RSS

Yearly Archives: 2010

Movie Review: “Iron Man 2”

Too often, sequels don’t match up to the promise of the original. However, every so often a movie comes along that defies this convention – “The Dark Knight” being a prime example. And I am happy to report that “Iron Man 2” is just as good as – and even better than – the original.

The film centers on Tony Stark (played superbly by Robert Downey Jr.), a multibillionaire weapons/technology tycoon. In the first “Iron Man” film, he developed a powerful exoskeleton that allowed him to take on a whole host of thugs and terrorists – before finally revealing his identity in the movie’s final minutes. “Iron Man 2” picks up immediately thereafter, as Stark confronts his newfound celebrity-superhero status.

But as always, things are never quite as simple as that. Not only does the U.S. government want to get its hands on the suit, but rival weapons contractor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) and supervillain physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) are forming a dastardly alliance to take down Stark and his company. When a Grand Prix race at Monaco degenerates into a battle between Iron Man and Vanko (better known to comic aficionados as “Whiplash”), Stark is forced to confront threats both external and internal.

It sounds really complicated on paper, but the film itself doesn’t feel choppy or incoherent. (It doesn’t suffer from multiple-villain fatigue like “Spider-Man 3” did.) Director Jon Favreau seamlessly integrates classic Marvel Comics characters (even referencing the upcoming “Captain America” and “Avengers” movies) with fantastic acting and vivid set pieces.

Downey is in top form as Tony Stark. Whereas his character in “Sherlock Holmes” suffered from a lack of warmth and emotional depth, Stark is a much deeper and more complex figure. He manages to toss off humorous one-liners and still manage to display legitimate emotion when it’s needed – a true rarity. Rounding out the stellar cast are Gwyneth Paltrow (as Stark’s assistant/quasi-romantic interest), Don Cheadle ( as Stark’s friend James Rhodes), and Scarlett Johansson (as a beautiful secretary/spy with wicked martial-arts skills). It’s an ensemble that brilliantly evokes the Iron Man universe, and lends an air of legitimacy to an otherwise fantastical concept.

Besides the acting, there’s quite a lot here to keep viewers entertained. The action sequences are appropriately bombastic for a summer blockbuster, providing a fresh crop of “gotta-top-that” scenarios. As expected, there are many, many explosions and armored combat scenes – but never so many that they become dull or mundane. But anyone who’s seen the trailer already knows about how incredible the action is.

As in most superhero films, there are a lot of interesting subtexts present in this movie. Perhaps chief among them is the sharp critique of the U.S. bureaucracy, and our government’s naivete in assuming that everyone shares a peaceful, utopian worldview. (Notable here is the destruction of a gigantic “one world” globe during the final battle.) The U.S. Senate is frequently portrayed as a group of bumbling politicians interested only in personal power and comfort. Stark himself even takes a few swipes at the liberal establishment (although, to be fair, Fox News also ends up getting lampooned.)

The film’s political philosophy is markedly libertarian. While the social aspects of conservatism are almost entirely absent, there is a strong focus on the importance of private business and the weaknesses of governmental intervention. Characters prevail through self-reliance and independent innovation, without help from external actors. It’s a welcome change from the frequent onslaught of “socially sensitive” politically-correct storytelling present in much of our culture today.

From a worldview or faith standpoint, there are a few interesting things to note. While “Iron Man 2” is far less “philosophical” than “The Dark Knight”, it still conveys some clear messages: that restraint is superior to hedonism, and that individuals have a responsibility to use their talents for more than just personal gain. Stark’s occasional excesses are painfully shown to be undesirable and fraught with negative consequences.

On a deeper level, the story of “Iron Man” is ultimately one of redemption. Stark’s total life-reversal in the first “Iron Man” is shown to be more than just a one-time experience. Having chosen a lifestyle of morality and self-sacrifice, he must constantly struggle against the impulse to revert back to his former self. It’s certainly a worthy and thought-provoking message.

So is it worth watching?

In a word: yes. It’s better than the first in both character and plot development, and lacking many of the racy innuendos present in the original. There’s a lot of smash-’em-up violence and a few swearwords, but overall it’s pretty standard superhero fare – the PG-13 rating is never called into question. Not only is it a great summer action movie, but it challenges the viewer to evaluate his or her lifestyle, providing plenty of food for thought.

Action movie fans, movie philosophy analysts, and superhero buffs alike: don’t miss this one.

VERDICT: 8.5/10
One of the best superhero films out there, in a class with “The Dark Knight” and “Spider-Man 2.”

Normalized Score: 6.9

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 10, 2010 in Sci-Fi

 

Movie Review: “Clash of the Titans”

Back when I was about eleven or twelve, my favorite computer game was Ensemble Studios’ strategy title “Age of Mythology.” In a nutshell, the game allows players to control armies of mythological creatures from Greek, Norse, and Egyptian folklore, pitting them against each other in a battle to the death. I remember thinking how cool it would be if someone eventually made a movie like the game.

That day has arrived.

“Clash of the Titans”, a remake of the 1981 fantasy-adventure film, is an ultra-violent, pulse-pounding, stupendously brainless mashup of classical mythology. As a longtime fan of films that involve gigantic CGI monsters blowing up the screen, “Clash of the Titans” was one of my must-see movies this year. After a busy few weeks, Pete and I decided to indulge in a little mindless action this afternoon and see if it was as good as the previews made it look.

The verdict? It’s exactly the movie the trailers depict – no more, no less. And that’s both good and bad.

The plot follows Perseus (the emotion-devoid Sam Worthington, best known for his recent role in “Avatar”), the son of Zeus and a mortal woman. Angered that humanity is asserting its independence from the gods, Zeus – egged on by his power-hungry brother, Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes, better known as “Lord Voldemort”) – decides to unleash a legion of underworld monsters. His goal? To drive humans to their knees in prayer. (I’ll address the obvious worldview implications a little later on).

After the arrogant Queen Cassiopeia announces that her daughter Andromeda is more beautiful than Aphrodite, Hades promptly shows up to deliver a sinister promise: unless Andromeda sacrifices her own life, he will unleash the monstrous Kraken to destroy the entire city. Perseus decides to take matters into his own hands by killing the Kraken himself.

Easier said than done.

In his quest to obtain Medusa’s head (the only weapon that can defeat the Kraken), Perseus and his companions (who, with the exception of one character, are pretty much designated targets for unpleasant deaths) face off with a whole horde of mythological beasties. Among them are giant scorpions, eyeless witches, djinn (seemingly cribbed from “The Arabian Nights”), and a horribly disfigured warrior who happens to be Perseus’ sort-of-stepfather.

The movie is a slam-bang action extravaganza from start to finish. It never pretends to be sophisticated or intelligent – it’s all about swords, big monsters, and warriors roaring unintelligible things. (It never quite sinks to the stupidity level of last summer’s “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen,” however). And the action sequences are undeniably explosive – the final battle with the Kraken alone is worth the $8 price of admission. It’s violent, mindless, and remarkably entertaining.

From a worldview standpoint, there are a few considerations. Anyone who’s seen the trailer probably remembers the provocative teaser line “D**N THE GODS!” That irreverence is carried over into the movie as a whole – the gods are universally incompetent, disinterested, and deserving of revolt. And while that may be true in terms of the original Greek myths, a few of the rebellious statements made by Perseus come pretty close to swipes at the real-world God. The message of the movie is decidedly humanistic: man is completely capable of achieving heroic things by himself, and God doesn’t even really need to be involved.

But to be perfectly honest, I don’t think the filmmakers were intending to make an apologetic for atheism. While there’s definitely an undercurrent of anti-God feeling, philosophy takes a backseat to explosive stunts and big battle scenes. This movie is about monsters – the bigger the better – and the designers obviously spent most of their time making the city-size Kraken look phenomenal.

As expected, there’s a lot of violence (mostly bloodless). Countless soldiers and monsters are sliced, stabbed, drowned, crushed, burned, or turned to stone…but the PG-13 rating is never called into question. There are a few profanities, and one very brief suggestive moment, but no other offensive material. Anyone who’s seen “Lord of the Rings” won’t be seriously disturbed by “Clash of the Titans.”

So is it worth your money?

It was worth mine. But then again, I like this sort of thing. If fantasy monsters and sustained swordfights aren’t your thing…well, Nicholas Sparks’ “The Last Song” is playing in theaters right now…

I’ll stick with the Kraken.

VERDICT: 7/10
An absolutely mindless, yet marvelously entertaining, fantasy action film.

Normalized Score: 3.4

 
1 Comment

Posted by on April 2, 2010 in Fantasy