DAA DAAAA DADADA, DUDDLE DUDDLE LUDDA LA DA DA DAAA~
(That, um, that was me humming/singing "Iron Man." In text.)
So, so far for 2010, there are only two movies I was really excited about. This is one of them. (The other is Sands of Time, which I know probably won't be anything special given video game movies' track record, but dangit I loved that game and I need to see how the silver-screen version compares. Ahem. Anyway. Moving on.)
I'll come out and say it straight away: In my opinion, Iron Man 2 is not as good as the first film.
However, it's still certainly not bad. I've seen worse sequels, and IM2 is entertaining in its own right--worth seeing once, doubly so if you were a fan of the first film, but it still lacks a lot of the magic of its predecessor. Iron Man himself has, in spite of my love of comics, never really been a character I knew much about (and what knowledge I do have of him mostly comes from research I did prior to the first film), so that also makes this movie series in particular more "new" to me, which is exciting.
A large part of the film is driven by an underlying subplot--Tony is dying. It turns out he never really considered the consequences of having an arc reactor in his body long-term, and the palladium batteries it runs on are poisoning him due to constant exposure. He's been researching possibilities for an alternate power source, but seems to keep hitting dead ends, and is coping with the possibility that he could die very soon. Meanwhile, his company's still in a bit of a dive, the public is divided as to whether Iron Man is awesome or dangerous, and the US Government is demanding Tony hand over the suit for military application rather than private use. Meanwhile, far off in Siberia, a man with some interesting connections to the Stark family is watching Tony's fame grow...and he's not happy. Not at all.
For this little overview, I'd actually like to start with the negatives, then move on to the positives so we can hit this on a high note. Ready, annnd go.
Showing posts with label Cricket Movie Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cricket Movie Reviews. Show all posts
11.9.09
Cricket Movie Review: 9 (Also Up and District 9)
So, 9 came out a couple days ago. It's a movie I've been fairly excited about, for a few reasons--
1) I like sci-fi.
2) In addition liking sci-fi, I like the specific niches of dystopian and post-apocalypse sci-fi.
3) I'm a fan of (good) animation, and this certainly didn't look disappointing in that regard.
4) The character designs seemed interesting.
5) A really, really well-put-together trailer is usually a good sign.
So, I wasn't expecting anything earth-shaking--just a good, quality, for-a-slightly-older-audience piece of post-apocalyptic animation.
I'm going to be pretty frank and brief, because I haven't been keeping up on my movie reviews.
1) I like sci-fi.
2) In addition liking sci-fi, I like the specific niches of dystopian and post-apocalypse sci-fi.
3) I'm a fan of (good) animation, and this certainly didn't look disappointing in that regard.
4) The character designs seemed interesting.
5) A really, really well-put-together trailer is usually a good sign.
So, I wasn't expecting anything earth-shaking--just a good, quality, for-a-slightly-older-audience piece of post-apocalyptic animation.
I'm going to be pretty frank and brief, because I haven't been keeping up on my movie reviews.
23.3.09
Watchmen Review—Second Look
I know my review of Watchmen was many things, among them rambling, indecisive, faintly hypocritical (with regards to the objectivity), and exceedingly, exceedingly lengthy. I concede that it’s a tricky movie to review, and that I didn’t allow enough time for my thoughts to truly settle before writing it. This, therefore, is an attempt at two things: to sort of condense some of my points of the first review, without retreading things like the plot synopsis; and to sort of show how some opinions have changed slightly with a second viewing.
Yes, I felt I was ready to see it a second time, and did. And overall, I felt a little more warmly towards it this time around. Some of the changes I feel like I understood better, I was able to truly appreciate the efforts that were put into it a bit more, and by not having such a self-stated focus on “viewing it objectively,” I found myself suddenly actually able to do so. So, with that said:
- I partially rescind any of my earlier comments about the movie possibly being confusing to people who are entirely unfamiliar with the book. Parts of it definitely still will be, but many of them are details—I think a second viewing helped me see how Snyder fit the pieces together, and the results are more coherent than I first felt.
- I more readily accept some of the song choices, though a few of them, I feel, still don’t fit—“99 Red Balloons” fits from a content perspective but has the wrong feel, and the use of “Hallelujah” is still a bad choice.
- I still think the parts where additional violence was utilized—most particularly Rorschach’s “birth” scene and a brief moment in the prison scene—are gratuitous and unnecessary, and the changes could have been implemented in other ways.
- The Dan/Laurie Owlship sex scene is as poorly handled, laughable, and farcical as ever. Sorry Zack, you still fail here.
- I rescind my comments about some of Jack Haley’s lines as Rorschach coming off as “melodramatic.” I think I was more trying to get used to his voice. On the flipside, however, I did start to notice more that they made Nite Owl more melodramatic, but I’m okay with this in the context of the film.
- I felt a little more positive towards how Matthew Goode portrayed Adrian, but overall he’s still the weakest character in the film, and still a bit mischaracterized.
- Malin Ackerman(Laurie)’s lines actually felt a bit flat to me this time around, something I don’t think I noticed in my first viewing.
- The results that come from the new ending still don’t quite work, entirely, if you stop to think about it.
- Whoever they got to play Nixon still looks and sounds ridiculous, though I’m still not entirely sure if that wasn’t the intent (i.e. if it’s supposed to be more of a caricature of Nixon rather than a realistic representation).
All this said, I would like to revise my original score. My first review gave Watchmen a 3 out of 5 crickets. I would like to bump that up to a 4. There’s still a few too many issues with it to give it a shot at fivedom, but I think I was a bit quick to judge it as much as I did—I needed a second viewing, to watch it with my inner fanboy now calmed down. No matter what, though, I still recommend reading the book. I’m glad it’s getting the exposure that the film is now giving it. Every time I see another person on a bus reading it for what seems like the first time I smile.
Holden Out.
Yes, I felt I was ready to see it a second time, and did. And overall, I felt a little more warmly towards it this time around. Some of the changes I feel like I understood better, I was able to truly appreciate the efforts that were put into it a bit more, and by not having such a self-stated focus on “viewing it objectively,” I found myself suddenly actually able to do so. So, with that said:
- I partially rescind any of my earlier comments about the movie possibly being confusing to people who are entirely unfamiliar with the book. Parts of it definitely still will be, but many of them are details—I think a second viewing helped me see how Snyder fit the pieces together, and the results are more coherent than I first felt.
- I more readily accept some of the song choices, though a few of them, I feel, still don’t fit—“99 Red Balloons” fits from a content perspective but has the wrong feel, and the use of “Hallelujah” is still a bad choice.
- I still think the parts where additional violence was utilized—most particularly Rorschach’s “birth” scene and a brief moment in the prison scene—are gratuitous and unnecessary, and the changes could have been implemented in other ways.
- The Dan/Laurie Owlship sex scene is as poorly handled, laughable, and farcical as ever. Sorry Zack, you still fail here.
- I rescind my comments about some of Jack Haley’s lines as Rorschach coming off as “melodramatic.” I think I was more trying to get used to his voice. On the flipside, however, I did start to notice more that they made Nite Owl more melodramatic, but I’m okay with this in the context of the film.
- I felt a little more positive towards how Matthew Goode portrayed Adrian, but overall he’s still the weakest character in the film, and still a bit mischaracterized.
- Malin Ackerman(Laurie)’s lines actually felt a bit flat to me this time around, something I don’t think I noticed in my first viewing.
- The results that come from the new ending still don’t quite work, entirely, if you stop to think about it.
- Whoever they got to play Nixon still looks and sounds ridiculous, though I’m still not entirely sure if that wasn’t the intent (i.e. if it’s supposed to be more of a caricature of Nixon rather than a realistic representation).
All this said, I would like to revise my original score. My first review gave Watchmen a 3 out of 5 crickets. I would like to bump that up to a 4. There’s still a few too many issues with it to give it a shot at fivedom, but I think I was a bit quick to judge it as much as I did—I needed a second viewing, to watch it with my inner fanboy now calmed down. No matter what, though, I still recommend reading the book. I’m glad it’s getting the exposure that the film is now giving it. Every time I see another person on a bus reading it for what seems like the first time I smile.
Holden Out.
7.3.09
Cricket Movie Review: Watchmen
(A warning, before I begin: This is a fairly long entry.)
Watchmen.
A book that’s often considered one of the greatest graphic novels yet written. While I do refute that claim, it’s nonetheless a personal favourite of mine. Alan Moore was one of the first to really deconstruct the notion of a superhero and, in a way, make us sort of glad they don’t exist. It took a couple readings for it to grow on me, and sometime after that I found myself dressing up as Rorschach for a convention and sporting a blood-spattered comedian pin on a favourite old jacket decorated with other comics-related pins (which I refer to as, logically and affectionately, my “comics jacket”). So needless to say I was excited about the adaption, to see how it panned out.
It’s also long been considered an “unfilmable” book, and the history of its being made into a film has been a long and arduous one filled to bursting with problems. There’s been tons of various scripts by just as many tons of screenwriters and directors, with tons of different perspectives an adaptations. It’s something that’s boiled in development hell for years, and don’t even get me started on the legal disputes that embarked during the development of the version that’s finally made it into theaters that, for a time, looked like it might keep it out of them. So on one hand, I certainly recognize the challenges associated with the conversion. Think about it—think about audience alone, when you decide to make a movie based on a very dense and layered piece of writing that’s highly admired by until recently a fairly niche population. A movie will attract a wider range of people than a book potentially will, and all this has to be accounted for. In the audience there will be uberfans, casual fans, people vaguely familiar with the work on some level, people who aren’t aware there was a work the movie is based on, people who didn’t even like the work but hope the retelling redeems it for them somehow, and even more. How do you create something that will appeal to all these? That will contain enough winking inside references, charactorial correctness, and major plot detail inclusion to sate the fanboys/girls but present things in such a way as to not be confusing or exclusive to people that are less familiar?
Watchmen.
A book that’s often considered one of the greatest graphic novels yet written. While I do refute that claim, it’s nonetheless a personal favourite of mine. Alan Moore was one of the first to really deconstruct the notion of a superhero and, in a way, make us sort of glad they don’t exist. It took a couple readings for it to grow on me, and sometime after that I found myself dressing up as Rorschach for a convention and sporting a blood-spattered comedian pin on a favourite old jacket decorated with other comics-related pins (which I refer to as, logically and affectionately, my “comics jacket”). So needless to say I was excited about the adaption, to see how it panned out.
It’s also long been considered an “unfilmable” book, and the history of its being made into a film has been a long and arduous one filled to bursting with problems. There’s been tons of various scripts by just as many tons of screenwriters and directors, with tons of different perspectives an adaptations. It’s something that’s boiled in development hell for years, and don’t even get me started on the legal disputes that embarked during the development of the version that’s finally made it into theaters that, for a time, looked like it might keep it out of them. So on one hand, I certainly recognize the challenges associated with the conversion. Think about it—think about audience alone, when you decide to make a movie based on a very dense and layered piece of writing that’s highly admired by until recently a fairly niche population. A movie will attract a wider range of people than a book potentially will, and all this has to be accounted for. In the audience there will be uberfans, casual fans, people vaguely familiar with the work on some level, people who aren’t aware there was a work the movie is based on, people who didn’t even like the work but hope the retelling redeems it for them somehow, and even more. How do you create something that will appeal to all these? That will contain enough winking inside references, charactorial correctness, and major plot detail inclusion to sate the fanboys/girls but present things in such a way as to not be confusing or exclusive to people that are less familiar?
16.2.09
Cricket Movie Review: Coraline
Introducing for the first time on Overreactionary another more sporadic feature: movie reviews. Or as they'll be known, "Cricket Movie Reviews," a title left over from the place I formerly posted them. (There, my username had to do with crickets...Van Crick, Crickets, play on words, eh? And even though it makes much less sense now in the context of this blog, I like the sound enough that I'm keepin' it. Just plain "movie reviews" doesn't sound very exciting.)
Like the Sunday Comics feature, I stick to a format here: A general, non-spoiler plot synopsis, some good bits, some less good bits, some final impressions and words, and a rating.
Coraline
~~~
Plot: Coraline Jones' life could be worse, but it could be a lot better too. Her parents often just seem...too busy for her, and the new house they've moved into doesn't seem to offer much in the way of excitement. Her eccentric neighbors are interesting at best, a bit unnerving at worst, and she doesn't take too well to the one boy her age. But then she discovers a small door in the living room wall...a door that, at certain points in the night, leads to an alternate dimension of sorts centered around Coraline's happiness. Everyone there is happy to see her and seems, curiously, to exist only for her benefit, and everyone and everything there certainly appears more polished, bright, and attractive...with the single disquieting detail that everyone there has buttons sewn in place of eyes. This disquiet will only justifiably grow as she starts to learn the rather dark truth about the sugary otherworld...and make her appreciate what she has back in the real one.
The Good: The art direction is well-concieved and the animation, save for a few small hitches here and there which might have been projector hiccups, is quite impressive--stop-motion isn't easy to do, especially not for a feature-length production, and especially not stop-motion as frequently smooth as this. It's a very pretty movie to look at, and despite the surreality of the plot, setting, and characters, the people and places feel very real, tangible places you could actually visit and people you could, on one of your odder days, actually meet. It also manages to hit a successful tone of creepiness throughout, which is necessary considering it's based off a horror novella (penned by Neil Gaiman, no less...a wonderful comicker). Some of the lines from Coraline's all-too-cheerful "Other Mother" in particular rubbed you the wrong way in the best way possible.
The Bad: Coraline is initially a difficult character to sympathize with, as she's kind of bratty, but I get the feeling this was intentional, to better underscore her change of perception and heart nearer to the end. This movie also has a bit of a pacing issue...it moves just a tad slowly, and I think there could have been an occasional montage or summation shown to better move the action in spots. I also think this film's really going to have some problems further down the line finding a target audience...though billed as a family film and based off a horror novella written for children/young teenagers, I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the content in here would be too scary for your average child (8-9 and below, at least)...and given its targeting it probably won't reach a large chunk of the late-teen and adult audience that would be better able to appreciate the creepiness without fear of nightmares.
Overall: Coraline earns a four out of a possible five crickets. I'd see it again, but the mentioned pacing problem is enough of a detractor to keep it from reaching a five.
Holden Out.
Like the Sunday Comics feature, I stick to a format here: A general, non-spoiler plot synopsis, some good bits, some less good bits, some final impressions and words, and a rating.
Coraline
~~~
Plot: Coraline Jones' life could be worse, but it could be a lot better too. Her parents often just seem...too busy for her, and the new house they've moved into doesn't seem to offer much in the way of excitement. Her eccentric neighbors are interesting at best, a bit unnerving at worst, and she doesn't take too well to the one boy her age. But then she discovers a small door in the living room wall...a door that, at certain points in the night, leads to an alternate dimension of sorts centered around Coraline's happiness. Everyone there is happy to see her and seems, curiously, to exist only for her benefit, and everyone and everything there certainly appears more polished, bright, and attractive...with the single disquieting detail that everyone there has buttons sewn in place of eyes. This disquiet will only justifiably grow as she starts to learn the rather dark truth about the sugary otherworld...and make her appreciate what she has back in the real one.
The Good: The art direction is well-concieved and the animation, save for a few small hitches here and there which might have been projector hiccups, is quite impressive--stop-motion isn't easy to do, especially not for a feature-length production, and especially not stop-motion as frequently smooth as this. It's a very pretty movie to look at, and despite the surreality of the plot, setting, and characters, the people and places feel very real, tangible places you could actually visit and people you could, on one of your odder days, actually meet. It also manages to hit a successful tone of creepiness throughout, which is necessary considering it's based off a horror novella (penned by Neil Gaiman, no less...a wonderful comicker). Some of the lines from Coraline's all-too-cheerful "Other Mother" in particular rubbed you the wrong way in the best way possible.
The Bad: Coraline is initially a difficult character to sympathize with, as she's kind of bratty, but I get the feeling this was intentional, to better underscore her change of perception and heart nearer to the end. This movie also has a bit of a pacing issue...it moves just a tad slowly, and I think there could have been an occasional montage or summation shown to better move the action in spots. I also think this film's really going to have some problems further down the line finding a target audience...though billed as a family film and based off a horror novella written for children/young teenagers, I'm pretty sure a good chunk of the content in here would be too scary for your average child (8-9 and below, at least)...and given its targeting it probably won't reach a large chunk of the late-teen and adult audience that would be better able to appreciate the creepiness without fear of nightmares.
Overall: Coraline earns a four out of a possible five crickets. I'd see it again, but the mentioned pacing problem is enough of a detractor to keep it from reaching a five.
Holden Out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)