summer movie upkeep part one spoilers
Spoilers for Iron Man and Speed Racer, and some C.S. Lewis Novels/movies. (NOT prince Caspian, but Lion Witch and Wardrobe and, believe it or not, Out of Silent Planet.)
Two weeks in, Summer has left me mixed/positive. So that's better than most I suppose. Granted this summer has better potential than most.
Iron Man: Mixed positive. I did NOT want to support Iron Man on it's opening weekend so I went the following wednesday. Sigh. It's better than most Marvel movies that don't have the words "X-men" or "Spider-man" in them. It's you know. Pretty good. But... the more I think about it, the less satisfied I've been with it. It doesn't hold up and I don't think it deserves the money it's made or the acclaim of fanboys. I mean, here's my two primary problems. 1.) The film starts with a decent theme. Stark, weapons manufacturer, is captured and discovers that his weapons don't deter conflict but fuel it. Good theme. So, the whole movie is about him making himself the best weapon ever? Yeah, he comes back and decides he will make weapons no more, (save for himself) but gets real pissed off to discover the terrorists have his weapons (didn't he already know that?) and goes on a rampage to destroy them. But, doesn't the theme of the movie demand he destroy the weapons the U.S. has too? He hasn't learned much at all really. He still thinks it's good for the government to have weapons and the terrorists to not, (when earlier it appeared he thought NO ONE should have them) Tony has just taken a much more personal approach to what he's always done. No real moral advancement. 2.) Okay, he's shut down weapons manufacture. What's he gonna do with the company now? The film initially offers a good alternative: He's going to look back into ARC generator technology, a 30 year old experiment in free energy that he hadn't advanced until it became part of his life-support rig. (Wait, is Iron Man supposed to be like an inverted Darth Vader? hmm) Obidiah Stane mocks this approach. Fat cat. But wait! Did you notice this later scene? there's a scene where Obidiah wants to figure out the companies' new approach fast, (villainy aside, there were thousands of Stark employees to think about) and it seems he's come around to Tony's ARC generator. "Just let the guys look at the one in your chest, start drawing up specs..." Well obviously. The only other one is 30 years old and Stark's miniaturized one would be an important advancement in making the technology feasible. "No, this one stays with Me!" Stark Rebuffs. Yes I know. This scene sets up Obidiah to later rip Stark's "heart" out to power his Iron Monger suit. But it doesn't jive with that earlier scene. I guess stark abandoned his plan to move Stark Industries to alternative power. It's all about his personal Iron Man vendetta. Which is really stupid and shortsighted in so many ways. At least Bruce Wayne knows the importance of keeping Wayne Industries afloat to keep as many gothamites as employed as possible. (more employment opportunities = less crime and all that.) Stark don't care.
I know I'm Riding Iron Man hard. I did say at the top I liked it though. I just resent that so many people tried to sell me on "Best comic book adaption ever!" and "No compromises of source material!" or, my favorite, "Most comic book movies contain that 'one element' that brings the whole thing down, like batnipples or mechanicle web shooters." Okay. So it doesn't contain that "one element" that brings it down, but it does have weak overall plotting and some severe thematic incoherence. I will say this though: the movie probably would have been better if it didn't HAVE to have Tony Stark become a Superhero. which is I suppose a compliment to the film makers but an back handed insult to the genre, suggesting that the Superhero film may be approaching it's limits. (probably because there have been way too many for such a short span of time. Fantastic Four should have been better. Iron Man didn't need to be made. Superman and Batman should not have been revived.)
SPEED RACER though I thoroughly enjoyed. I damn near loved it actually. It's probably the best family movie in 20 years. They just don't make them like this any more. A truly engaging action movie with great characters and hypnotic visuals containing a great message and cool scenes. It's funny but not in an ironic way, and has loads of sincerity. And it treats it's fans with respect but is fully accessible to new comers. Too me, this should be THE movie of the summer. and I have no idea why it's floundering. I mean, did you guys see it? if not, why didn't you see it? is it lingering resentment to the wachowskis re: the matrix sequels? No interest in the speed racer franchise? visuals turn you off? Gas just too high and you're saving your money for Indiana Jones? Well, whatever the reason, screw it, go out and see it. It's great. And it's a movie that's going to make me up my home theater game. I'm looking into getting a 27 inch and 50 inch televisions for my bedroom and living rooms respectively and a pair of Blue Ray players for them by year's end. DVD just will not do Speed Racer Justice.
So what else is coming? Prince Caspian this weekend? skipping it. I'm not too heavily into fantasy. I liked Lord of the Rings as it was coming out but burnt out on it. Harry Potter is good though. But the first Narnia? was meh for me. If I didn't know better, I would accuse it of being a haphazard slapping together of Rings and Potter. And yeah, even as a Christian the Christian allegory of the story bothers me. I know the source. I've read "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" and "Out of Silent Planet" five years ago and C.S. Lewis just has no subtlety for this kind of Allegory. It's all very 1-to-1 stuff. Of the two, "Silent Planet" was a little better because it did have something of an interesting twist on the theology, (That all the planets of the solar system are inhabited and live in harmony and all have there own guardian angel, but earth's guardian angel was Satan and he went bad that's why we struggle with living with one another and wars and stuff.) But yeah, C.S. Lewis is a better author than I will ever be but hey, I don't care for his stuff. The movie will probably be well-realized though.
Later, there'll be Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. (title is too unwieldy for a jones picture.) We're all bracing for this one. I want to love it, but there's always the possibility it's gonna be just another Phantom Menace. But a new good Jones movie is just cool beyond words.
Later, there will be Wall-e, which I'm mixed on because I'm mixed on Pixar more than most. (and no, I'm not just talking about Cars. Monster's inc, and Incredibles are also lesser works.) I mean, the first previews just seemed to be a movie about a Robot goofing around an empty earth. (a family friendly version of Omega man/ I am legend?) And I wondered, "is stuff going to happen?" lately though, the previews do indicate that stuff will happen, so I'll keep an open mind. Kung Fu Panda? Parts of the preview make me really want to like it, because a family friendly old school martial arts/samurai movie would be cool. But then other previews are like, "yeah, this is just a Jack Black vehicle and everything that means." And I've been burned by Dreamworks animation before. (off to such a great start with "Prince of Egypt," but the success of the Shrek films just makes my brain hurt.) The latest Kung Fu Panda preview shows a slo-mo scene of the villain of the piece getting his face squished into Jack Black Panda's butt. So no. I don't want to support that. And for the love of God, I don't want to see Hulk 2. My brother will try to drag me too it but I'll have to put my foot down I suppose.
In July, there's going to be "Hancock," about a boozing washed up Superhero vagrant. I dunno about it. the trailers make me nervous. If the joke is played mostly as a look at celebrity downfall and recovery as applied to a Superman-esque character, it could be good. But if the joke is played as racist, then that would be bad. Based on the trailers, it could go either way. And did you know there's a Batman movie coming? Unfortunately, it's a direct sequel to Batman Begins. But I'll end up seeing it anyway, because Batman is the core of my geek life and to me is up there with family and religion, so I'm duty-bound to check it out. But I think I'll end up liking the tie-in video "Batman: Gotham Knight" a whole lot more. Kevin Conroy back as Batman! Yay! And that Batman vs. Deadshot sequence looks totally awesome.
That's it for my summer up keep. Look out for future editions! or not!
Two weeks in, Summer has left me mixed/positive. So that's better than most I suppose. Granted this summer has better potential than most.
Iron Man: Mixed positive. I did NOT want to support Iron Man on it's opening weekend so I went the following wednesday. Sigh. It's better than most Marvel movies that don't have the words "X-men" or "Spider-man" in them. It's you know. Pretty good. But... the more I think about it, the less satisfied I've been with it. It doesn't hold up and I don't think it deserves the money it's made or the acclaim of fanboys. I mean, here's my two primary problems. 1.) The film starts with a decent theme. Stark, weapons manufacturer, is captured and discovers that his weapons don't deter conflict but fuel it. Good theme. So, the whole movie is about him making himself the best weapon ever? Yeah, he comes back and decides he will make weapons no more, (save for himself) but gets real pissed off to discover the terrorists have his weapons (didn't he already know that?) and goes on a rampage to destroy them. But, doesn't the theme of the movie demand he destroy the weapons the U.S. has too? He hasn't learned much at all really. He still thinks it's good for the government to have weapons and the terrorists to not, (when earlier it appeared he thought NO ONE should have them) Tony has just taken a much more personal approach to what he's always done. No real moral advancement. 2.) Okay, he's shut down weapons manufacture. What's he gonna do with the company now? The film initially offers a good alternative: He's going to look back into ARC generator technology, a 30 year old experiment in free energy that he hadn't advanced until it became part of his life-support rig. (Wait, is Iron Man supposed to be like an inverted Darth Vader? hmm) Obidiah Stane mocks this approach. Fat cat. But wait! Did you notice this later scene? there's a scene where Obidiah wants to figure out the companies' new approach fast, (villainy aside, there were thousands of Stark employees to think about) and it seems he's come around to Tony's ARC generator. "Just let the guys look at the one in your chest, start drawing up specs..." Well obviously. The only other one is 30 years old and Stark's miniaturized one would be an important advancement in making the technology feasible. "No, this one stays with Me!" Stark Rebuffs. Yes I know. This scene sets up Obidiah to later rip Stark's "heart" out to power his Iron Monger suit. But it doesn't jive with that earlier scene. I guess stark abandoned his plan to move Stark Industries to alternative power. It's all about his personal Iron Man vendetta. Which is really stupid and shortsighted in so many ways. At least Bruce Wayne knows the importance of keeping Wayne Industries afloat to keep as many gothamites as employed as possible. (more employment opportunities = less crime and all that.) Stark don't care.
I know I'm Riding Iron Man hard. I did say at the top I liked it though. I just resent that so many people tried to sell me on "Best comic book adaption ever!" and "No compromises of source material!" or, my favorite, "Most comic book movies contain that 'one element' that brings the whole thing down, like batnipples or mechanicle web shooters." Okay. So it doesn't contain that "one element" that brings it down, but it does have weak overall plotting and some severe thematic incoherence. I will say this though: the movie probably would have been better if it didn't HAVE to have Tony Stark become a Superhero. which is I suppose a compliment to the film makers but an back handed insult to the genre, suggesting that the Superhero film may be approaching it's limits. (probably because there have been way too many for such a short span of time. Fantastic Four should have been better. Iron Man didn't need to be made. Superman and Batman should not have been revived.)
SPEED RACER though I thoroughly enjoyed. I damn near loved it actually. It's probably the best family movie in 20 years. They just don't make them like this any more. A truly engaging action movie with great characters and hypnotic visuals containing a great message and cool scenes. It's funny but not in an ironic way, and has loads of sincerity. And it treats it's fans with respect but is fully accessible to new comers. Too me, this should be THE movie of the summer. and I have no idea why it's floundering. I mean, did you guys see it? if not, why didn't you see it? is it lingering resentment to the wachowskis re: the matrix sequels? No interest in the speed racer franchise? visuals turn you off? Gas just too high and you're saving your money for Indiana Jones? Well, whatever the reason, screw it, go out and see it. It's great. And it's a movie that's going to make me up my home theater game. I'm looking into getting a 27 inch and 50 inch televisions for my bedroom and living rooms respectively and a pair of Blue Ray players for them by year's end. DVD just will not do Speed Racer Justice.
So what else is coming? Prince Caspian this weekend? skipping it. I'm not too heavily into fantasy. I liked Lord of the Rings as it was coming out but burnt out on it. Harry Potter is good though. But the first Narnia? was meh for me. If I didn't know better, I would accuse it of being a haphazard slapping together of Rings and Potter. And yeah, even as a Christian the Christian allegory of the story bothers me. I know the source. I've read "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe" and "Out of Silent Planet" five years ago and C.S. Lewis just has no subtlety for this kind of Allegory. It's all very 1-to-1 stuff. Of the two, "Silent Planet" was a little better because it did have something of an interesting twist on the theology, (That all the planets of the solar system are inhabited and live in harmony and all have there own guardian angel, but earth's guardian angel was Satan and he went bad that's why we struggle with living with one another and wars and stuff.) But yeah, C.S. Lewis is a better author than I will ever be but hey, I don't care for his stuff. The movie will probably be well-realized though.
Later, there'll be Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. (title is too unwieldy for a jones picture.) We're all bracing for this one. I want to love it, but there's always the possibility it's gonna be just another Phantom Menace. But a new good Jones movie is just cool beyond words.
Later, there will be Wall-e, which I'm mixed on because I'm mixed on Pixar more than most. (and no, I'm not just talking about Cars. Monster's inc, and Incredibles are also lesser works.) I mean, the first previews just seemed to be a movie about a Robot goofing around an empty earth. (a family friendly version of Omega man/ I am legend?) And I wondered, "is stuff going to happen?" lately though, the previews do indicate that stuff will happen, so I'll keep an open mind. Kung Fu Panda? Parts of the preview make me really want to like it, because a family friendly old school martial arts/samurai movie would be cool. But then other previews are like, "yeah, this is just a Jack Black vehicle and everything that means." And I've been burned by Dreamworks animation before. (off to such a great start with "Prince of Egypt," but the success of the Shrek films just makes my brain hurt.) The latest Kung Fu Panda preview shows a slo-mo scene of the villain of the piece getting his face squished into Jack Black Panda's butt. So no. I don't want to support that. And for the love of God, I don't want to see Hulk 2. My brother will try to drag me too it but I'll have to put my foot down I suppose.
In July, there's going to be "Hancock," about a boozing washed up Superhero vagrant. I dunno about it. the trailers make me nervous. If the joke is played mostly as a look at celebrity downfall and recovery as applied to a Superman-esque character, it could be good. But if the joke is played as racist, then that would be bad. Based on the trailers, it could go either way. And did you know there's a Batman movie coming? Unfortunately, it's a direct sequel to Batman Begins. But I'll end up seeing it anyway, because Batman is the core of my geek life and to me is up there with family and religion, so I'm duty-bound to check it out. But I think I'll end up liking the tie-in video "Batman: Gotham Knight" a whole lot more. Kevin Conroy back as Batman! Yay! And that Batman vs. Deadshot sequence looks totally awesome.
That's it for my summer up keep. Look out for future editions! or not!