage is nicely done. It's just so s...l...o...w... I realize they wanted to take time to establish Cage as someone longing only for a quiet life under the radar. We see he's lonely, and good deep down. They're also setting up the overarching situation of how club owner Cottonmouth is powerful and bad, and this may be where they lost me a bit because I have little to no interest in mob or mob-like things, the seedy underworld of making deals with politicians, etc. It's why I wandered away from Gotham, and if anything drives me away from Luke Cage, it might be that or—unless things begin to move—the pacing.
In short, less plot and more of Luke himself, please.
I felt like I waited the entire episode for that bit at the end, in which we finally see Luke do his thing by taking on henchmen menacing his landlady. It's a fabulous moment, and McGuigan's style shows through. I suppose it's the payoff for sitting through all the rest, but I really just want more of that. Afterward, his landlady offers to hire Luke [for protection] but he declines. For someone who has spent the last hour talking about needing money, this feels silly, though it doesn't at all feel out of character. Still, I thought he was supposed to be a "hero for hire." Looks like he's more of a boy scout.
It's probably too soon to tell how it will all play out. Unlike with Jessica Jones, I didn't feel like I could watch more than one of these at a go. If it starts to move faster, maybe I'll feel differently.
In short, less plot and more of Luke himself, please.
I felt like I waited the entire episode for that bit at the end, in which we finally see Luke do his thing by taking on henchmen menacing his landlady. It's a fabulous moment, and McGuigan's style shows through. I suppose it's the payoff for sitting through all the rest, but I really just want more of that. Afterward, his landlady offers to hire Luke [for protection] but he declines. For someone who has spent the last hour talking about needing money, this feels silly, though it doesn't at all feel out of character. Still, I thought he was supposed to be a "hero for hire." Looks like he's more of a boy scout.
It's probably too soon to tell how it will all play out. Unlike with Jessica Jones, I didn't feel like I could watch more than one of these at a go. If it starts to move faster, maybe I'll feel differently.
6.22.2016
Books: The Caped Crusade by Glen Weldon
I picked this book up not because I'm some big Batman fan (I'm not) but because I like Glen Weldon on Pop Culture Happy Hour and wondered if his unique voice transferred well to the written word. Short answer: it does.
Longer answer: I bristle a bit at the term "normal" to stand opposite "nerd" in this book. Glen doesn't take time to define either, which means we're either supposed to know or draw from context which camp we as readers fall in. But is "nerd" here solely Batman fans? Or the wider world of nerddom? I don't find this an either/or classification, more a sliding scale that moves not just horizontally but in three dimensions. You need a plotted, 3D graph to see where people fall as "nerds" or, ugh, "normals." And what is normal? There's no such thing really, and here Glen seems to use it to mean people who only engage with Batman in the larger pop culture world rather than people who consistently read the comics and stick with the character through thick and thin. So I guess, when it comes to Batman, I'm a normal.
When it comes to comics, I'm a normal, more or less. I read Betty and Veronica as a kid, and all my parents' old Peanuts books, and I had all the Garfield books too. Later, I subscribed via my local comic book shop to the ST:TNG comics and The X-Files. Superheroes were never my thing.
I first connected with Batman when I would watch the animated series after school. With my mom of all things because she really liked it too. I was in high school at this time, had blissfully missed all the Burton and Schumacher movies. I wouldn't bother with the Bat again until Christopher Nolan made his films.
So that's where I'm coming from in approaching this book. Weldon does a nice job of chronicling—and chronologizing (I made that word up)—the life of Batman in all his various iterations and cycles. I found it easy to read, even for a "normal," and engaging enough, even for someone who has no real investment in the character.
It's clear Weldon is invested, however. And he does a good job of conveying his knowledge and research. There's a lot of information here, and it's organized well. Though, if he wanted to really punch up the whole nerd culture angle, he could have done more with that. As it stands, this is largely a history of Batman with some editorializing on how nerds felt about each new version versus how the wider world embraced the popular films, TV shows, etc.
No mention of Gotham, though. Hmm.
Overall an interesting read.
Shout out to Dean Trippe, who earns a mention at the end of the book. Incredibly talented guy with an origin story that he's used to help others in wonderful ways.
Longer answer: I bristle a bit at the term "normal" to stand opposite "nerd" in this book. Glen doesn't take time to define either, which means we're either supposed to know or draw from context which camp we as readers fall in. But is "nerd" here solely Batman fans? Or the wider world of nerddom? I don't find this an either/or classification, more a sliding scale that moves not just horizontally but in three dimensions. You need a plotted, 3D graph to see where people fall as "nerds" or, ugh, "normals." And what is normal? There's no such thing really, and here Glen seems to use it to mean people who only engage with Batman in the larger pop culture world rather than people who consistently read the comics and stick with the character through thick and thin. So I guess, when it comes to Batman, I'm a normal.
When it comes to comics, I'm a normal, more or less. I read Betty and Veronica as a kid, and all my parents' old Peanuts books, and I had all the Garfield books too. Later, I subscribed via my local comic book shop to the ST:TNG comics and The X-Files. Superheroes were never my thing.
I first connected with Batman when I would watch the animated series after school. With my mom of all things because she really liked it too. I was in high school at this time, had blissfully missed all the Burton and Schumacher movies. I wouldn't bother with the Bat again until Christopher Nolan made his films.
So that's where I'm coming from in approaching this book. Weldon does a nice job of chronicling—and chronologizing (I made that word up)—the life of Batman in all his various iterations and cycles. I found it easy to read, even for a "normal," and engaging enough, even for someone who has no real investment in the character.
It's clear Weldon is invested, however. And he does a good job of conveying his knowledge and research. There's a lot of information here, and it's organized well. Though, if he wanted to really punch up the whole nerd culture angle, he could have done more with that. As it stands, this is largely a history of Batman with some editorializing on how nerds felt about each new version versus how the wider world embraced the popular films, TV shows, etc.
No mention of Gotham, though. Hmm.
Overall an interesting read.
Shout out to Dean Trippe, who earns a mention at the end of the book. Incredibly talented guy with an origin story that he's used to help others in wonderful ways.
5.21.2016
Movies: Captain America: Civil War
Starring: Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan
Directed By: Anthony & Joe Russo
Written By: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (screenplay), from the comic book by Mark Millar, using characters created by Joe Simon & Jack Kirby
Marvel, 2016
PG-13; 147 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Directed By: Anthony & Joe Russo
Written By: Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (screenplay), from the comic book by Mark Millar, using characters created by Joe Simon & Jack Kirby
Marvel, 2016
PG-13; 147 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Well, I mean, it's better than Age of Ultron, right?
After so many of these movies—not just the Marvel ones, but all these superhero blockbuster flicks—here are the two things that seem to be key: banter, and seeing how many new and different ways there are to break landmarks, buildings, and other big things. Even before this movie started, we sat through the X-Men: Apocalypse trailer and the Independence Day: Resurgence trailer (movies no longer come without colons, btw), and they looked almost identical. The same stuff getting demolished in pretty much the same ways.
These movies also come in two distinct flavors now. 1. Superhero or team of superheroes fights bad guy or team of bad guys. 2. Superhero or team of superheroes fights another superhero or team of superheroes. It looks pretty much the same either way.
In Civil War we get Captain America versus Iron Man while other Avengers pick sides. The rift begins when the Avengers are asked to sign the Sokovia Accord which allows the UN to decide when and where to use the strength of the Avengers. Given all the collateral damage they've wreaked, it's not an entirely outrageous request that the Avengers adhere to some basic rules and protocols. Tony, Rhodie, Natasha, Wanda, and Vision agree. Steve, Clint, and Sam do not.
Things go further south when, at the signing of the Accord, a bomb goes off and Cap's old friend Bucky Barnes is pegged as the culprit. Cap of course moves to save/help Bucky while everyone else is after him. Cap and Iron Man amass teams, and the shootout begins. At one point they literally stand on either side of a line and face one another. Well, no one ever lauded these movies for their subtlety.
The fight scenes in this one suffer from choppy, shaky action that makes it difficult to admire. The introduction of Spider-Man makes him more annoying than anything else, too. I understand what they were going for—"What would a teenaged superhero do if invited to join up?" The answer: talk too much and be mostly obnoxious. Don't get me wrong, he's perfect for Spider-Man. Just not right for this movie.
On the flip side, I actually did enjoy Black Panther. He felt integral rather than shoehorned in like Spider-Baby.
The plot itself involves a lot of moral gray areas, and while I can commend the franchise for attempting to address these things, they do so in such a glossed over way that it feels more like them trying to balm the critics than really say anything important. The chief villain here is a man who lost his family during the Sokovia fight—he wants revenge and decides the best way to get it is to instigate infighting amongst the Avengers. But he does this in such a weirdly complicated way that one can't help but think, "Surely there was a more direct route?"
The deeper allegory here is one of America's place in the world. Should we work with other countries and come to the table to forge accords, or are we better off not allowing various sanctions to choke chain our ability to act and react? Are we puppets for other countries' agendas when we agree to rule by committee? And are we tearing our own country apart via the political rift as we line up and take sides for our upcoming presidential election?
I don't know if the writers really meant anything as coherent as all that, but I was desperately searching for something to keep my brain engaged during fight scene after fight scene.
Best moment: Bucky asking Sam to move the seat up in the car. This film could have done with a few more moments like that one.
Most awkward moment(s): Vision's apparent crush on Scarlet Witch. And why does Scarlet Witch wear that pseudo-bustier as her superhero suit? Does it "bust-ier" her powers? Or is she just planning to go clubbing afterward?
All right. I'm done here. In short, it wasn't a bad movie. Telegraphed a lot of stuff, though, and didn't really do anything all that new or interesting. Except split up the team. Because, let's face it, it's getting harder and harder to fit everyone into any one movie. Better to split them into various franchises. More money that way, too.
4.30.2016
Movies: Deadpool
Alas, any movie that gets hyped has a mountain to climb once it comes time to actually sit down and watch it.
After hearing how great Deadpool was, I was eager to give it a try. Maybe, I thought, there was such a thing as a Marvel movie that wasn't the same old, same old. Maybe, I hoped, we could get something more from our popcorn flicks.
Okay, a couple considerations: (a) I didn't see this in a cinema full of people. I'm sure crowd mentality makes a big difference in how one views a film. (b) I haven't read the comics. But I firmly believe a good movie shouldn't require a viewer to already be familiar with the characters anyway. It should stand on its own.
The pros: I enjoyed the snark. And the movie is, in parts at least, visually arresting. Violent, but not gory. More Kingsmen/comic book violent, which I can stomach. Also, interesting music choices.
The cons: Some of the snark was a little too on the nose, too self-aware. And the plot was so damn pedantic. The villain was not at all interesting either. Plus, I don't think they established his abilities well enough. If things are going to come down to a fight (and they are, they always are), we need to know what everyone is capable of. And then we do a girlfriend-in-distress thing? Gag me. I don't care if that's how the story goes in the "source material" (see above); change it.
Also, the X-Men felt shoehorned in there.
And after the fabulousness of the scene on the highway, the final climax felt bland. And Deadpool's stupidity in believing the baddie could really fix his face . . . Also, what was the whole, "What's my name?" thing? That's the best catchphrase they could give the bad guy? Yawn.
Marvel seems to have a couple tiers of heroes/movies. A-list: Avengers and all their singular characters such as Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. B-list: Ant-Man and now Deadpool. And sure these characters can (and will) show up in each other's films, but really, there is a definite hierarchy. Which is why no one thought Deadpool would make as much money as it did and why they dropped it in the "off season." Next time, after having done so well, he might get pushed closer to the summer circus, moved to the Big Tent. But can it do well against real competition? After all, maybe it only did well this time because it had no rivals.
I won't bother to go again into how tired I am of these movies. But they're putting them out almost as regularly as the comic books they're based on. Gah.
And in the end, was Deadpool different enough? It was different, but . . . It [He] was trying too hard to be anti-hero. He doth protest too much, attempting to make his case, claiming to be so different, so outside the lines. When you have to argue it that hard, it usually means the evidence doesn't support it. Otherwise you'd simply show rather than tell.
At the end of the day, Deadpool is just another in a growing stack of these films. And—dare I say it?—this one is more cute than hefty, its box office boom notwithstanding.
After hearing how great Deadpool was, I was eager to give it a try. Maybe, I thought, there was such a thing as a Marvel movie that wasn't the same old, same old. Maybe, I hoped, we could get something more from our popcorn flicks.
Okay, a couple considerations: (a) I didn't see this in a cinema full of people. I'm sure crowd mentality makes a big difference in how one views a film. (b) I haven't read the comics. But I firmly believe a good movie shouldn't require a viewer to already be familiar with the characters anyway. It should stand on its own.
The pros: I enjoyed the snark. And the movie is, in parts at least, visually arresting. Violent, but not gory. More Kingsmen/comic book violent, which I can stomach. Also, interesting music choices.
The cons: Some of the snark was a little too on the nose, too self-aware. And the plot was so damn pedantic. The villain was not at all interesting either. Plus, I don't think they established his abilities well enough. If things are going to come down to a fight (and they are, they always are), we need to know what everyone is capable of. And then we do a girlfriend-in-distress thing? Gag me. I don't care if that's how the story goes in the "source material" (see above); change it.
Also, the X-Men felt shoehorned in there.
And after the fabulousness of the scene on the highway, the final climax felt bland. And Deadpool's stupidity in believing the baddie could really fix his face . . . Also, what was the whole, "What's my name?" thing? That's the best catchphrase they could give the bad guy? Yawn.
Marvel seems to have a couple tiers of heroes/movies. A-list: Avengers and all their singular characters such as Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. B-list: Ant-Man and now Deadpool. And sure these characters can (and will) show up in each other's films, but really, there is a definite hierarchy. Which is why no one thought Deadpool would make as much money as it did and why they dropped it in the "off season." Next time, after having done so well, he might get pushed closer to the summer circus, moved to the Big Tent. But can it do well against real competition? After all, maybe it only did well this time because it had no rivals.
I won't bother to go again into how tired I am of these movies. But they're putting them out almost as regularly as the comic books they're based on. Gah.
And in the end, was Deadpool different enough? It was different, but . . . It [He] was trying too hard to be anti-hero. He doth protest too much, attempting to make his case, claiming to be so different, so outside the lines. When you have to argue it that hard, it usually means the evidence doesn't support it. Otherwise you'd simply show rather than tell.
At the end of the day, Deadpool is just another in a growing stack of these films. And—dare I say it?—this one is more cute than hefty, its box office boom notwithstanding.
3.30.2016
Movies: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Jesse Eisenberg, Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Jeremy Irons
Directed By: Zack Snyder
Written By: Chris Terrio & David S. Goyer from characters by Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster
Warner Bros., 2016
PG-13; 151 minutes
2 stars (out of 5)
I've said it before, loudly and repeatedly, but here it is again: I really am sick to death of all the superhero movies. They were fun for a while, but now they all look and sound the same. Every f***ing movie is a group of heroes trying to stop some bad thing from destroying a city or a country or the world. The X-Men, the Avengers, and now the Justice League. I can't be excited for any of it any more. I'm worn out.
Oh, but this year is the twist. Bro fights. Batman versus Superman, Captain America versus Iron Man. And it's induction year too! Because Wonder Woman and Spider-Man get to join the clubs.
Sigh.
I could have forgiven this movie if it had entertained me more. But from the first frame I was groaning. We were going to do the young Bruce Wayne thing again. No one needs that any more. We all know it already. Stop trying to find new ways to tell the same goddamn story.
And because I was not suitably diverted, I began to nitpick. Like, why do the bad guys shoot at the Batmobile? They must know it doesn't do anything to shoot at it. In fact, it only puts them at risk for ricocheted bullets. Superheroes must really rely on bad guys being idiots.
SPOILERS BELOW
And why does Batman set up guns to shoot at Superman? Just like with the Batmobile, he must know the bullets won't do anything. Slow him down? Nope. Give him a false sense of superiority? Maybe, but there's no point in not just going right in with the Kryptonite. Unless Batman was hoping to get shoved through a few brick walls first. Just for the fun of it.
I found the hallucinations/dreams utterly ridiculous and unnecessary (except, obviously, to plant seeds for future movies). And I remarked early on that Batman and Superman's parents had the same names only to discover that a major plot point hinged on that. Which is just flimsy and dumb. Why would Superman say, "Save Martha" instead of, "Save my mom" anyway? (Okay, okay, because no one is supposed to know Martha Kent is his foster mother. But still. So, so flimsy.)
Also, leftover Lord of the Rings animations used to create Doomsday. If not, then a total ripoff of LotR animations to create Doomsday. Either way, really, really bad.
Okay, so all that (and so many more little things that would take me ages to type) aside. I'll say I think all the acting was actually pretty good. But Ben Affleck is looking chunky. Not muscular, but chunky. Round in the face and all that. Puffy. Yeah, that's right—if guys can objectify women, then right back attcha. Still, he did a good job, and Jeremy Irons was great as Alfred, and Jesse Eisenberg did well as Lex (though I'm not really convinced he's pretending so much as wandering onto the set and babbling while the cameras roll), and I even liked Gal Gadot. Even if I'm not thrilled about more superhero movies, she's a good Wonder Woman.
And Henry Cavill, well, I just love him anyway. And this was so, so much better than Man of Steel, so at least there's that. I still see zero actual chemistry between him and Amy Adams, though. His best scenes were against Affleck, but as Clark Kent v Bruce Wayne more than their alter egos. Could've used more of that in this movie.
For the record, I've always been a Superman girl. Chris Reeve all the way, baby, but I like Henry as runner-up. And I'll take Superman over Batman any day.
I won't go into the plot; the title says it all, more or less. But God, I'm so very weary of these dark, gritty, "realistic" (but not really) takes on all these characters. And it's the same story over and over and over. It's time to get some new ones. And no, making them fight each other doesn't count. Because we all know in the end they'll just band together to fight something else instead. Like for box office domination.
It's time to start fighting back a little by demanding more from our movies.
Directed By: Zack Snyder
Written By: Chris Terrio & David S. Goyer from characters by Bob Kane, Bill Finger, Jerry Siegel & Joe Shuster
Warner Bros., 2016
PG-13; 151 minutes
2 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
I've said it before, loudly and repeatedly, but here it is again: I really am sick to death of all the superhero movies. They were fun for a while, but now they all look and sound the same. Every f***ing movie is a group of heroes trying to stop some bad thing from destroying a city or a country or the world. The X-Men, the Avengers, and now the Justice League. I can't be excited for any of it any more. I'm worn out.
Oh, but this year is the twist. Bro fights. Batman versus Superman, Captain America versus Iron Man. And it's induction year too! Because Wonder Woman and Spider-Man get to join the clubs.
Sigh.
I could have forgiven this movie if it had entertained me more. But from the first frame I was groaning. We were going to do the young Bruce Wayne thing again. No one needs that any more. We all know it already. Stop trying to find new ways to tell the same goddamn story.
And because I was not suitably diverted, I began to nitpick. Like, why do the bad guys shoot at the Batmobile? They must know it doesn't do anything to shoot at it. In fact, it only puts them at risk for ricocheted bullets. Superheroes must really rely on bad guys being idiots.
SPOILERS BELOW
And why does Batman set up guns to shoot at Superman? Just like with the Batmobile, he must know the bullets won't do anything. Slow him down? Nope. Give him a false sense of superiority? Maybe, but there's no point in not just going right in with the Kryptonite. Unless Batman was hoping to get shoved through a few brick walls first. Just for the fun of it.
I found the hallucinations/dreams utterly ridiculous and unnecessary (except, obviously, to plant seeds for future movies). And I remarked early on that Batman and Superman's parents had the same names only to discover that a major plot point hinged on that. Which is just flimsy and dumb. Why would Superman say, "Save Martha" instead of, "Save my mom" anyway? (Okay, okay, because no one is supposed to know Martha Kent is his foster mother. But still. So, so flimsy.)
Also, leftover Lord of the Rings animations used to create Doomsday. If not, then a total ripoff of LotR animations to create Doomsday. Either way, really, really bad.
Okay, so all that (and so many more little things that would take me ages to type) aside. I'll say I think all the acting was actually pretty good. But Ben Affleck is looking chunky. Not muscular, but chunky. Round in the face and all that. Puffy. Yeah, that's right—if guys can objectify women, then right back attcha. Still, he did a good job, and Jeremy Irons was great as Alfred, and Jesse Eisenberg did well as Lex (though I'm not really convinced he's pretending so much as wandering onto the set and babbling while the cameras roll), and I even liked Gal Gadot. Even if I'm not thrilled about more superhero movies, she's a good Wonder Woman.
And Henry Cavill, well, I just love him anyway. And this was so, so much better than Man of Steel, so at least there's that. I still see zero actual chemistry between him and Amy Adams, though. His best scenes were against Affleck, but as Clark Kent v Bruce Wayne more than their alter egos. Could've used more of that in this movie.
For the record, I've always been a Superman girl. Chris Reeve all the way, baby, but I like Henry as runner-up. And I'll take Superman over Batman any day.
I won't go into the plot; the title says it all, more or less. But God, I'm so very weary of these dark, gritty, "realistic" (but not really) takes on all these characters. And it's the same story over and over and over. It's time to get some new ones. And no, making them fight each other doesn't count. Because we all know in the end they'll just band together to fight something else instead. Like for box office domination.
It's time to start fighting back a little by demanding more from our movies.
3.22.2016
Television: Elementary, "You've Got Me, Who's Got You?"
The episode title is familiar to people of a certain age (or perhaps even younger people of a certain bent) who remember Superman. Christopher Reeves' Superman, that is. Which maybe says something about viewership of CBS, but anyway.
A would-be hero (aka vigilante) is found murdered, and Holmes and Watson search for his true identity. The guy dressed as a known [in the world of this show] comic book character called the Midnight Ranger. The [fictitious] comic book company was not happy about this guy's antics, considering them a breach of their copyright or intellectual property or whatever, but they hadn't succeeded in figuring out the guy's real name either. Shelve that for later . . . which in procedurals means we'll come back to it in the end because the killer is connected to the comic book company.
Then we go through the dummy suspects (the ones thrown at viewers to make them temporarily forget the place we've just been where the real villain works or lives): the fellow vigilante who all too eagerly takes on the mantel of Midnight Ranger, the drug dealer the dead man was known to hassle regularly. But of course nothing comes of these leads except a few more clues leading back to the truth.
Sure enough, we loop back around the comic book people, and in particular a friend of the dead guy (now identified as Mike) who had reason to hate the comic book company he worked for. Turns out they didn't like him either and had a big dinner out with studio execs that this guy wasn't invited to. So when the guy headed out to that restaurant with a small arsenal . . . the Midnight Ranger stepped in to save the day . . . and lost his life in the process.
Pretty basic stuff, but this episode held my interest a lot more than some others this season, even though the culprit was easy to spot early on.
MeanwhileDracula Morland Holmes attempts to coerce Watson into helping him ferret out a potential mole in his company by donating a shit ton of money to a charity she helps run. She's annoyed, but she does it anyway. Then she tells Morland he has no mole, only to confront said mole herself and ask him to be a mole for her so she can see what Morland is really up to. After all, Morland apparently did get an assassin out of prison—the man who supposedly attempted to kill him but ended up killing his girlfriend instead. Why?
So Watson steps here into the gray, which is interesting given she pushed back against such a thing when Detective Cortes used Watson to a similar end. (You may remember she asked Watson to consult on a case, and when Watson helped, Cortes used the information to act outside the law. After that, Watson refused to consult with her again.) Overall, we're dealing with questions of where the law fails to meet its goals and what counts as justice being served. Who gets to decide? And do the ends justify the means? These aren't new debates, so it's all in how they're presented. We'll see if Elementary does so in entertaining fashion—so long as they also remain true to the characters they've created.
A would-be hero (aka vigilante) is found murdered, and Holmes and Watson search for his true identity. The guy dressed as a known [in the world of this show] comic book character called the Midnight Ranger. The [fictitious] comic book company was not happy about this guy's antics, considering them a breach of their copyright or intellectual property or whatever, but they hadn't succeeded in figuring out the guy's real name either. Shelve that for later . . . which in procedurals means we'll come back to it in the end because the killer is connected to the comic book company.
Then we go through the dummy suspects (the ones thrown at viewers to make them temporarily forget the place we've just been where the real villain works or lives): the fellow vigilante who all too eagerly takes on the mantel of Midnight Ranger, the drug dealer the dead man was known to hassle regularly. But of course nothing comes of these leads except a few more clues leading back to the truth.
Sure enough, we loop back around the comic book people, and in particular a friend of the dead guy (now identified as Mike) who had reason to hate the comic book company he worked for. Turns out they didn't like him either and had a big dinner out with studio execs that this guy wasn't invited to. So when the guy headed out to that restaurant with a small arsenal . . . the Midnight Ranger stepped in to save the day . . . and lost his life in the process.
Pretty basic stuff, but this episode held my interest a lot more than some others this season, even though the culprit was easy to spot early on.
Meanwhile
So Watson steps here into the gray, which is interesting given she pushed back against such a thing when Detective Cortes used Watson to a similar end. (You may remember she asked Watson to consult on a case, and when Watson helped, Cortes used the information to act outside the law. After that, Watson refused to consult with her again.) Overall, we're dealing with questions of where the law fails to meet its goals and what counts as justice being served. Who gets to decide? And do the ends justify the means? These aren't new debates, so it's all in how they're presented. We'll see if Elementary does so in entertaining fashion—so long as they also remain true to the characters they've created.
10.03.2015
Television: Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., "Laws of Nature"
It seems like the team managing this show decided they'd better start Season 3 with clear issues rather than the utter muddle of last season. The result is a season premiere that at least makes some kind of sense and establishes stakes.
S.H.I.E.L.D. is looking for more "Inhumans," those who carry the alien gene and are affected by whatever has been unleashed into the environment (namely the oceanic environment, meaning people who take fish oil supplements are at risk if they harbor the gene).
Fitz is still trying to figure out the monolith so he can save Simmons. Everyone keeps telling him to channel his inner Elsa (that is, let it go), but he refuses.
Bobbi and Hunter are . . . whatever. Flirting but not really or something.
And Coulson has been tracking a mercenary black ops group that seems also to be targeting Inhumans. The result is a meeting with Rosalind (you recognize her from Entourage), leader of said group. After "cagey" discussions, the two of them realize there is a third something-or-other hunting Inhumans . . . and killing them. We get a glimpse of this thing, which is sort of like an alien porcupine? ::shrug::
Meanwhile, out in the world, presidents and other leaders are trying to determine how to handle this influx ofMutants Inhumans. (Let's not pretend this isn't the exact same fight as from X-Men, okay? Regulate them? Kill them? Embrace them? Send them to a special school? When does Patrick Stewart show up?)
Oh, and we get a glimpse of Simmons in . . . some other world? Is the monolith a doorway to an alien planet?
We do still have Ward to contend with at some point, which seems to be Bobbi and Hunter's key focus: revenge. But this premiere had enough to be getting on with, and as I mentioned, at least they set things up relatively clearly, giving me hopes this season will be better than the last.
S.H.I.E.L.D. is looking for more "Inhumans," those who carry the alien gene and are affected by whatever has been unleashed into the environment (namely the oceanic environment, meaning people who take fish oil supplements are at risk if they harbor the gene).
Fitz is still trying to figure out the monolith so he can save Simmons. Everyone keeps telling him to channel his inner Elsa (that is, let it go), but he refuses.
Bobbi and Hunter are . . . whatever. Flirting but not really or something.
And Coulson has been tracking a mercenary black ops group that seems also to be targeting Inhumans. The result is a meeting with Rosalind (you recognize her from Entourage), leader of said group. After "cagey" discussions, the two of them realize there is a third something-or-other hunting Inhumans . . . and killing them. We get a glimpse of this thing, which is sort of like an alien porcupine? ::shrug::
Meanwhile, out in the world, presidents and other leaders are trying to determine how to handle this influx of
Oh, and we get a glimpse of Simmons in . . . some other world? Is the monolith a doorway to an alien planet?
We do still have Ward to contend with at some point, which seems to be Bobbi and Hunter's key focus: revenge. But this premiere had enough to be getting on with, and as I mentioned, at least they set things up relatively clearly, giving me hopes this season will be better than the last.
8.12.2015
Movies: Ant-Man
I hate to say it . . . But I'm going to say it anyway . . . This movie bored me.
Okay, okay, don't throw anything just yet!
I went in with no foreknowledge of this character except that he's based on yet another comic book and can shrink. Right? And I saw the film (in 3D) on a cruise ship, because Disney can show its own first-run films on its ships. So venue could have played a part, and mood, etc.
But still. I was bored.
There were a few funny moments. A few. But most of the movie was just very plot-plot-plodding. I mean, I love Michael Douglas, so glad to see him back on the screen. And I generally like Paul Rudd, too. And I think they had pretty good screen chemistry. I just wish they'd had more interesting things to do.
It sort of felt like the first Iron Man again in that there were rival inventors with rival suits, etc. And there was that forced Falcon fight thing. Felt like a desperate move to tie this film in with the others. But Ant-Man is only a second-tier hero, so he gets Falcon instead of, say, Captain America or one of those.
At least, it feels like Ant-Man is second tier. While technically there's nothing really wrong with it, the film comes across as rote and colorless. There's no flavor. (Does that mean it's tasteless? Hmm.) It's as if someone followed a recipe but couldn't be bothered to add any spice. Sort of a "get it done and out" thing with no investment in detail.
I realize it was a hit. And that a lot of people liked it. And maybe on another viewing, under different circumstances, I'd find more to like about it, too. But my initial impression? Meh.
Okay, okay, don't throw anything just yet!
I went in with no foreknowledge of this character except that he's based on yet another comic book and can shrink. Right? And I saw the film (in 3D) on a cruise ship, because Disney can show its own first-run films on its ships. So venue could have played a part, and mood, etc.
But still. I was bored.
There were a few funny moments. A few. But most of the movie was just very plot-plot-plodding. I mean, I love Michael Douglas, so glad to see him back on the screen. And I generally like Paul Rudd, too. And I think they had pretty good screen chemistry. I just wish they'd had more interesting things to do.
It sort of felt like the first Iron Man again in that there were rival inventors with rival suits, etc. And there was that forced Falcon fight thing. Felt like a desperate move to tie this film in with the others. But Ant-Man is only a second-tier hero, so he gets Falcon instead of, say, Captain America or one of those.
At least, it feels like Ant-Man is second tier. While technically there's nothing really wrong with it, the film comes across as rote and colorless. There's no flavor. (Does that mean it's tasteless? Hmm.) It's as if someone followed a recipe but couldn't be bothered to add any spice. Sort of a "get it done and out" thing with no investment in detail.
I realize it was a hit. And that a lot of people liked it. And maybe on another viewing, under different circumstances, I'd find more to like about it, too. But my initial impression? Meh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)