After Iron Man came Incredible Hulk, which was okay. Hulk movies have the same problem as Superman movies, in that it's tough to create real drama because you never doubt that the Hulk is going to smash the bad guys in the end. Ed Norton is solid, Liv Tyler is about as good ("meh" good) as Jennifer Connelly was in the Hulk movie they made about half an hour before this one. One advantage the prior movie had was its inventiveness with the screen, where they split it up to make it look more like a comic book. I did like William Hirt as the scheming-yet-probably-not-altogether-evil general. Tim Roth acted the part of the Hulk's opponent well, but I've seen The Legend of 1900 too many times to see him as anything but a piano player.
After Hulk came Get Smart. Expectations were low, as I'd watched and enjoyed the TV series when it ran on Nick at Nite ages ago. The show was quirky and funny, with a good deal of inventiveness to offset the standard Cold War storylines. I just didn't think the movie version would measure up in any way. I was wrong.
They managed to plug in just enough homages to the old show--shoe phone, "Missed it by that much!", "Would you believe . . ." while at the same time updating the storylines and character attitudes for today's audience. You wouldn't have had to see the old show to enjoy the movie, but you would have enjoyed it more. The villains aren't scary or malicious, but Get Smart isn't a seriously intense world. Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway are good as Maxwell Smart and Agent 99. I was very pleasantly surprised with Carell, who managed to meld the Don Adams original Max with his own quirks and personality. It was marvelously done, in fact. I laughed and laughed.
For a period of time, one of my movie buddies in DC was a college friend who enjoyed going to the theater as much as I did. One more than one occasion we doubled up and saw two movies in a day, and on one memorable day we saw not one, not two, but three movies on one day. I think one was a Star Wars movie and another a Scooby Doo. The third escapes me at the moment (and likely for eternity). After she left for another part of the country, my cousin Catie became my movie buddy. This greatly helped her case in being named my favorite cousin. (though I don't think we ever doubled up. She had things like "a life" and "friends" to take care of...)
Alas, I am 1200 miles and a whole time zone away from her now, so I've had to find a new buddy. Or in this case, buddies. Three of my Sylvester cousins are remarkably reliable on short notice when asked "Hey, do y'all want to see Wolverine this afternoon?" So off we went. In short, it's all right. I think they massaged some of the timeline to update it, but I'd have to look into it to be sure, and I don't feel like, and it's not terribly important anyway. The fight scene at the end is pretty good, and I wish it could have lasted a bit longer.
Note: I just can never buy Ryan Reynolds as a tough guy. I've seen Smokin' Aces (and regrettably heard a girl on the metro say, "That was such a good movie." No, it wasn't. It was good for four minutes, then bad for the next five. Good for three, bad for four. Good for four, bad for three. You get the point. It could've been so much better) and Blade: Trinity, and I just don't buy it. If the ladies and alternate lifestyle gentlemen want to rave about his abs, that's fine. I just don't feel the tough guy.
I Netflixed The Departed and was prepared for a solid movie that went nuts at the end. This was based on the buzz and commentary I'd heard about it. The commentary was right. "Wha...??" I don't mind twists and yowza moments to wind down a film, but my gripe is that they should always make sense within the context of what's come before. You don't have to tell me it's coming, but I should be completely blindsided by someone who's been on screen for maybe 120 seconds till now and suddenly shows up to change the whole world, either.
It won Best Picture, though I thought The Queen was better. Scorcese won Best Director, but a lot of people said it was more of a lifetime achievement award than for this one. the story's a little shaky, but on the plus side, I felt like it was extremely well-acted. It's tempting to dismiss Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor because we may think of him as a pretty boy, but he's been really good in some really good movies, going back to at least What's Eating Gilbert Grape?
Note: DiCaprio's IMDB page shows 21 titles "under development" for him at the moment. Is that high? I have no idea. Anyway, one of them is titled "Akira." As we all know, Akira is one of the classics in anime film, based on a manga of the same name. The movie is great. If they're remaking it or making a live version, they'd better strap themselves in, because they've got their work cut out for them.
Additional note: A FB friend of mine (who I didn't speak to or even know the whereabouts of for at least the last 20 years, and don't speak to now except to comment on a status update or posting--you know the drill) posted a list of movies that have remakes planned:
Alien, Predator, Vally Girl, Romancing the Stone, Karate Kid, Cliffhanger, Red Dawn, Fright Night, True Grit, The Thing, The Crow, and Total Recall.
I strongly advise against trying to tackle the following:Alien: it's a classic of sci-fi horror and doesn't need "updating" with any special effects, and you're not going to improve on the story. You'll only confuse things if you try.
Predator: You'll never be able to replicate its Arnoldness.
Romancing the Stone: Come on! You think you can make a better romantic adventure movie than Douglas/Turner/Devito? I repeat: Come on!
Karate Kid: The ghost of Pat Morita will haunt you. Besides, there's no Japanese actor who can pull it off right now. Ken Watanabe? Too big. Mako? Dead.
Red Dawn: Don't you dare. Don't you bleeping dare. What are you going to do, have terrorists take over the town of Calumet, Colorado? I enjoyed this note from wikipedia (some of which might be accurate):
"Red Dawn was the first movie to be released with a Motion Picture Association of America PG-13 rating.[1] At one time, Red Dawn was considered the most violent film by the Guinness Book of Records and The National Coalition on Television Violence, with a rate of 134 acts of violence per hour, or 2.23 per minute."
Really? Red Dawn as the most violent movie? Nightmare on Elm Street came out the same year, Texas Chainsaw Massacre ten years before, Friday the 13th in 1980, and thousands of war movies before that. And Red Dawn was the most violent movie?
The Thing: Already been remade once. My dad tells the story of going to the theater in Natchitoches in 1951 (he was 7) to see the original. When he got home, he latched onto the housekeeper's leg and wouldn't let go.
The Crow: Cursed. Jason Lee will haunt you.
Wrapping up The Departed, I noticed that Mark Wahlberg was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and as far as I can tell, it's for his ability to curse in rhythm whenever he's on camera. Thank goodness for Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine.
I went to see Star Trek the weekend before I left Natchitoches. Good movie. Probably a really good movie. It does a great job of setting up characters and their relationships. Like Get Smart, it includes a good bit of the catchphrases people want to hear. They even have the throwaway guy go on a mission with Kirk and Sulu, so you can guess what happens to him. (I always heard him described as the "Ensign Johnson" character. "We're sending an away team to battle the hordes of man-eating monsters on Chronos 9. The team is Kirk, Spock, Bones, Chekov, and...Ensign Johnson." Guess who gets eaten?)
It's smart, funny, and enjoyable. The villains aren't terrifying, but that's sort of a secondary element in a movie like this. They did a pretty good job of tying things together without being herky-jerky about it.
Finally, Angels and Demons. I hadn't planned on seeing it, but the Sylvesters texted me at 9pm one night asking if I wanted to see the 9:30 show. As I was only busying myself by bowling perfect games on the Wii, I agreed to go. Solid movie. I don't think you'd need to have read or seen the DaVinci Code to get it, but it might help to be familiar with the Robert Langdon character. It moves quickly and doesn't get bogged down with symbolism out the wazoo. Well-acted for the most part, and it manages to use our assumptions about character types and turn them against us. It's got a good amount of excitement and daring-do to keep you entertained.
That should be it with the movies for a while, though I hear that Up is outstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment