Once again, I find myself with a bunch of movies, and very little to say about them- I really hope this doesn't become a trend because it's quite annoying. Luckily this time the movies I have on hand are at least thematically linked, unlike my previous multi-film review.
See up until recently, my ban on seeing films in theatres was lifted for super-hero movies, because for the most part, the recent output of them has been positive. However with the rising prices and my own growing apathy, I started saying meh to going to see even these. As luck would have it, my brother did not feel the same and still saw them, and then got them on blu-ray- which allowed me to watch them for free.
Now as many of you know, Marvel is prepping for this year's release of The Avengers, and I will admit, the trailers have me excited too. But I figured before I can really get into the hype, I need to actually see the rest of the films leading up to this event. So I called up my brother and asked to borrow Iron Man 2, Thor, and Captain America, and though it took me some time, as of this past weekend, all three have been viewed and returned to his movie shelf (which pales compared to mine thank you very much).
Now I will state going in that none of these films are ground-breaking; they are no Dark Knight. That said, all three have their merits, and I'm gonna talk about them now, in order.
Iron Man 2 (2010)
First off, I enjoyed the Hell out of the first Iron Man, and while I'm not a huge fan of the comics- I own one issue I picked up at a comic shop in my youth simply because the cover, which proclaimed "In the morning Tony Stark will be sober, or dead" intrigued me. I can say I know enough about the character to know they got a lot of things right. Most of my knowledge comes from the early 90s Iron Man animated series, and, as with most of my recent comic wisdom, various Wikipedia expeditions while bored. Either way, I knew enough to be satisfied with how the first film turned out. Trailers for the second film looked promising, as did Mickey Rourke's villain role, although I was not a fan of the recasting of James Rhodes, but I was still intrigued by the film. But did it meet expectations or surpass them like the first?
Plot
After revealing his identity as Iron Man at the end of the first film, billionaire Tony Stark, played again by Robert Downey Jr., is subpoenaed by the United States Government, who want the Iron Man armor for their own ends, and have sought the aid of Stark rival Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, and Stark's best friend Colonel James Rhodes, played this time by Don Cheadle. Stark is able to stave off the Government and humiliate Hammer and leaves to the cheers of the crowd- but not everyone is happy. In Russia, a dangerous man by the name of Ivan Vanko, played by the formidable Mickey Rourke, watches Stark celebrate on television as his sick father dies. He then sets about using blueprints for an arc reactor like Stark's to build one, along with weapons to go with it. Once completed, he attacks Stark while the latter is participating in a race, and while Stark is able to use another version of his armor to defeat Vanko, this is only the beginning of his problems. His own reactor is poisoning him, Hammer decides to join forces with Vanko, and Nick Fury and his people at S.H.I.E.L.D, including special operative Natasha Romanoff, also known as The Black Widow, played by Scarlet Johansson, are watching.
Thoughts
The biggest problem I had with Iron Man 2 is it comes dangerously close to suffering from Batman and Robin syndrome. For those unaware, one of the big problems with Batman and Robin, and trust me there are plenty to chose from, is there are too many characters and little time for us to care about any of them. In that film we had Batman/Bruce Wayne, Robin/Dick Grayson, Barbra Wilson/Batgirl, Alfred, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane (though no one cared about Bane). That's six main characters and one pointless muscle added in because they could. In Iron Man 2, we have Tony of course, his assistant and love interest Pepper Potts, James Rhodes, Justin Hammer, Ivan Vanko, Natasha, with Nick Fury, Happy Hogan and Agent Coulson with enough screentime to count somewhat. Either way, that's again six characters that we somehow have to keep track of and care about to one degree or another. I don't know about anyone else, but for me this made enjoying the movie difficult because there was not enough development for me to be interested in the majority of them. Another Batman and Robin comparison that can be made, although it seems to be the superhero film formula, is the need for more then one villain in the sequel. To me, Vanko could have easily been a villain on his own- his character was interesting, you could tell he was smart enough to go toe to toe with Tony and he had power to back it up. Justin Hammer, if he had been more like his comic book incarnation, could also have been a villain on his own. But with the two of them in the same movie they have to split the villain role, so instead of one great villain we get two okay ones, as neither are as developed as they could have been if there had only been one of them.
Another issue I have is the recasting of James Rhodes. To me, in the first film, Terrance Howard did a fine job. He was a military man sure, but he had enough bad ass in him that you knew that when he eventually put on the War Machine armor, he could beat Tony if the need arose. He just had the attitude that the character needed. No offense to Don Cheadle, the man is a great actor but this was not the role for him. Cheadle has the air of respectability to him- you could see him as someone high up in the military or Government, but not as the Colonel who also happens to be buddies with the billionaire industrialist Tony Stark. So really, his replacing Howard in the Rhodes role did not sit well with me and really took away from the film.
That being said, I enjoyed the film to a degree- it has its flaws but was at least entertaining. Unlike Batman and Robin I do not hate this film- it just does not live up to the first one, at least according to me. It tries to do too much with not enough time, and while it succeeds at some things it does not with others. As a whole the film seemed less a sequel and more a prequel to The Avengers, with it's introduction of Black Widow, Nick Fury's expanded role, and more information about S.H.I.E.L.D, the Avengers Initiative, and such. I feel if they were not making an Avengers movie then this sequel would likely have been somewhat different, but that's just me.
Conclusion
Iron Man 2 is alright, it's not it's predecessor, but it's also not Batman and Robin. It has its merits and it's flaws, but it's an entertaining film and at least succeeds as a sequel in that the story does continue. Trim out a few characters, flesh out the ones that remain and save most of The Avengers stuff for the Avengers and the film might be stronger, but that's just my opinion. If you enjoyed the first definitely see the second, if not, you likely wouldn't be watching it anyway.
3 Drunk and Armored Superheroes out of 5
Thor (2011)
Now we go to the other end of the knowledge spectrum- see Thor did not have a cartoon for me to watch in the 90s, nor was I really aware of his comics. I sort of knew of him, in as much as I knew that there was a comic character based on the Norse God- I knew of the God because I had a DOS game called God of Thunder in which one played Thor. It was entertaining and I found a copy recently for my laptop for nostalgia value. Anyway, any knowledge I had about the character came from Wikipedia, and a book I used to read from my local library that was essentially a superhero encyclopedia (although it is quite dated). So really unlike Iron Man, going into Thor I had little to go with, which sometimes works out for the best. Knowing too much can make you judgemental, knowing little gives you an open mind. But did it matter? Let's find out.
Plot
In 965AD, Odin, King of the Norse Gods, played by Anthony Hopkins, led his army to victory against their mortal enemies, the Frost Giants, taking the source of their power as to prevent them from ever trying to conquer other realms. He tells his sons, Thor and Loki, of the battle, and both speak of becoming great warriors in their own right and following in their father footsteps. In the present era, Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth, is preparing to do just that, and take his place on the throne, However the ceremony is interrupted by an attempt made by three Frost Giants to retrieve their stolen weapon. Though all three perish, Thor decides to take the fight to them- against his father's wishes. Accompanied by Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, and fellow warriors Sif, Volstagg, Fandral and Hogun, Thor confronts Laufey, King of the Frost Giants,and a battle ensues. Odin intervenes to save his fellow Asgardians, but it is too late to save the truce between the two sides and Laufey warns Odin that war will begin anew. On returning to Asgard, Odin strips Thor of his godhood and exiles him to another realm- that of earth. He then sends Thor's legendary hammer, Mjolnir, to earth as well, with an enchantment that will only allow one who is worthy to wield it. Upon reaching Earth, specifically New Mexico, Thor is found by Jane Foster, played by Natalie Portman, and her fellow researchers, who are studying wormholes, such as the one that appeared the night Thor showed up. With their help, Thor finds the crashed Mjolnir, but realizes he cannot lift it as he is no longer worthy. Meanwhile in Asgard, Loki discovers Odin took something else when the far ended- a child. With Odin incapacitated in a great sleep, Loki assumes the throne and begins to make his own preparations for war, and to make sure Thor never returns.
Thoughts
Most superhero movies, regardless of the director, look like superhero movies. Thor, when it begins, does not. You would think you'd accidently put on Lord of The Rings, as for a good chunk of the opening the film has more in common with such fare then it does with Iron Man. War between Gods and Giants, swords and sorcery- not your standard superhero fare. But then, that's the point, as Thor's story is not a traditional superhero story. It is a story about family, about brothers, about learning what it means to be a good man- it's not about strength as much as wisdom, the lesson Thor needs to learn to truly be King.
That said, the film works well- the character of Thor starts off as an arrogant asshole, but as he begins to live as a human we begin to sympathize with him and care about him. His interactions with Jane are important to the film, although I was not too keen on them- to be honest, I enjoyed the goings on in Asgard more then those on Earth, but that's just me. That might have to do with Loki, who is not a traditional superhero villain with some grand scheme- he is a boy trying to escape the shadow of his brother and prove to his father that he is a worthy son. Yes he goes about it wrong but you can see he is conflicted.
Remember what I said about Iron Man 2's characters not being developed enough- this film does it right. Thor and Loki are well developed, and their supporting cast are given enough time for us to care about them and understand their motivations. The film isn't perfect of course, as I said I found some of the stuff on Earth to be filler, but I understand they needed to have situations and characters that Thor could interact with and learn from, and I understood the need to include S.H.I.E.L.D again in preparation for the Avengers- speaking of, although he is not named as such and barely seen, I did like the introduction of sorts of archer Clint Barton, a.k.a Hawkeye, played by one of my favorite actors Jeremy Renner.
Conclusion
With my limited knowledge of the character, I can honestly say I enjoyed the film. I found it a lot better then Iron Man 2, but still not perfect. It has a good story and cast, and is enjoyable for people who don't know much about the character. I'd consider it a pretty good introduction of the character and I am interested to see what they do next, both with The Avengers and in the likely sequel. I'll be watching.
3.5 Mystical Hammers out of 5
Captain America: The First Avenger
It's a funny thing, when I was a kid, I knew very little about superheroes, yet when my brother, father and I would play at the park, for some reason I decided I would be Captain America (which in retrospect was really an odd choice for a Canadian). I think it was the shield- I'd seen a toy commercial where the Cap. Toy could throw the shield and that just seemed really cool to me. Of course around this time in my life, a Captain America movie existed- the 1990 version.
Yes, I saw it. A few times actually, but don't ask me what I thought about it then because Hell if I remember. In retrospect I can say that it's a really shitty movie, and the moment I saw the trailer for the new one, I had a good feeling. Comparing the two just based on that is like this: the differences between the two is equal to if prior to The Dark Knight, the only Batman film in existence was the 1966 Adam West one. But at least that film had some camp value, the 1990 Captain America film only has 'what-the-hell-were-they-thinking; value. Heck, I couldn't even get through the Nostalgia Critic's review of it! That said going in to this one, I knew enough about the character and his backstory, and had enough hope that I felt I could enjoy it.
Plot
It's 1942, and the Second World War is going strong. In New York, Steve Rogers, a frail man played by a CG skinny Chris Evans, is rejected for military duty for poor health and physical issues. We find out that this is not his first attempt nor his first rejection, nor his last. While attending the Stark Expo with friend Bucky Barnes, played by Sebastion Stan, Rogers explains his desire to do something for the greater good in the war, a conversation overheard by Dr. Abraham Erskine, played by Stanley Tucci. When Rogers attempts to enlist at a recruitment station at the Expo, Erksine pulls some strings to get him in as he feels Rogers is a good man and just the right person for his Super Soldier experiment. Although Colonel Philips, played by Tommy Lee Jones disagrees, he relents after observing Roger's self-sacrifice during training. While this is going on, Nazi officer Johaan Schmidt, played by Hugo Weaving, has stolen a mysterious object that his associate, Dr. Arnim Zola, uses to power extremely advanced weapons for the Nazi. Word reaches Schmidt that Erksine has been discovered in America, and sends an assassin to kill him. The assassin succeeds, but not before Rogers is subjected to the super-soldier treatment and emerges taller, stronger, and faster then he was before. Being the only one of his kind, Rogers is used as a propaganda piece, until he discovers Bucky's platoon has been taken captive. Defying orders he mounts a one man rescue mission to save his friend and his fellow soldiers, coming face to face with Schmidt, who has cut ties with the Nazi's and created his own organization- HYDRA. Schmidt reveals that he too was given the super soldier treatment, although it had a side-effect, burning off the skin on his face so that it became a skull, and earning him his title- The Red Skull. From there the two foes are on a collision course that will end the war, and possible both of them along the way,
Thoughts
I loved this movie. See, when I watched Iron Man 2 and Thor, I admit there were moments, more in the former then the latter, when I was bored and fast-forwarded the film. During my viewing of Captain America, not only did I not do this once, the idea never crossed my mind. I was caught up in the film much that save for a few minor moments, I enjoyed it start to finish. Just as Thor was a fantasy film mixed with a superhero film, Captain America is a World War Two film that happens to have a superhero and villain in it. Which is exactly what it should be, as when you get right down to it, that's what the original Captain America comics really were- they were the adventures of this superhero during the second World War- hell, he punched Hitler in the face more then once! The War aspect comes first, with the superheroics second, and I feel that was to the films benefit.
The cast do quite well in their roles- Chris Evans embodies the everyman quality that is central to Captain America's character- he doesn't have a tragic backstory like Batman, or great powers like Superman- he is just a guy who wanted to do the right thing, and was given the opportunity to do so. He is stronger, faster and has greater stamina then normal men, but he is not Hulk strong or Flash fast. This makes him relatable, and Evans does this quite well. Likewise, Hugo Weaving is in a class of actors that just work as bad guys. Like Tim Curry or Michael Wincott (check IMDB, you know this guy), Weaving just has this it factor to him that allows him to sink into the villain role very well. He is intimidating, which the Red Skull needs to be even before it is revealed that he has a literal Red Skull. From the moment he appears on screen you know he is someone to be feared. The supporting cast do their jobs well for the most part- Jones is essentially playing Tommy Lee Jones, army mode, which is fine. Tucci plays the kind scientist/mentor figure well although you know early on he is not going to make it. Bucky and the rest of Captain America's unit (essentially the Howling Commandoes) are alright although for the most part they have little characterization outside of being an ethnically diverse battalion itching for battle. Dominic Cooper's role as Howard Stark is entertaining, and you can see similarities between his portrayl and Downey Jr.'s portrayl of Stark's son Tony- both have a bit of an asshole streak in them but they are good people and they make great weapons.
The film is not perfect, but the little issues I had are not even worth bringing up as they are just nitpicks, such as the cliched moment when a woman kisses Rogers in front of his love interest to add tension- it's been done a hundred times, it's pointless but it's also not hurting anyone so I can allow it.
Conclusion
Of the three Marvel films I watched, I have to say when it was over, I liked Captain America the best. It just flowed a lot better, the story seemed to gel along with the characters and there was little to no filler to be had. The cast is good, the writing is good, and I can't wait to see what they do with the character in the Avengers, both from a film standpoint and also from a character standpoint, as he is a man from the 40s trying to understand the present day, which has always been an important aspect of Cap. All in all, a good movie that could easily stand alone, moreso then the previous two, and is worth a watch even if you don't plan on seeing the Avengers.
4 Star-Spangled Shields out of 5
That's all out of me, until next time I'm The Drew and I Be Awesome!
No comments:
Post a Comment