Movies

I really really wanted to like Iron Man 2.

Iron Man was one of the pleasant surprises of two summers ago, a popcorn flick with depth and character, a blockbuster with a beating heart – the heart of Tony Stark, who we grew to like and care for, in spite of himself… a character who matured and grew into a responsible citizen of the world.

Gee, Tony, what happened?

All the growth in the character in the first movie is negated in the first 10 minutes of the sequel, where we get the impression that all the character growth was driven by his ego, not his altruism. He’s “privatized world peace” but this is all talked about and not shown – a cardinal sin in a visual medium such as film. When he talks about it, he feigns humility, in a way that is obviously egotistical. Tony is even MORE self-centered at the beginning of the movie than he was in the first film.

Why?

I think it’s a serious question, and one that lies at the heart of the problems of Iron Man 2. There is no reason for Stark to “revert to type” and the only reason that is given (he’s being poisoned by his own cybernetic heart) is cloying and rings false. At the end of the first film, he is an empathetic character. In this one, he’s a self-centered jerk who‚’s dying, and ends this movie… as a self-centered jerk who is no longer dying. Iron Man 2 is like a TV episode – it puts characters in dramatic situations and then resets the status quo at the last (ten) minutes.

Another frustration (not complaint – again, I WANTED to like the movie) is that Iron Man 2 is plot driven, not character driven. Things HAPPEN to the characters, they don‚’t drive the plot (Tony Stark spends a considerable amount of the movie doing, well, nothing). The most active Tony is in the first half of the movie is… well, he decides to drive his own race car in the Grand Prix.

Again, no “hero‚’s journey” here. And can we PLEASE stop having daddy issues in your movies, Hollywood? Seriously.

I could write abut what worked, and there’s a lot that does work in the movie (Sam Rockwell and Mickey Rourke do good work with some thin material, for example). But, in the end the movie generated no emotion in me – I just didn’t care about what I was watching, and so I don‚’t have any energy to give this movie faint praise. Movies are emotional journeys, when done right – they are “turn off your brain popcorn movies” when done wrong.

Well, if you‚’re a “turn off your brain and enjoy” kinda guy, then pop some corn if you’re so inclined – Iron Man 2 is the movie for you.

I wish it was the movie for me.

Follow Joseph Dickerson on Twitter.

{ 1 comment }

I recently had the great pleasure of re-watching Citizen Kane, one of my favorite films, with the added pleasure of watching it while I listed to Roger Ebert’s great commentary track. Ebert, as many of you may know, has had cancer surgery that resulted in the loss of both his voice and his ability to eat, so it is a great gift that we have for posterity this commentary from him on one of the greatest films of all time.

As noted above, Kane is a favorite, though not THE favorite… I have to say that Chinatown and The Godfather tend to alternate in my personal top spot, depending on my mood and whatever I had just re-watched. But Kane is up there, and after watching it again I have to say that I understood the central character far more than I had ever before.

Charles Foster Kane, in many ways, is a man-child, someone who was thrust into greatness based on luck: his mother inherited a deed to a mine that resulted in unexpected riches. He stood fast on principles in his youth, then quickly and simply compromised them for his own selfish reasons.

But Kane was not just selfish – he was impotent. In four parallel scenes he is not in control of what happens to him. When you look at the beginning his fate is decided for him by his mother. After he is given to the banker Thatcher to take care of him, you see a boy enraged at this disruption and separation, and he attacks Thatcher. In the last one (when his wife Susan leaves) he breaks out in complete impotent rage… just like he did against Thatcher, only with a full life’s worth of rage behind him.

He has grown old, but he is still incomplete… he has searched for something to complete himself his whole life, collecting artifacts from around the world. But the closest thing that does so is a sled that reflects a distant memory of family, home, completeness. Of his mother.

He dies, alone. And we empathize with him, because that is one of our common fears. No one wants to go alone.

I also think that Kane is, in many ways, like our own country – young, with great opportunity… and eventually, in many ways, corrupted. It was no accident that the original title of the film was “The American.”

One quick, final note: I also recently watched the fantastic documentary on the great writer Harlan Ellison, called Dreams with Sharp Teeth. Ellison, unlike Kane, has never compromised on his principles (and this has hurt his career in many ways). Whether you like him or not (and if you don’t like him, be careful, he may sue you), he is consistent. And, like Kane, Ellison’s wife’s is named Susan.

The same as mine.

Comparing myself to the two “characters,” I aspire to be more like Ellison… but am afraid, every day, that I am turning into Kane.

Follow Joseph Dickerson on Twitter.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

As I write this, I just finished watching James Cameron win both best director and best picture awards for Avatar at The Golden Globes, a semi-phony awards ceremony that is still seen by some as an indicator of chances at the more legitimate Oscar ceremony. When he won best director, Cameron very honestly stated that he “expected Kathryn to win” – referring to Katheryn Bigelow, the director of The Hurt Locker, one of my favorite movies of 2009.

He should have. Because, while The Hurt Locker is a brutal and real depiction of people in an incredibly stressful situation – defusing IEDs in Iraq – Avatar is one of the most thin sloppy and false movies I saw last year. And I’m not talking about the CGI, I’m referring to the characters and plot. It’s thin as gruel, Saturday-morning television stuff. As South Park so aptly parodied it early this year, it’s “Dances with Smurfs”, played in large IMAX-scaled size. And in 3D!

Do I hate it? No, I’m frustrated by it. I’m disappointed by it. I like James Cameron, but more as a director than a writer. This was an opportunity lost, because Cameron refused to accept that he is NOT A GOOD WRITER he did it all by himself, and he needed help (much Like Lucas realized as he was writing the last Star Wars prequel). There is not one moment as I watched the film that I cared or sympathized with any of the characters on screen. Movies are about association and empathy and I did. Not. Care.

Is it stunning? Absolutely. Is it award-winning, for the visuals alone? Yes. Is it good, to me? No. To me it is Transformers 2 with a slightly better plot and better design and cinematography. As technology advances, and the visuals we see in it become commonplace and better filmmakers and writers realize than now anything can happen, I suspect it will not age well.

Yes, it is making a quazillion dollars. Good. It’s the closest thing we have right now in theatres to original SF, and I hope that Hollywood sees this and takes a chance on adapting some GOOD SF to theatre screens, like, well, anything Baen publishes right now. Or maybe that great Harlan Ellison I ROBOT script he did two-plus decades ago. They’d have to rename it, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the Will Smith movie.

Anyway, I know there are people who LOVE Avatar. And I’m happy for them. Movies are, like all art, received as personal experiences – you take something, or you leave it. You love it, or you hate it. For me, Avatar is a brilliant technological achievement without any real characters I care about.

It is a pretty, empty box.

Follow Joseph Dickerson on Twitter.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

I can’t help it, I’m a guy who grew up watching the silly and bombastic A-Team TV show in the 80s and I’m excited about the new big-budget movie. Here’s the trailer:

The opening narration! The Jeep flip! Even B.A.’s head turn and glare! One ticket: sold!

Follow Joseph Dickerson on Twitter.

{ 0 comments }

Since I have been traveling quite a bit lately I have started reading more, to fill flight time. I have always been fond of biographies because they provide interesting “behind the scenes” perspectives, and I usually focus on biographies of actors and moviemakers because, well, I’m a geek. I just finished one biography and am working on another, and wanted to post my quick thoughts on both.

The View from the Bridge by writer/director Nicholas Meyer is a great look at his career, from writing the great Holmes novel The Seven Percent Solution all the way through his writing and directing of the Best Star Trek Movie Ever, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and the subsequent sequel Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Anytime you hear someone say “only even-numbered Star Trek movies are good,” you can point to Nick Meyer as the main reason for that (he also co-wrote Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home).

Meyer is witty, self-deprecating and tells some great yarns about his career (his segment on how to direct Shatner is worth the price of the book in and of itself). If you are a Trek fan, or a fan of Meyer’s work outside of Trek (his Time After Time is an underrated classic), you need to get this book. Highly recommended.

Roger Moore has put out a great biography, My Word is my Bond, and if you know anything about the witty and charming Moore then you will know that all that brilliance is on display in his bio. From his early days as a contract player, all the way through the Saint and (of course) James Bond, Moore covers it all and is also very very funny. Buy it if you can.

Follow Joseph Dickerson on Twitter.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }