IRON MAN 2
I wonder if it's possible for me to be more uninterested in a movie. I really don't understand why everyone loved the first one. Every person I knew raved and ranted about it when it came out, saying it was the best thing ever, that the action sequences were amazing, that Robert Downey Jr. was awesome. When I walked out of the theatre, I thought "Well, I guess that was ok". Then everyone got a massive hard-on for the thing. This drove me to eventually hate it, as I had to argue the whole summer that "The movie wasn't that great". Thankfully "The Dark Knight" finally came out that summer and shut everyone up because it was an amazing superhero movie and an amazing film all around.
The second one just looks ridiculous. And you want to know why? This is why:
WHO THE HELL'S IDEA WAS THIS CHARACTER DESIGN? Blonde highlights in Mickey Rourke's hair? What?! You know, I just love when a fading actor makes one good movie (Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler") then Hollywood says "LOL this guy is awesome lets star him in a million movies!" I just can't wait for the inevitable onslaught of crappy action movies starring Mickey Rourke in the next five years. I could go and on and say more things I could care less about in Iron Man 2, but we've got a lot of movies we have to get through.
ROBIN HOOD
(Yawn) BOOOOOOOOOOOORING! Man, does this movie look unbelievably dull. There's nothing I like seeing more than Russel Crowe in a dark-toned period epic. "But wait PixelatedCynic! It's directed by Ridley Scott!" Who cares? In my opinion, the guy is the definition of a hit or miss director. Body of Lies? Kingdom of Heaven? Please! Also, Russel Crowe is slowly becoming an actor I hate. He has the same facial expression, voice and haircut in every movie. Just look at the poster above. That's Russel Crowe in every movie he's ever been in.
MACGRUBER
This looks like a movie I should absolutely hate. I never found the MacGruber sketch that funny (then again, I haven't found most things on SNL funny in the past 5 years) and SNL movies either horribly suck or are hilarious. However, early reviews of this thing say it's been pretty good, so I'll withhold judgment.
SHREK FOREVER AFTER
WHY DO THEY KEEP MAKING SHREK MOVIES?! WHY WHY WHY WHY?!! Oh yeah, because PEOPLE KEEP PAYING FOR THIS TRASH! I can't stand Dreamworks animation studio. Here's their formula:
1. Find some funny looking animals, animate them with mediocre CGI
2. Get a bunch of big name actors/actress that aren't that great at voice acting
3. Insert a bunch of lame pop culture references
4. Insert a bunch of fart jokes and double entendres
5. Ship the movie and make LUDICROUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY from the human cattle that pay for these things.
As far as I'm concerned, the only CGI studio is Pixar. Pixar consistently turns out movies with interesting characters and unique plots. They try to do something new with every movie. WALL-E was one of the best films I've ever seen. Monsters, Inc. had excellent writing. The Incredibles managed to be the best superhero movie ever. Meanwhile, Dreamworks pumps out sequels, sequels, sequels with uninspired plots and piss-poor humor. I've had enough.
PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME
I enjoyed the Prince of Persia games. I will not enjoy this movie. It's by the same people who made the Pirates of the Carribean movies, so it will be filled with cool special effects, British accents, and plots that make NO SENSE. And everyone will love it and claim it's the greatest movie ever. However, it could be tolerable. That's the best I'll give it: A tolerable.
Well, those are all the big movies for the month of May. I will make a new post towards June. Otherwise this post will be ginormous, and no one wants that.
Nick, I only disagree with you on one thing about the movies. Russell Crowe does not have the same hair in every movie. In fact he does have the same voice, but check out this picture from after he made State of play. (It will make you want to vomit all over your computer)
ReplyDeletehttp://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/russellcroweREX_450x300.jpg
My mind was immediately made up when I saw his hair in the trailer that I would not be seeing that movie simply because his hair was to asinine to go see that movie.
-Matt M
I disagree with most of what you say on here, and am going to attempt to civilly debate it with you.
ReplyDeleteLets start with Iron Man, both the first and the sequel. The Iron Man formula is the same as The Batman except for one thing. Batman solves problems with extreme physical acts assisted by Gadgets while Tony Stark/Iron Man solve them with bigger and bigger gadgets.
The first Iron Man was a great movie in my opinion. Tony Stark really focuses on the playboy life, and a character that struggles with many vices. His addiction to partying, alcohol and women constantly interfere with his work as a super hero, and continually make him question what he is trying to be. The first movie set up the alcohol addiction storyline with Tony Stark constantly having a drink. Its not a key point but good set-up. While batman is smooth and suave, Tony Stark is eccentric and egotistical. His narcissism and quirks make some of his stuff look like odd acting, but it makes him feel more real to me. He isn't always delivering the best line, the best showcase. His character is conflicted and going in many directions at once controlling his company, relationships, social statuses and super hero duties. The small love plot between Tony and Pepper Pots shows a love angle I rarely see in movies. We can tell they have feelings, but the first one shows Tony unwilling to accept it because he's used to doing whatever-the-hell he wants. There's character growth as he attempts (and fails) repeatedly to become responsible and do "the right thing". It’s a good movie, but its not for everyone.
The second really shows more of the alcohol addiction, and how it is affecting Tony's life. As much as you hate Ivan/Whiplash's hair, I found his character really believable. He's what I would expect of a angry Russian scientist that survived Russian prison. I enjoyed every line he gave and every scene with him. Its highly stylized which is what I expect from comic book movies. My only complaint with Iron Man 2 was that the plot felt rushed, it needed at least another hour to develop things. Tony's sickness being the main plot point that fails to achieve maximum effectiveness because of the rush. The drunken party fight really set out the alcohol problems and they managed to pace that about right, and they had some good scenes with Tony and Pepper but the relationship needed more dialogue to fill in the gaps, more scenes with the two of them. It was a good movie, almost as good as the first for me. It was just a little rushed.
Robin Hood: I can understand why you don't like it, but I loved it. I enjoy the main actors facial expression. To me it comes across haunted, and I know soldiers that have similar expressions from things they have seen. This added a lot to the movie for me. The movie kept a good pace between action and plot, the story was fun, and it is setting up for a trilogy. They didn't beat me over the head with their themes/ideals though they did stand up and shout them loudly, which was almost refreshing. The choices for Robin Hood and Maid Marian were also a plus for me, not because I like the actors but they look real. They are not some fucking models, but fairly normal looking people. Give the movie a chance, and set aside your hatred of the actors for a minute and look past it.
Macgrubber: Don't know anything about it, doesn't look that interesting. I will leave that one alone.
ReplyDeleteShrek Forever After: There are a lot of things in your comments on this one that just make you come across as snobbish. Human Cattle? Sadly, movies are made less for art and more for money anymore. This means that they are marketed toward the "human cattle" as you put it. See the horror that is twilight:new moon to really see human cattle/fan-girlism at its worst. Leaving this aside, these movies are aimed at kids around 8-12 years old, and the original premise was to focus on fairy tale creatures. Its not "find a cute animal and animate it". The CGI on Shrek isn't mediocre, I enjoy the exaggerated textures and color choices. It;s just a different art style designed to appeal to children, without looking like shit to adults. The Shrek series was at its prime in the first one but the sequels aren't that bad.
Prince of Persia: It will be bad. That's all I’m saying for now.
Iron man has no depth compared to the batman movies. Unlike so many movies, the two batman movies weren't about Bruce Wayne, as iron man was about Tony Stark.
ReplyDeleteYou simply can't have the same philosophical conversation about themes in Iron man as you can Batman. The Batman movies were as much about society (Consider the boat scene) and villains (What motivated the Joker, and is Raz Al Ghul's idea of what society should be justice?) as they were about Bruce Wayne.
Iron man was entertaining, but nothing new. And Iron man's villains? Guys who want money and power or revenge. And the very fact that Whiplash was everything we expected shows that Hollywood has set preconceptions about how Russian villains act and this movie takes that mold and made Whiplash. Nothing short of recycled cliches.
I don't want to put Dark Knight or Begins up on a pedestal, because it definitely had flaws. Both films had their Hollywood moments peek through, but Iron man just had more.
I appreciate your comments.
ReplyDeleteKenny: If this came off as snobby, then this blog has done it's job. I freely admit on a regular basis that I am a movie snob! Also, I would address each of your points but I do not feel like writing the equivalent of a 500 word essay right now. As such, I will address your statements tomorrowish!
Also, Matt, that hair is ABSOLUTELY PAINFUL. WHOSE IDEA WAS THAT?!
ReplyDelete