Showing posts with label action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label action. Show all posts

Iron Man (2008)

Having seen this on many occasions, "Iron Man" holds a soft spot in my heart. It's still, in many ways, the standard to which I hold all other superhero movies in terms of humor, action, plot, believable (ha) conflict between hero and villain, and fun. Marvel is at its best when the films don't take themselves ~too seriously. What's the point of a billionaire building himself a race-car-colored suit that can fly and shoot people if it's not going to be fun?

I did not grow up knowing Marvel characters. Though their names were household, I knew nothing about their stories. While the Spider-Man and X-Men movies sparked an interest, it was really the MCU that reeled me, and many others, into the universe. Jon Favreau's "Iron Man" is the first film released from the MCU and this begs the question: where would Marvel be without such a knockout first film? It's the perfect springboard to the MCU's grand scheme of creating more than just a few superhero movies - but an entire universe of intertwining stories. Had it even launched with "The Incredible Hulk" (released just a month later) then I don't think audiences would be as captivated.

But "Iron Man" was special. It brought a trendy spark to a genre that can so often feel monosyllabic. Of course, this is all due to Robert Downey Jr., whose career came back from the literal dead with his knockout portrayal of billionaire philanthropist Tony Stark. He brings a charisma to the role that is charming, egotistical, self-deprecating, and funny. Not only that, but he is a character you can root for. When Tony Stark emerged from that cave as Iron Man, a born-again man, and saw his outlook change you wanted him to succeed for the good of his own soul, but also for the good of the world. Because while Iron Man is a superhero who can fly in a shiny red suit, more importantly he is a superhero with money and influence.

Watching this film ten years after its release, I am still impressed at the fun technology introduced. Society is, quite frankly, still catching up to the ideal smart technology that Stark Enterprises possesses. If only Siri and Alexa were as intuitive as Jarvis. It is also a refreshing change to see the rich playboy have brains. We watch him learn in the film about the scope of his influence and a little better how to run a business and please investors, but we don't have to watch him learn what he's capable of. He already knows he's smart.


"Iron Man" is also successful in large part to its supporting cast. Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow are all great. It's a shame Howard couldn't come back for more. I still rank Obadiah in my top five favorite MCU villains. He has a menacing yet familiar swagger in this friend to foe villain story. When Pepper is hurriedly trying to figure out Obadiah's secret off his computer, Obadiah startles her in the act of theft. The tension created in that scene from Jeff Bridges' manner of speaking and slow paces to where she is sitting is masterful. Jeff Bridges brings an intimacy to the villain - a quality that is sparse from many subsequent MCU villains.

The cherry on the top is, of course, the infamous ending where Tony Stark reveals that he is, indeed, Iron Man in a press conference. It doesn't seem fitting to call it a twist, but still this remarkably un-cliche moment is also the perfect launching pad to the future of the Avengers. It ~almost brings some realism to bring it that close to home - so close that the film's citizens could read about it in a newspaper. It's brilliant. 9/10

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

It's very strange to watch "The Incredible Hulk" in a post-Avengers world where Mark Ruffalo is our friendly neighborhood green monster. I always liked this movie, though. It was far superior to Eric Bana's "Hulk." Even if it doesn't fit nicely into the consistency of the other MCU films, it stands alone decent enough. I do, however, find it unfortunate for the Hulk franchise that there are so many competing faces for the role that make it difficult for fans to keep track of. 

It doesn't help, either, that this story starts in the middle of his origin story. It depends on audiences to pay close attention to the opening credits if they want to know how Hulk came to be. 

Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) is living in Brazil seeking a cure to his ~unique condition (results from a gamma test gone wrong… he now turns into a giant green monster when his blood pressure gets too high). General Ross (William Hurt) is searching for him, believing him to be government property. Aaaaand so that he can create this super army. The best moments in the movie all involve the mysterious “Mr. Blue” (Nelson) though the CGI is also top-notch. Hulk is not my fav compared to most other super heroes out there (it’s not easy being green) but I thought this adaptation and a smaller green dude created life and emotion behind the monstrosity.  Norton was a perfect fit and gave a good performance.  6/10

Thor (2011)



My first association with Thor came when I was just a kid. My comic-book loving brother had Marvel characters galore coating his walls and I used to stare at them with no comprehension of who they all really were. The first time I could put a name to a face, though, came from "Adventures in Babysitting" - a classic of our times - while little Sara wore a Thor helmet and mistook a car dealer for her hero.
I remember very well when this movie was released. I was working full-time at my college bookstore. There were two TVs behind our desk that would generally play ads for my school, and the occasional BYU-appropriate trailer. I watched the trailer for "Thor" over a dozen times before I saw it that summer. I pretentiously talked to my coworkers about Kenneth Branagh and how excited I was to see what the distinguished English actor/director of Henry V would bring to the table. I didn't know much then, and I don't know much now but I sure enjoyed pretending to know more about movies than my peers. I remember loving it the first time I saw it and I was very curious to see how the movie would hold up seeing it 6 years later.
Thor is the god of thunder. The son of Odin, king of Asgard, a land somewhere lost in time and space.  Once upon a time, Asgard and the Frost Giants were at war where the blue, snowy creatures wanted dominion over the nine realms, including our blessed Earth. When Asgard blew them over,  the Asgardians took their little ice trophy, the Casket of Ancient Winters.
In the present, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to assume the throne over his adopted brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Those same frozen creatures come and ruin his big day by trying to steal back their casket. Thor throws a whiny tantrum, thinks he’s king already, and decides to take matters into his own hands and starts up some war again with their frosty neighbors. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) realizes that Thor is acting like a child and unfit for the throne. So Thor is banished to Earth without powers or the ability to wield his hammer. Things get worse upstairs when Odin has some kind of stressed-induced heart attack and falls into his get-better “Odinsleep.” Loki takes over as king and he wants to run things a little differently. Thor meets a woman, is confronted with war again and must face his brother to save everyone from war. Or something.

This story is passable, but I don't think it's terribly strong.
It is not an easy task to melange with Norse mythology - if only because the characters are inherently uninteresting. Thor has no notable personality traits and it seems like a stretch for this distant war to come to such a front in rural New Mexico. It also seems unlikely that Thor would magically grow up and turn into a suitable king over night because he met some ~nice people and a pretty lady. I can see what they were going for, but I'm not convinced. Maybe I'm just not buying the changed-by-a-woman-I-just-met-yesterday plot device any longer. Hemsworth brings a sort of suave charm to the character that is delightful, but it feels like something is lacking in the middle in order for us to appreciate the leader he becomes.
Loki, on the other hand, was the best developed out of anyone else in the ensemble. His disturbed countenance and spark of evil are well portrayed by Hiddleston, and his deep confusion and eagerness to please no matter the cost are tragically relatable. He's compelling because of the evident inner sadness that any sibling living in shadow can understand. 

With time has brought age to the CGI and no it isn't like cheese or wine. 6 years doesn't sit well with a land exclusively built in developing technology. Asgard - while well designed and well thought-out - looks now like a video game tutorial with the audience searching for Mario to cross the treacherous Rainbow Road. It has the air of a heavenly setting, but it looks like something I would see in Hyrule, not in Norse mythology.
While the fish out of water story isn't new by any means, I do find myself highly entertained watching Chris Hemsworth down like 20 pop tarts. This whole section of the movie is fun and light and brought the best moments for the popcorn. The lovely Natalie Portman plays the storm-chasing researcher Jane Foster and she's fine, as always. I quite liked her, even if their romance feels contrived.
We’ve also got things to get us more pumped for "The Avengers"  – Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) plays a bigger role than in previous Avenger-precursors. S.H.I.E.L.D. is all over the place trying to figure out that damn hammer, stuck in the ground like Excalibur. The intrigue ever-builds for the mega-mashup coming the following year and watching these again later does lose some of that edge, but it's an entertaining film nonetheless.
6/10

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Scrawny Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) just wants to heed the plea of Uncle Sam and join the United States Army to fight Nazis in World War II. Due to his frail body, he is rejected at every enlistment camp he goes to until he is eventually recruited as part of a super-soldier experiment. As a result of the serum, Steve Rogers is transformed into Captain America - a perfect specimen in both mind and body - in the best glow-up since Princess Diaries. Captain America goes on to fight the Third Reich, take down terrorists and inspire millions of Americans to fight for what they believe in.

This movie was met with a lot of excitement as the buildup for the Avengers was going down. It was a great strategy by Marvel - all of the after-credits scenes, all of the anticipation leading up to the big meet & greet where these iconic superheroes could join forces against greater evils.

I loved being a part of the anticipation. I loved seeing the pieces come together while the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe was unfolded. Captain America was fun because it gave a precedent - a backstory to not just the hero himself but to the entire Marvel story. It was the last released before "The Avengers" but chronologically it comes far before the others. Seeing him interact with Howard Stark and watching his frozen body be uncovered by S.H.I.E.L.D. brought an "a-ha!" to tip over the filling cup of Avengers anticipation.

While watching a superhero fight Nazis provides for an interesting backdrop - a nice break from the usual New York City Skyline - I find that the sense of urgency ranks very low when we all know that the world is still okay 60 years later. Watching it again, I found it a little boring and a little slow. In fact, in many ways it feels like an extended promo for "The Avengers." The name suggests, after all, that as "the First Avenger" Captain America would set the tone for the super-group with his unfaltering sense of duty & leadership. As the last origin film released, he is deemed to be the glue that will bond them all together.

A superhero film is only as good as its villain and in this case, I am unimpressed. Perhaps I'm playing too much to my preferences but I just ~don't like Red Skull very much. Hugo Weaving plays him very menacingly with a kind of cartoonish side to his devilry. It's a trope, however, that I don't find very compelling. He's evil, of course, but his story lacks depth and emotion which prevents me from connecting to the action. Too much to ask for in a superhero movie? Perhaps. But if it wants to rank up there with "Spiderman 2" or "The Dark Knight" then certainly it's possible.
These things do not make this movie bad. It's still a better film in many ways than "Thor" or "The Incredible Hulk" (though not "Iron Man" - never "Iron Man"). Chris Evans brings an earnestness to the Captain that makes him feel like a real American hero with a heart. He has integrity and loyalty and he exudes these wonderful qualities that everyone is looking for in the super-leader of the free world. His character arc only grows in subsequent movies, but this is a great beginning to his story.

Where some other superhero movies lack focus and a contained story, "Captain America" does not falter. Director Joe Johnston ("October Sky," "Jumanji") makes it a cohesive story which plays on the war-time patriotism and includes some vibrant side characters such as the gung-ho Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones), the curious scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), Captain's best friend and soldier Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan), and the beautiful but serious officer Peggy Carter (Haley Atwell). These characters are all likable and add something tangible and relatable where Red Skull brings only over-exaggerated villainy. The film feels complete.

Overall, "The First Avenger" is the weakest of the Captain America films being less enjoyable the second or third time around, but it is not a bad film. It brought a great hero back to the screen and propelled him to prominence in the hearts of all watching. 7/10

This is a part of a series as Lauren takes on the MCU 2k17

American Sniper (2014)

I have long been a fan of Clint Eastwood's directorial work. Coincidentally, I watched "American Sniper" in the same month that I watched "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly," "Unforgiven," and "Mystic River" and I'm glad I did. I had been dissatisfied with some of his more recent movies and going back to some of his older ones helped remind me of Eastwood's incredible talent to work with material of epic proportions. Though "American Sniper" isn't without flaws, it is definitely Eastwood's best effort since Gran Torino in 2008.

This is the story of Chris Kyle - the deadliest marksman in US Military history accumulating roughly 160 kills. The film depicts his 4 tours in Iraq, his marriage, and his bouts with PTSD. There will always be movies about the Chris Kyles of the world and there will always be debates on whether they were heroes or not. Some were, some weren't. "American Sniper" is an interesting mix of glorifying the kills and actually delving into the mind of the soldier. For the most part, Eastwood smartly succeeds at not overdoing the former scenario. Yes, he paints an ugly picture of war, and yes the violence is hard to stomach at times. But he does a decent job of commending the heroism while also drawing attention to the problems of the heinous acts of violence that led to problems in Kyle's life.

Of course, this brings us all to the realization of what a comfortable bubble we live in. Maybe that's the point of any war movie, who knows. The most moving part of the entire film was the chilling silence that fell over the theater as the credits rolled. No one spoke as we exited the building. I couldn't help but think about all the little things I complain about on a daily basis. Mostly slow internet connections and the fact that my shampoo and conditioner never run out at the same time. You can't watch a movie like this and expect to un-see all the terrible things that happen without our awareness. I'm not even close to pointing fingers, but there is a fine line between defending your country, defending another man, and simply doing things out of hatred. There's no denying the dialogue depicts some foul-languaged hatred alongside the violence.

I can't talk about that without following it up with some well-earned gratitude. I'm glad I live in a country where I am free to complain about my shampoo running out sooner than my conditioner. I can't begin to understand what horrors soldiers face daily. I cringed at several parts and it made me hyperaware of what I take for granted. I know I don't think about my freedom in Murica often enough.

"American Sniper" also teaches us how real PTSD is. I have only had a little experience with this - I've got a buddy who I've seen go through similar experiences and I know it's rough. And very real. There's a lot going on here that deals with Chris Kyle's difficult transitions to home life between tours. It gets worse throughout the film, but it doesn't manifest itself much in anger or nightmares but just in apathy and numbness. It's like whatever Kyle doesn't feel, we feel on his behalf and man, do we want things to work out better for him. He finds a purpose in protecting his team and America. He lacks a similar driving purpose at home. I think it's good for us to be aware of how much these soldiers sacrifice - and Eastwood intelligently let's Kyle's life story develop itself in a natural way.
Early in the movie, 10-year-old Chris's father tells him that there are three types of people: sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. He told the young Chris that he would fall into the third category - the sheepdog who ensures that predators don't eat the innocent. With that metaphor in mind, we can appreciate this decorated seal's scope view on some compromising and intense situations. I can't really say that Bradley Cooper delivers a breakthrough performance because he had already established himself as an actor we can stand behind and respect. However, there was something even more moving about his portrayal than I had seen before. He doesn't just mimic, he becomes and connects. The other supporting performances (particularly Sienna Miller as his wife) - though good - are mostly just background noise.

It's easy with these biopics to point out all the discrepancies between the on-screen depiction and the real subject. With a little help from Wikipedia everyone is ready to point fingers at the omissions in the plot and Kyle's character. But I'm willing to look past all of that. People and critics sometimes forget that their job is to analyze what "American Sniper" offers as a movie. And as a movie, though a little on-the-fence with what message it wants to send out, it does its job.

Clint Eastwood knows the formula to deliver a typical Oscar contender. It is definitely worthy of praise, but I would have liked to see a little more catharsis and redemption with Chris Kyle's character in the end (I'm not sure I agree with the notion that PTSD can be recovered from in a matter of months and acts of good will) and nothing quite took away the encroaching sadness of this great and terrible movie. 7/10

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

"Are you, are you coming to the tree? Wear a necklace of hope, side by side with me. Strange things did happen here, no stranger would it be if we met at midnight in the hanging tree."

The next installment of the Hunger Games series takes place shortly after "Catching Fire" and a rebellion against the Capitol is in full swing. Our hero, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), is finally given a chance to catch her breath after the exhilarating events surrounding the Quarter Quell. She is reunited with her mother (Paula Malcomson), her sister Prim (Willow Shields) and best friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) in District 13 - the secret, underground territory and headquarters for the rebellion. Now, however reluctant and emotionally broken she may feel, Katniss is poised to be the face for the rebellion. Their "Mockingjay." 

Without a Hunger Games, "Mockingjay" is a step outside of the usual formula for this dystopian series. But that doesn't mean that the games are finished for Katniss. As the symbol for the rebellion she must play her role to satisfaction for the new "game makers": Plutarch Heavensby (the late Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Alma Coin (Julianne Moore). It's almost a throwback to the first games where we got to watch Seneca Crane make all the moves to stage the perfect Hunger Games. Now we watch these two masterminds behind the rebellion stage (and film) the perfect scene of Katniss at the battlefront for the perfect propaganda. 

Like all games, there are two sides. Everything on the opposing side is strategized and orchestrated by the nefarious President Snow (Donald Sutherland). His strategy, though, is much more personal. His reactions to the rebellion's blows are concentrated on more specific targets. He knows that if he can demoralize the Mockingjay then the rebellion will be defenseless against his final check mate. Just as Plutarch and Coin are using Katniss, Snow has his own weapon: Katniss' Hunger Games counterpart Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). Katniss might have been confused about her feelings for Peeta before, but those feelings seem to be much more apparent as she watches Peeta's bruised face on the TV denounce the rebellion. The games go on, and the games affect Katniss more. The PTSD is real and through terrible shocks of a destroyed home, a tortured Peeta and hellish nightmares Katniss becomes more broken.

"Mockingjay" is the deepest of the three movies. I believe most people would agree that the third book is the weakest of the trilogy, but director Francis Lawrence manages to faithfully stick to the source material while enhancing on the emotion. It's an adaptation that everyone can be happy with. One scene particularly stood out to me as one of the most feels-inducing, if you will. While Katniss is visiting District 8 with Gale and her film crew, hoping to deliver some hope to the hopeless, the Capitol retaliates to the Mockingjay sighting by blowing up a hospital full of innocent, wounded people. PTSD or not, Katniss can still perform under pressure and she won't go down before whipping out her bow and arrow and shooting down a PLANE. Action aside, what is emotionally stirring about this scene is Katniss' subsequent powerful punch to Snow on camera. "If we burn, you burn with us."
Let's be honest. This would be nothing without Jennifer Lawrence. Katniss is portrayed so genuinely and honestly. You watch her work in these films and it's no question how Lawrence has shot to the top so quickly in movie stardom. She is the girl on fire, but she brings something bigger to the table in this film. Even the subtle scenes - like thumbing Peeta's pearl to calm her anxiety - show her emotional depth. She is never over the top (a drawback in the source material, which was written in first person), her outbursts in anger are natural for the broken hero. I believe the scene featuring her singing of "The Hanging Tree" perfectly culminates Lawrence's ability to emotionally reach out to an audience, I certainly know I was moved. Just as the rebellion was nothing without the Mockingjay, the movies are nothing without her either.

The supporting performances are equally as impressive. I must admit, it was a little heartbreaking to watch Hoffman and realize that we will never be surprised by him again. Woody Harrelson as Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket also deliver in their small but key roles. Donald Sutherland portrays Snow with such subtle cruelty and, man, are we excited for his comeuppance. Stanley Tucci, though no more than a cameo, is still a pleasant face in a dark world. Julianne Moore, however, is the greatest addition to his already stellar cast. With her Cruella de Ville-like locks and her calculating but sympathetic eyes she is the perfect face for the rebellion's leader. Lawrence may be the star, but this isn't all her show.

The ending is rather abrupt as Hollywood once again exploits a franchise' success by splitting a 390 page novel into two movies. Like, seriously. It was ridiculous with "Twilight" and even more ridiculous with "The Hobbit." However, despite the abrupt ending (and rather cruel tease), I actually agreed with this decision for the first time. The novel is a confusing mix of an emotionally driven first half to an action packed second act. It would have been a rushed, confusing mix as a movie, too. Splitting it into two movies allows for the audience to compartmentalize those emotions and no doubt "Mockingjay: Part 2" will bring this series to a satisfying conclusion next year.

It may be nothing more than a set up, but Mockingjay: Part 1 still delivers an emotionally stirring transition to the conclusion of The Hunger Games series. 8/10