Minor spoilers ahead.
In short, I was very impressed. The movie had its share of special effects, being a summer blockbuster and all, but this was a character story at heart, and it wasn't overshadowed by the effects.
Robert Downey Jr. could not have been more perfectly cast as Tony Stark/Ironman. It was a nice change of pace to see an older superhero who has had some life experience, and hasn't exactly led the most perfect life, being a bit of a drinker and womanizer. Downey brings a perfect amount of humor and charm to the character, and is very entertaining to watch. His character change through the course of the movie is drastic, but believable thanks to good writing and good acting. I know the Oscars tend to ignore summer popcorn movies, but as of now, I consider Downey to be a viable nominee for Best Actor. Besides, the way the ratings have gone for the Oscars, maybe it will help to lure more viewers if they nominated movies that more than 12 people have seen, rather than the usual downbeat artsy-fartsy fare. And I know it was two years ago, but how the hell does a film like "Crash" win Best Picture?
Anyway, Ironman offers a great balance of action and character development. The special effects were good, but not quite mind-blowing, but, like I said, this movie isn't about special effects, it's about characters. So, the summer movie season has officially kicked off with a winner.
Also, this is the first film produced by Marvel Studios. It was risky considering the casting, but it paid off. Their other movie this summer, "The Incredible Hulk," is an even bigger risk. The first "Hulk," directed by the usually great Ang Lee, was a critical failure, a box-office disappointment, and personally, it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
This new "Hulk" is a reboot of the series, and it stars Edward Norton, it's directed by the French dude who directed "The Transporter," and is supposed to have a lot more action than the first movie. Also, there is an actual villain this time, and not just cartoon mutated dogs and Nick Nolte. This time, we have Abomination, who is capable of smashing just as much stuff as the Hulk.
Supposedly Norton and the director had a spat, because Norton wanted the movie to be longer and more character-oriented. What a shock, because Edward Norton is usually very mild-mannered and easy to work with.
Anyway, I have a feeling this might work because Norton is one of the best actors out there, and frankly, they have nowhere to go but up, because it simply can't get any worse than the first "Hulk." A lot depends on what the critics think and word of mouth. I will report back in a few weeks.
Now, for the super quick DVD reviews:
"National Treasure: Book of Secrets:" A fun ride, underrated by critics. If you liked the first one, this is just as good.
"The Golden Compass:" Mediocre. A waste of a $180 million budget.
3 comments:
TOTALLY disagree with you about "The Golden Compass." I found it unbelievably engaging and innovative. It's a damn shame no one went to see it, because I really want to see a sequel. Those special effects were fantastic! A well-deserved Oscar.
Good effects, but not as good as Transformers. CGI animals, been there, done that (Jurassic Park movies, Narnia). The special effects in Transformers were truly mind-blowing and totally photo-realistic. And they pulled it off for less money than "The Golden Compass."
As much as I loved Transformers, it was kinda hard to distinguish between the robots. I've seen it like five times, and I still can't tell who's who. "The Golden Compass" took the talking animal thing to a whole other level. The animal CGI was the best I have seen...EVER. I need to watch it again, but I'm still defending it.
Post a Comment