movie review: Iron Man (2008)

Iron Man (2008) - Without a doubt, one of the most breezy and enjoyable big summer movies in awhile. After last summer, when every big action movie was a three-hour monster with plots as dense as Greek mythology, its terrificly satisfying to get a movie that competently, happily, and enjoyably delivers what it promises (that being a robots, explosions, and Robert Downey Jr.). Downey is pretty much as good as all the reviews have promised-he pretty much makes the movie. As with most of his recent roles (in the excellent Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Zodiac for example), Downey gives the impression that he's the smartest guy in the room, and is well aware of it, but is having so much fun that he might as well include you to. The rest of the cast is pretty good too: Gwyneth Paltrow reminded me why she used to be a crushworthy actress (plus I recently rewatched The Royal Tenenbaums); furthermore, her character is the first superhero-movie girl to not be incredibly annoying, whiny, and selfish-instead, she's the protagonist's intellectual equal, holding her own with some decent banter and a sense of fun. I liked Jeff Bridges in the villain role also (I'm sorry, that's not a spoiler-just look at his sinister beard!). He's good actor, and he doesn't appear in nearly enough stuff, and its nice to have a bad guy who usually acts like a relatively typical, sane human being instead of a twitchy weirdo (no disrespect to Willem Dafoe). Terrence Howard had the most boring role known to man, and didn't make much of an impression, but I suppose he'll pay off in the sequals.
Though the special effects are pretty flawless, the action is admittedly just so-so. The first big action bit, where Tony Stark escapes his terrorist captors (more on that below) in a primitive iron suit is pretty good, but the ensuing action scenes are kind of bland, and awfully short. The big finale fight in particular is kind of damp-the robots just punch each other for a few minutes, then shout at each other, then there's a light show, then it's done. (To be fair though, none of the big superhero movies have managed to have really successful action - the fight scenes in the very good Batman Begins for example look like one dude shook the camera while another dude in a black sleeve waved his arm in front of it).
Ok, then there's the politics. So every review I've seen of this comments, usually negatively about the politics of having Iron Man battle some middle eastern terrorists. Hmpf. I get where they are coming from, kind of, but I'm not sure I buy it. I mean, you could argue that's its jingoism or wish fulfillment or whatever, but I'm not sure the evidence is there to support it. As many of the reviews point out, the original comic book of Iron Man had Tony Stark being kidnapped by the Viet Cong (it came out in the 60's.) It sucks, but then the Viet Cong were the U.S.'s most well known enemies, and today Middle Eastern terrorists are a most well known enemies. It's a story of its time, and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. And yes, having a white hero fighting savage brown people is maybe reductive, but I'm not sure how to get around it here.
Interestingly, the movie actually goes to pretty great lengths to make its terrorists apolitical. Sure, they're middle eastern and hang out in caves, but their bad guy leader (who is as hairless as a Star Trek alien) is constantly yammering about being like Genghis Khan and conquering Asia(?). I know some critics have argued that this sort of cowardice is a fault and a hypocrisy (and again, I understand), but, still, I can't help but feel like they're reading too much into things. Or at the very least, faulting the movie for being a product of its time, which it can't really help.

movie review: Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

I can't say Jason Segel really stole Freaks and Geeks--every character and actor on that show was so perfect and integral that it would be unfair to specially highlight anybody--but he was great on it. Segel did however, no questions asked, steal Undeclared (not to mention SLC Punk--go Hardcore Mike!). In short, the guy is terrific, and its great to see him finally get his moment to shine. And Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a pretty great moment to have. Much of the strength of Apatow-associated movies lies in their rewatchability, so I can't say yet how it compares to say, Knocked Up, but it was funny and touching and quotable, and all the kinds of things you want a movie like this to be. And besides, it deserves to taken on its own right for the moment.
Segel essentially plays a slightly more mature (or at least, older) version of the endearing / creepy sad sacks that he portrayed so well on Freaks and Undeclared. Anyway, he's pretty excellent overall, remaining likable, and more than ably carrying the movie.
His script is pretty damn good too. The scenario he's concocted (guy goes on vacation to resort where his recent ex also is staying, wacky adventures and hilarity ensue) could easily play out as a typical rom-com, but Segel is smart enough to always push scenes in slightly different directions. During a big scene in the third act, for example, in which Segel's Peter has a moment of weakness with Sarah Marshall, I expected his new love interest to happen by, see him, run off and be mad, leading to an obligatory obstacle to the happy ending. But thankfully, she never shows up, and though Peter's acts do prove to be an obstacle, its only because Peter immediately confesses them, thus reshaping a typical third act plot device into a nice, character driven moment. That actually kind of sums up the script as a whole- the plot feels movieish, but the characters, for the most part, feel real--a tough thing to pull off.
The supporting cast helps out plenty though. I've never quite seen the appeal of Kristen Bell (though I suppose I've really I only seen her in Heroes and this, and one scene in Pootie Tang), but she does fine here in what is really a pretty small part. Though for some reason that I can't quite put my finger on, she occasionally looks like the Predator to me. Don't ask me. . . it was a momentary thing while watching the movie. It doesn't even make sense to me right now.
Mila Kunis is pretty good too--like Topher Grace , she avoided the scientology trap of her fellow That 70's Show castmates (Ashton Kutcher did too I guess, though he remains Ashton Kutcher, impediment enough) and is turning into a likable and pretty actress. Her part could easily fall into the pixie dream girl trap, but she manages (with some help from Segel's scripts) to elevate the character--watching her, I was able to buy that this girl had a life beyond helping the protoganist out of his funk, even if that's her main purpose in the story.
Apatow ringers Paul Rudd and Jonah Hill are pretty funny in their bit parts, though both are fairly inessential to the story. I kinda wonder if Hill's obsessive fan character was modeled in any way on his apparent Single White Femaling of Seth Rogen. Jack McBrayer again plays Jack McBrayer, but he's so damn funny that I'm not ready to complain about it (he also gets some of the most quotable dialogue, namely "If God was a city planner, he wouldn't put a playground right next to a sewage treatment plant" or something to that effect). I dug Russell Brand too-- like Mila Kunis, he's really able to elevate what could be a pretty generic character (rock star lothario) into something real and unique. (His Aldous Snow character is another example of the way the script plays fair-another movie would insist on humiliating him, revealing him to be, I don't know, not British and impotent or something. Instead, Segel is content to leave him truly as a larger than life rock star, who when encountered in reality, comes off as just a guy with his own issues and story.)
The direction seemed mostly to be pretty point and shoot, but was fine for this kind of movie. Some reviews I've seen have complained that this, like all the Apatow comedies, runs too long, but the length wasn't a problem for me. These movies are little worlds, populated by cool, funny people. Why wouldn't you want to spend an extry fifteen or twenty minutes hanging out there?
The soundtrack was nice pretty solid too; it was especially nice to hear Belle & Sebastian in a soundtrack that wasn't, um, Juno (note: I liked Juno fine, but I HATED the Kimya Dawson / Moldy Peaches songs running through the movie, which had the nasty side effect of tainting all the other good stuff that was on the soundtrack, including two excellent Belle & Sebastian songs--seriously, efforts to prove B & S not twee were set back years by Juno).
So, yeah, see this. Jason Segel deserves to be a huge success, and this a smart, funny, and even touching movie.

New music round-up!

(Well, new to me anyway.)

The Wedding Present- George Best Plus (bought from Amazon.com)- There may be no sound in pop music I love more than a speedily strummed electric guitar, especially when the guitarist seems to be just repeatedly playing one or two chords. I like a bendy and squealy solo plenty, but I love some speedy strumming. The last minute or two of the Velvet Underground's "What Goes On" is a pretty prime example. Or more recently, Clap Your Hand Say Yeah's "The Skin of My Yellow Country Teeth." Anyway, I ramble about this because The Wedding Present, at least on this, their debut album (appended with some early eps, I believe) is all about the speedy strumming. So much so that even I get a bit sick of it by track 10 or so. Still, individually, just about every song here is good. David Gedge doesn't have a ton of vocal charisma, but the band has a lot of energy. A definitely worthy purchase.

Cloud Cult - Feel Good Ghosts (Tea Partying Through Tornadoes) (bought from Amazon.com)- Last winter or fall or whenever, I took up Paste Magazine's "pay what you want" subscription offer (I think I paid five dollars, so yeah, I'm a chump). It's a decent magazine, if not a bit too NPR (i.e, boring) at times. The promotion CD's that accompany each issue are frankly pretty boring too, filled up with pretty blah singer-songwriter stuff and mid-tempo acoustics, though there's usually a good track or two that I dig enough to make the whole thing worthwhile. First, it was Bon Iver (admittedly, a mid-tempo acoustic singer-songwriter, but still so good!), then the other day, I was so struck by Cloud Cult's "When Water Comes to Life" I prompty went on Amazon and ordered a copy (along with The Wedding Present, and Something Else by the Kinks, which aside from a perfectunory run through "Waterloo Sunset" I've not yet listened to). Anyway, a paragraph in and now I'm at the album- its good, occasionally gorgeous, and occasionally irritatingly precious (like the grating Kimya Dawson songs on the Juno soundtrack). Album's like this tend to be growers for me, though, or rather, I like them fine until I happen to listen to them at just the right moment (often on a long lonely car ride up to visit family in Pennsylvania), and they absolutely wreck me. I can definitely see that happening with this one. On the downside, this has some HORRIBLE cover art. Seriously, I was embarrassed to have it sitting around my apartment.

Evangelicals- The Evening Descends (snagged from my best-friend Carlos)- Sometimes I feel like I go through so much new music because I'm always looking for that one album that just grabs you and hits perfectly, and its this one for me right now. Holy shit, its good. Seriously, "Midnight Vignette," "Skeleton Man," and "Party Crashin'" have become the soundtrack to my spring, and the rest of the album is solid too (especially the unintelligble, shouted chorus of "Paperback Suicide"). The weird, haunted house sound effects (I love the crazy-loud buzzing simulating heart palpitators on "Party Crashin'") and the weirdly out of nowhere bits of melody and hooks that show up for a second then vanish without a trace (there's like three great hooks that show up in the second verse of "Midnight Vignette") add the album a weird ramshackle charm, and demand relistening. But its the songs themselves, the writing, that is great, and there is no moment I've heard lately that's more cathartic (probably since "John Allyn Smith Sails" on Okkervil River's The Stage Names, my favorite album of 2007) than the end of "Skeleton Man."

Uwe no!

The news that madman / hack filmmaker / possible financial genius (he's financed and profited ion all of his horrible, flopped movies via a German tax loophole) Uwe Boll will retire from filmmaking if a petition asking him to stop gets one million signatures has been all over lately, and seems to be largely getting a ton of support (the only exception I've seen is this article on Chud.com, which I admit is covering pretty the same ground as this post).

I, however, will not sign this stupid petition, and am thoroughly against it. Seriously, who cares if Uwe Boll makes movies? Yes, they're horrible trainwrecks (though occasionally entertaining, if only for the sheer bizarre spectacle of them), but I can't see how they're hurting anybody (except maybe Ben Kingsley), and nobody is making anybody see them. Sure, I understand dweebuses and nerdlingers the world over are upset that Boll's movie are adapted from videogames, but chill out guys, you've still got the games, and its not like anybody was ever going to make a good movie of House of the Dead (or really, any videogame, for that matter). Besides, do you people hate Kristianna Loken, Zack Ward, and Michael Pare that much?
I'll admit I've got a bit of a soft spot for the Bollster (possibly because out of his entire oeuvre, I've only seen House of the Dead and parts of Bloodrayne). Last year, both the Onion A.V. Club and Chud.com ran interviews Boll (he was promoting the straight to DVD Bloodrayne II, in which the protagonist for some reason challenges a vampiric Billy the Kid) in which Boll came off as strangely endearing. The guy's a nutball, and there's something great about watching him try and try again.
So I won't be signing the stop Uwe petition (I won't even link to it! ha ha!), and neither should you. And even if the petition does reach a million signatures, I hope Uwe blatantly ignores it and goes right back to making horrible movies that I can catch parts of on the Sci-Fi channel when nothing else is on.

UPDATE: Just a few hours after my post, Uwe made some comments on this issue. And you people want to stop this guy? Who provides so much entertainment? Come on.

Movie Review: Phantom of the Paradise (1974)

I think I'm starting to love Brian De Palma movies. I've always liked them, or at least I have since I was aware of De Palma, but it was easy to think of him as overrated, another seventies icon that old critics go on about that doesn't have much meaning today. The fact that most of the movies he's made lately are pretty horrible (Snake Eyes, Mission to Mars, the horribly mishandled and disappointing The Black Dahlia) adds to this. But now, having seen Phantom, as well as the perplexing (but awesome) Sisters and the amazing Dressed to Kill, I think I get it.
Part of the appeal, I think, is that when De Palma is on and really going for it (as he is pretty much throughout Phantom), he is the star. The way he moves the camera and stages scenes are key- the actors, sets, story, etc. are secondary. I'm sure other directors operate similarly, but I'm failing to think of many others right now.
Take entire sequence involving Leech sneaking into the Paradise (via a lengthy POV sequence), then placing a bomb in a prop car's trunk (homaging Touch of Evil), followed by the single take, split screen countdown towards the bomb's explosion in the midst of a crowded musical performance: its absolutely thrilling. And its success isn't due to the "oh no a bomb is going to go off" plot of it, its successful for the confidence with which De Palma moves the camera, tracing the bomb's movement towards the crowd, then after the explosion, trains in Swan's sinister reaction as he watches in the dark. It's stunning filmmaking. (Though plenty of credit is also due to the sound designers, and the way the bomb's loud ticking is integrated into the song).
Beyond De Palma, there is plenty more to like (though its De Palma that makes the movie one to love). The performances are all pretty fun- Paul Williams particularly is a weirdly perverse villain; he looks sort of like a glammed out Linda Hunt, but remains threatening and even believable as the adored, mysterious music mogul. I dug Jessica Harper a lot in the ingenue role, especially her audition scene, when her almost fourth wall breaking singing to the camera becomes a sort of discomforting but mesmerizing flirtation. Williams' soundtrack is pretty solid too- he covers a lot of ground and styles, provides a requisite ballad that amazingly isn't horrible, and killer glam closing number ("For the Hell of It" I think). The costume and set design is pretty spectactular too.
I'd seen bits and pieces of Phantom on TV years ago, but yeah, watching it again was pretty revelatory. A great movie, and so much more than just a "cooler alternative to Rocky Horror" that I'd kind of thought it as. Though seriously, so much better than friggin' Rocky Horror.

Del Toro for the Hobbit? uggbleh!!!

So I read about Guillermo Del Toro possibly stepping in to direct an adaptation of The Hobbit awhile ago, and was more or less hoping it would fade away, but apparently, it hasn't.
I may be on my own here, and possibly offending LOTR fans, but seriously, Del Toro is too good for this. I like the LOTR movies fine: I saw them and enjoyed them, and would be fine with not seeing any of them ever again (though if I had to sit through one again, I'd probably go with Fellowship--its small scale, Viggo Mortenson centric action scenes are much more exciting than thousands of CGI figures charging at each other battle scenes that eat up most of parts two and three).
But Del Toro is one of the best and most interesting directors working today. To saddle him for two or more years with a damn hobbit prequel (all I remember of the book is a brief fight with a dragon) would be a waste, I think, especially when he's got many more interesting projects in the works, like one of the Lovecraft adaptations he's been promising for awhile or another film dealing with the Spanish civil war. I guess making The Hobbit doesn't necessarily rule out those too, or anything else, but it definitely delays them.
Also, Del Toro's films are very personal. His personal interests and obessessions are apparent throughout his work, if not in every frame. To see him constrained to a world someone else created would be a bit of shame.
I suppose its not all bad--Del Toro would presumably make a fortune, granting him considerably more creative freedom (though considering the recent glut of fantasy movies, this isn't a guarantee). And I'm sure the movie would be fine (after all, Del Toro's work for hire on Blade II made that not only an above average sequel, but a damn near action classic, in my opinion). This whole thing just seems wrong though, a waste.

PS - My ambivalence towards LOTR is in no way at a dig at Peter Jackson, who is also terrific, and interesting, despite his involvement this.

PPS- If Del Toro had to do fantasy adaptation, the last Harry Potter book (as was rumored for awhile) would have been much more interesting. I also think he could have done some interesting stuff with The Golden Compass, but I guess both are moot now.

Movie Review: 30 Days of Night

I was pretty psyched to see this when the trailers first started appearing last year. The visuals looked great, the premise was cool, the vampires looked kinda different and scary, even the cast was alright (years after Pearl Harbor and his brief teen movie stardom, Josh Hartnett isn't so bad, plus he was balanced out by folks like Danny Huston and the schlubby looking guy who always shows up in Chris Nolan movies (Mark Boone Junior)). Director David Slade's previous movie, Hard Candy was tense and interesting, though hurt badly by a pretty terrible third act.
Anyway, 30 Days of Night turned out to be pretty bad. In fact, for a movie that looked like a possible classic in the making, or at the very least an above average genre picture, it was pretty damn disappointing.
For one thing, as good as the premise is (vampires without the safety net of the sun rising, basically), nobody seemed to have much idea what to do with it. The premise demands something of a seige movie, where the characters can't wait the vampires out a few hours, so they must resort to other means of survival. But the movie completely fails in this regard. As some other reviews have pointed out, the time we see pass in the movie doesn't feel like 30 days-- it barely feels like more than a particularly rough night. The characters simply hide for a few minutes (several days in the movie's time), then arbitrarily go someplace else to hide, and engage in a brief action scene. This repeats several times, then the movie ends.
Nothing in the movie makes much sense. I still don't know why the vampires offed their Renfield-esque errand boy (I guess because methody weirdo Ben Foster was needed to do another wholly inappropiate and inexplicable crazy accent for some other movie--seriously, I don't get the appeal of this guy). A big action scene involving a character sacrificing himself for to save the others makes no sense whatsoever-he's already successfully distracted the vampires by the time he seemingly decides to off himself.
That bit is actually pretty indicative of the movie as a whole: somebody came up with a sort of cool looking action scene, then awkwardly shoehorned it a thin story.
The vampires do look fairly scary, though they have little to no character or even much presense. For a film that claimed to "redefine" vampires, these vampires are pretty run of the mill ghouls. Also, given that they are supposed to be a threat keeping the characters on the run for a month, they seem easily killed--there are plenty of exploding vampire heads throughout the movie, brought about by gun shots. Meh, just another frustration.
Honestly, this has been several hundred more words than this subject requires. This movie looks nice, but is just no good.