Iron Man
When I first heard that Jon Favreau would be directing this movie I wasn't sure if he could make it work. Boy, was I wrong! While I am a fan of Favreau, I didn't know if he could successfully direct a super hero movie. But from the moment I saw the trailer I knew that this would be a good one indeed. Robert Downey Jr's performance as Tony Stark/Iron Man is both excellent and hilarious. Within the first 30 seconds of the movie you realize he's going to be the "asshole that you gotta love." His sarcasm and wit keep you entertained throughout, and the flying and fighting sequences with Iron Man made me feel like a little kid again. Downey is backed up with great performances by Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard. This would be the first of many super hero films released this summer, and this movie was a really fine start. If you are looking for an entertaining, hilarious, and intense movie then you should check out Iron Man.
Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
It had been a long wait for Indy fans, and people were wondering if the final result would be worth the wait. But even after the movie was released there wasn't a definite answer. The reviews for this film were mixed, and even though I enjoyed the movie I must admit that it felt much different than the other Indiana Jones movies. The film delivers the classic over-the-top action sequences that the other films have, and Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indiana Jones fits perfectly with his previous performances. Several scenes felt out of place, but it was fun to have Shia LaBeouf and Cate Blanchett along for the ride. And it was great to bring Karen Allen back for another Indy movie. All in all this was a fun movie that gives you another chance to go on an adventure with Indiana Jones. And we all know that nostalgia is America's favorite pastime.
The Incredible Hulk
After the monstrosity that was HULK, Marvel decided to give this super hero franchise another shot. Would they have better luck the second time around? I wouldn't have allowed them to give it another go, beacuse I am not a fan of the Hulk. But its a good thing they did try again, because The Incredible Hulk was so much more "incredible" than its predecessor in every way. Edward Norton is the perfect Bruce Banner, and the CGI used for the new Hulk design is so much more detailed and believable. Liv Tyler's portrayal of Betty Ross was adequate, but she looked beautiful as she always does. The fight scenes with Hulk are very exciting, and the final battle with Abomination was so intense that I was gripping the arm rests on my seat. The final surprise at the end of the movie ties it in with Iron Man and helps build towards the Avengers movie that is on its way. If you like super hero movies, please check this one out.
Kung Fu Panda
I went into this movie with very low expectations, even though it features the voice of one of my favorite actors in Jack Black. And I was fairly pleased with what I received. Much of the dialogue in the film is very much JB influenced, and that was probably the best part of the movie. The story is pretty standard in that it focuses on Panda (Jack Black) having to overcome the odds and prove that he is the Dragon Warrior, despite nobody believing in him. Nothing too creative here. But children will love this movie, and adults won't mind it either. This movie brought about my favorite word of the summer with "Sca-doosh".
Wall-E
This was another movie I went to with low expectations. I guess I just have a grudge against CGI childrens movies. But I was pleasantly surprised with how adorable and loveable this movie and this character are. Wall-E is the last robot of his kind, and his mission is to clean up the filth left on earth by people who have gone to live in space. Wall-E falls in love with a robot from space named Eva, and it becomes their goal to show to the human race that earth is habitable again. The relationship between Wall-E and Eva is very cute, and Wall-E's human-like qualities are very humorous. It had the typical Disney movie feel to it, but it was a refreshing feeling. This is another film that is fun for children and adults alike. If you want to relax and enjoy a heartwarming story, please do yourself a favor and watch Wall-E.
Hancock
I was pretty sure I was going to like this movie from the moment I heard the concept behind it. I was told this movie was about a drunken bum who was also a super hero. 'Nuff said. The movie gave me exactly what I wanted, and Will Smith got me to like him again. It had been a while since I had seen a really good Will Smith movie, and his portrayal of a homeless asshole is hilarious. When the character of Hancock becomes more serious about his super hero role in society the film loses some of its charm. But you don't forget who Hancock was and who he is inside, so that helps to carry you through. The film also feature the gorgeous Charlize Theron and the funny Jason Bateman. The plot is somewhat questionable, but the focus of this film is on the character of Hancock. And he is going to be remembered for years to come. This is a fun spin on the super hero film genre, and I highly recommend it.
Hellboy 2: The Golden Army
If you weren't a fan of the first Hellboy, there is no reason to believe that you will like this sequel. But if you did enjoy the first Hellboy, then I believe you will find this movie to be even better. Ron Perlman returns as the bulky red hero Hellboy, and he's bringing a lot of great action sequences with him. There aren't many fun "creature" movies made anymore, but Hellboy delivers to people looking for that kind of entertainment. The movie focuses more on Hellboy's relationship with his girlfriend Liz (Selma Blair) and how he can possibly fit in with society. As stated before, the action sequences are amazing and the movie is one of the most visually stimulating films I have seen in a long time. Don't come to this film looking for a realistic portrayal of the world, because you will be outrageously dissappointed. But this is supposed to be a fun cinematic ride, and it is very entertaining indeed.
The Dark Knight
I had been looking forward to this movie for three long years, so needless to say my expectations were very high. And director Christopher Nolan blew me away with this film. All of my expectations were surpassed. Christian Bale reprises his role as Bruce Wayne/Batman alongside other Batman Begins actors Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman. But the three new additions to this cast were the ones that stole the show. Maggie Gyllenhaal picks up the role of Rachel Dawes, and she outperforms Katie Holmes ten times over. Aaron Eckhart plays the role of Harvey Dent and does a spectacular job of making him lovable, despite his grim future. And the main star of this film is the late Heath Ledger. Ledger's portrayal of the Joker is immaculate. He is creepy, funny, lovable, and hateable all at the same time. Sorry Mr. Nicholson, you are no longer deserving of your reputation as the best Joker. Heath Ledger is the man now, and it is such a shame that we will not get to see him perform anymore. The Dark Knight is THE movie to see this summer. This is not only the best super hero movie I have ever seen, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen period. GO SEE IT!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
By the way, Pineapple Express will be coming out on August 8th. It is going to be hilarious, so you'll need to go see that too. I could have waited a few more weeks to write this blog so I could have included Pineapple Express in my reviews, but it has been a while since anyone has posted a new topic and I was getting anxious.
I thought Heath Ledger was perfect, but I'm not comfortable saying he outdid Jack Nicholson. Batman was a different movie and it was amazing in a "cartoonier" and more fantastical way. The Dark Knight was amazing in a dramatic and oddly realistic way. They are both amazing there is no doubt, and I think each Joker did their particular role the best I can imagine them being done.
I was going to say the same thing as Bradley, but he already said it. I guess I could have predicted that he would stand up for Tim Burton, after all. I said the same thing after Batman Begins, but the new series's desire to justify a superhero universe within the bounds of the real world is no more interesting or valuable than Tim Burton's original attempt to make a live action of a comic book universe which requires no explanation. I liked both films, but it's hard to pick a clear winner here.
Everyone should know that I LOVE the first Tim Burton Batman film. It is a great movie without a doubt. But it is a slap in the face to Heath Ledger to suggest that he didn't outperform Nicholson. This is one of those concepts that falls right of the line of opinion/fact.
Jack Nicholson's Joker is Jack Nicholson wearing joker paint. It is Nicholson's voice the whole time, and you never forget that you are watching Jack Nicholson. Its funny and its awesome yes. I grew up with Nicholson as my ideal Joker, and I was very happy with it.
Heath Ledger's Joker IS The Joker. It bares no resemblance to Ledger or anything he's ever done before in his acting career. This is the kid from A Knight's Tale and The Patriot. But you never see that person in The Dark Knight, and its so easy to forget that its Heath Ledger. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call ACTING. And not just acting, but a flawless performance.
Ledger emersed himself in the role as the Joker, while Nicholson simply put on the costume, laughed, and acted like himself.
"...but the new series's desire to justify a superhero universe within the bounds of the real world is no more interesting or valuable than Tim Burton's original attempt to make a live action of a comic book universe which requires no explanation."
To each their own I suppose, but I think you would have a hard time trying to explain to me that it is equally difficult to create a fantasy story in the realm of a fantasy world as opposed to a fantasy story in the realm of reality. As a director or a writer, it is difficult to do what Nolan has done. That is why I'm so impressed with the new Batman movies. It is easy to throw some hot pink makeup on half of Tommy Lee Jones' face and say that he is a villain. It is much more impressive to take the audience on an emotional ride with Aaron Eckhart/Harvey Dent where the audience loves him at the start and despises/sympathizes with him at the end of the movie.
Derrick, you error in thinking that judging movies or actors has anything to do with how hard they were to make. They are judged on how effectively they entertain, educate, or inspire. It is not a slap in Heath Ledger's face to say that he didn't outdo Jack Nicholson who was portraying a completely different role than the one he was attempting. I'd imagine that if Ledger was alive to day, he would say that this comparison is ridiculous because he and Jack Nicholson portrayed different characters. It's like comparing apples to apple candy, they are both delicious in there place but neither is outperforming the other.
You do not mean it when you say that Jack Nicholson was himself wearing Joker paint. He was a physical presence in that movie, and if you watch it again you will see that he performs tremendously.
Lastly, leave anything after Batman Returns out of this (Tommy Lee Jones) as they were post-Burton.
"Derrick, you error in thinking that judging movies or actors has anything to do with how hard they were to make. They are judged on how effectively they entertain, educate, or inspire."
Of course films are judged on how well they entertain, educate, or inspire. I haven't denied this. And I'm very insulted that you think I wouldn't recognize this. However sir, YOU error in thinking that one shouldn't take into consideration the differences in the creative processes of art forms. Acting and films are both art forms. A clay gargoyle from Mrs. Dodd's art class in high school and the Sistine Chapel have about equal relevance to me and my life. I don't give a shit about either of them really, but I can appreciate the fact that the Sistine Chapel was much more difficult to create. So yes, one way I CAN judge movies is how difficult they were to make.
"I'd imagine that if Ledger was alive to day, he would say that this comparison is ridiculous because he and Jack Nicholson portrayed different characters. It's like comparing apples to apple candy, they are both delicious in there place but neither is outperforming the other."
I'm not allowed to compare the performances of two actors playing different versions of the same character? Why not? You might not like it, but why am I not allowed to? People do it for Johnny Depp and Gene Wilder with the Willy Wonka films. People do it for Cesar Romero and Jack Nicholson when comparing their versions of the Joker. Why can't we compare Ledger to Nicholson? And last time I checked, Apples and Apple Candy don't perform. They have distinct tastes, and people are free to compare them and think one tastes better over the other.
"You do not mean it when you say that Jack Nicholson was himself wearing Joker paint. He was a physical presence in that movie, and if you watch it again you will see that he performs tremendously."
I don't mean it? No, I very much do mean it. And there are thousands around the world right now that agree with me. You seem to think that I didn't like Nicholson in the '89 Batman. I LOVED Nicholson's Joker. He did his job very well. His performance as the Joker was just as much a part of my childhood/life as it was yours. But when watching Nicholson as the Joker, you never forget that you are watching Jack Nicholson play the Joker. When you watch Heath Ledger play the Joker, you never(or very rarely) see any sign of Heath Ledger or what we are used to seeing him perform as. You see only the character of The Joker. He made that role and that character his own. And in my opinion, he blew anything Nicholson did with his role out of the water. You can prefer Nicholson over Ledger, thats fine. That is your opinion. But you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who thinks that Nicholson put more into his character then Ledger did for his. And I don't need to watch Batman again because I've seen it plenty of times.
"Lastly, leave anything after Batman Returns out of this (Tommy Lee Jones) as they were post-Burton."
I was only using this as an example of how directors and script writers can put little effort into a character, and yet that character will still get plenty of marketing and notoriety. I love and appreciate good character building and well structured plot, but studios will put out films that lack these things because they'll still make money.
1. If a clay gargoyle is better (visually stimulating, beautiful, effecting, etc.) than the Sistine chapel, then it is better regardless of which is more difficult to make.
2. You're allowed to do whatever you want. I just feel that comparing two actors in there attempts to do something different is not a good use of time. How about telling me how Jack Nicholson could have done his Joker better.
Also, apples and apple candy perform when you eat them, metaphorically. You can say you like one better, but it is not worth your time to say which is better.
P.S. Heath is Joker, Jack is Joker candy.
3. I don't know if I forget that Jack Nicholson is the Joker when I watch him, but I've never desired any more out of him.
4. Burton is a genius and constructs characters and plots very well, we can agree on that I believe.
1. As I have stated, if this is how you choose to look at the world and how you compare things then fantastic. I just think you should take into consideration how impressive or unimpressive a feat is in regards to its difficulty. "Better" is an opinion. And obviously in this scenario we have a difference of opinion in who had the better peformance. If you got an A+ on a basic math exam and got an A- on an advanced calculus exam, sure the A+ is the "better" grade. Which is more impressive though? What would YOU be more proud of? The difficulty is very relevant when comparing the two. (And don't try to pretend that the A+ on the basic math exam means just as much or more, because you are full of it if you say so.)
2. Actors who perform in different roles are compared all the time. In fact they do it every year. Its called the Oscars. And just because you think this process is a waste of time doesn't change the fact that it is a very big part of the film industry.
As I have already explained to you, Jack Nicholson played his role very well. He might not even have been able to perform it any better. His performance worked perfectly for that movie, as you have already pointed out. But this doesn't change the fact that I prefer Ledger's Joker over Nicholson's. I think that Ledger's Joker was a much more complexed, entertaining, and came off as being much more dangerous than Nicholson's. You disagree, and thats fine.
I think this "worth my time" argument is ridiculous. But if it isn't worth my time to compare apples and apple candy simply because they are both delicious but different, then you are essentially saying that comparison isn't "worth my time" period. In fact saying that I have a "favorite" anything implies comparison to other things that I love. You have favorite foods, drinks, movies, and songs Berg. This means that you've compared them to other foods, drinks, movies, and songs. They have differences and similarities as well. And they are all open to comparison.
3. I'll say it again, Nicholson's Joker is absolutely fantastic. I grew up with him as my ideal Joker. Part of that has to do with the fact that you can clearly see Jack throughout the movie, and I really like Jack. But now I have a new favorite Joker. I'm sorry Berg.
4. Tim Burton is a beast, no doubt. But did you ever see his version of Planet Of The Apes? I know a few people in Friend Group who absolutely despise that movie.
There is a huge difference in having favorites, and saying someone "outperformed" someone else. Built to Spill is my favorite rock band, but i don't think they outdid the Beatles. Anyway, you said Jack might not have been able to do his role any better, so I am satisfied.
Also, I did see Planet of the Apes, and it did suck.
And to clear things up, as I said before, Heath Ledger was a perfect Joker in the new batman.
We better put this debate to rest now before American Dream fans (Dreamers) start thinking we got beef with each other.
Anyone with half a brain should know that if we had beef, there'd have been some casualties by now.
Sorry I missed this debate for so long - I agree basically with what Bradley is saying:
1) Nicholson was a better comic-book Joker, and more like the Joker as he existed before. Ledger was better as a quasi-terrorist Joker a la the vibe of the new Batman. I like the first vibe better, but I thought the new one did its role well, unlike Batman Begins. Regardless, Mark Hamill would have been the best in any genre of Batman movie.
2) Burton's Planet of the Apes was one of the most excruciating film experiences I have ever had the unpleasant misfortune to sit through.
Sorry I haven't joined this conversation yet- I just saw the Dark Knight last Saturday. I do say it's absolutely brilliant, and Heath Ledger certainly deserves huge praise for his role. Sorry though, Halpo; I concur with the confused bohemian and his Planet of the Apes Hating accomplice.
Tim Burton's "Batman" was a masterpiece, exploring the dark element of the Batman comics while incorporating the campiness of the Batman television series. Jack Nicholson is at once both a sadistic asshole from the comics and the silly clown from the tv show. I personally hate the Batman tv series, but I love Jack Nicholson's portrayal because he made the silliness into something truly sinister.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the new Batman movies are based upon a new series of graphic novels which focus on the implications of Batman. The new movies are more of an exploration of the price paid by those who decide to stand up for truth and justice in a society that has sunk as low as Gotham. That is why I think "The Dark Knight" is more about Harvey Dent than anyone else. Heath Ledger's Joker is not meant to entertain (purely, like Nicholson's). His purpose is to provide the ultimate foil to Batman. Tim Burton's "Batman" is an artistic, entertaining masterpiece whilst Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is more like a modern day Greek tradgedy.
So, more or less, Nicholson and Ledger played different characters. They have the same name, but their roles are very different. In that sense, I cannot compare the two. I am, however, finding it very difficult to think of a better foil (in any movie) than Heath Ledger's Joker.
PS: I went to a party this summer at Knebworth House, a 15th century manor that appeared in the original "Batman" as the outside of Wayne Manor. Just thought you'd like to know.
I forgot to ask Halpo if he watches movies that aren't comic book adaptations.
As the resident largest fan of Indiana Jones, I will say that Indie 4 is the worst of the series. I don't think it's a bad movie, I was just disappointed that it turned into a computer-animated sci-fi flick by the end. The whole family reunion element made the movie very busy- there were times when all I heard was bitching and nagging instead of gun shots and the patented Indie punch sound. It didn't feel like the other films either, mainly because of CGI. I'm being a bit hipocritical here, as my favorite/funniest part of the movie (the atomic bomb escape) could not have happened without CGI. However, many CGI'd scenes could have been live-action. The ingenuity and resourcefulness of the special effects teams in the first three made those movies great. Indie 4 nearly turned into another George Lucas CGI fiasco; it was only saved by the fact that Indie was still Indie. Hands down great performance. Cate Blanchett did very well portraying the villian too.
Taken out of the context of the series, I think it was a good movie. Put side by side with the others though, it falls short of the mark by a long shot. With all of that said though, I'll probably still be first in line to buy it on its release date...
Post a Comment