Last Friday, I saw The Avengers with my girlfriend and we both enjoyed it. Her more than I (although, in some ways less, too...). I think she said she'd give it 4/5 and I said 3.75/5. Big difference. So, here are a few brief thoughts (aka minor, nitpicky complaints) (and I'm going in whatever order they occur to me right now):
* I'll be honest: any time Thor wasn't on the screen, part of me was wondering "Hey, I wonder what Thor is doing right now..."
* At the end of the movie, where the team 'disappears,' aren't Hawkeye and the Black Widow walking away from their jobs? I mean, they're just regular SHIELD agents. Actually, what makes them so special to be Avengers? That seemed strange.
* Michelle thought Captain America was the worst character (most uninteresting). I told her that that's something they copied exactly from the comics.
* I could watch Robert Downey, Jr. play Tony Stark all day.
* Adapting The Infinity Gauntlet seems a little stupid to me, if only because that story (and the other two "Infinity" crossovers) was about Adam Warlock and Thanos with the rest of the Marvel heroes used as filler, never actually doing anything. In The Infinity Gauntlet, they were cannon fodder that Warlock hoped would distract Thanos long enough to actually get something done. They were worthless losers. So, yes, let's make that story into a movie. (I know, I know, they'll just change it, shut up.)
* I tried explaining Thanos to Michelle after the movie was over and that was very, very weird. "He, uh, gets the Infinity Gems, which each represent mastery over something different like time or the mind. He does this to impress Death. Because he's in love with Death. That's why he smiles when that alien guy mentioned courting death, because, uh, that's what he's trying to do. Except, when he gets the Infinity Gems and becomes like a god, she won't talk to him then, either. Before, she was too far above him to pay him any notice, but, now, he's as far above her as she was him then, that it's the same thing. So, he's sad. It's weird and kind of creepy."
* The comedy was pushed a little too far at times. Like the bit with Captain America and the cop. That felt like the same type of joke done a couple too many times.
* Oddly, Michelle and I seemed to be the only ones who laughed at many of the jokes.
* The joke I laughed at the most, and the longest, was Cap's excitement over getting the Wizard of Oz reference. That killed me.
* But, my favourite moment was the use of AC/DC when Iron Man first showed up in his armour. I wish the soundtracks for the other movies were as distinctive as that one so we could have gotten three other moments like that for Thor, the Hulk, and Cap.
* It was well worth being secretive over the identity of the aliens. Clearly.
* Seriously, those aliens sucked. Even the flying dragons sucked. Also, why did they not send Thor through the portal to attack them on the other side, like, right away?
* If Thor can fly, why would putting him in a container and dropping it be a threat? Couldn't he just fly and lift the container from the inside?
* Mark Ruffalo was good.
* The stuff with Loki 'brainwashing' people was surprising and gave the first half a different feel than I expected, especially with Hawkeye.
* "Hulk: smash." That was funny, too.
All in all, an enjoyable movie. Not the end all be all of movies or superhero movies or anything like that. But, well worth the two free passes we used to get in.
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Friday, May 25, 2012
Monday, October 05, 2009
Liveblogging the First Hour or So of Hancock
Hancock is on again, so I'm going to liveblog my thoughts a bit...
* Hancock kicks off with the brilliant Atticus Shaffer calling Hancock an asshole. That kid is amazingly cute and funny -- he's the youngest kid in the new sitcom The Middle and fantastic there.
* Hancock watching the new coverage of himself in a bar... a public place, a need to be accepted after performing an action meant to do the same -- but it results in people hating him. He can't help but tell a woman off as he lashes out after being hurt emotionally.
* I don't actually care about Ray that much. His little quest to 'change the world' doesn't really come off that well here. It's too vague and unfocused -- too idealistic in that obvious way, meant for failure. He reaches too far, wanting too much, while Hancock wants too little.
* "All you people, blocking the intersection... you're all idiots..." Great line. Hancock mouthing off to the crowd is great, because it's the only personal interaction he gets. Not only that, but this is the sort of personal interaction he's accustomed to. This is the thanks he gets and while he wants better, he'll take what he can get. He's mystified at Ray's actual gratitude -- and, later, at Ray's son, Aaron's awe.
* Every action Hancock undertakes is the laziest, most thoughtless one possible.
* The discomfort Hancock experiences at dinner... and filling his glass with booze... he's trapped in his little anti-social world of self-loathing and loneliness. Or, Hancock's advice to Aaron about how to deal with Michel, the neighbourhood bully, reveals that Hancock's superpowers have taught him the only way to solve problems is violence. He's like a little boy who likes a girl, but the only thing he knows to do to get her attention it hit her: the human race is that little girl and his acts of 'heroism' are odd attempts to get affection. He doesn't know any better.
* "Did he just take the whiskey bottle to the bathroom?" "Do you want him to kill us all?" Great.
* I'm trying to reconcile Mary's dislike of Hancock with where I think the movie should have gone and I'm not sure I can yet.
* Hankcock waking up outside of his trailer that's out in the middle of nowhere, his sad, lonely life... Will Smith plays this perfectly, the way he looks at that movie ticket he keeps... it tortures him to have that reminder of a life he can't remember, but he can't let go.
* What a surprise: the little douchebag bully is a French kid...
* Hancock's dealing with the kid is exactly how 95% of us want to deal with a little shit like that. A mouthy little fucker that you just want to smack... Hancock can do what we all want to do because no one can hold him accountable really.
* Aaaaaaaaaaand he's tossed the whale... aaaaaaaaaaand it's hit the boat. I love that scene.
* "Homo... Homo in red... Norwegian homo..."
* Ray tells us the point of the character and what he really wants just under the 30 minute mark in case you didn't understand it yourself.
* I fucking hate Nancy Grace.
* And, then, Hancock's little speech about how he'll be better adds the other half of the point of the movie, in case you didn't understand it yourself.
* The point: he's lonely and wants acceptance -- and, to get it, he'll improve himself. That is the point of the movie. That the film deviates from that point when Mary is revealed as another immortal superpowered being is a huge flaw.
* Hancock shoves one inmate's head up another inmate's ass... perhaps the most unexpected, fucked up scene in recent Hollywood history. Worth it for all of the reaction shots. And the theme from Sanford and Son plays!
* Ogre! Ogre! Ogre!
* Hancock's group therapy sessions are engaging. A chance to actually open up in a safe environment where he will gain acceptance and he never takes advantage of it. He doesn't know how to open up to these people who won't judge him because they are just as fucked up and lonely as he is.
* The revelation that Hancock's incarceration actually causes crime to rise is interesting, because we get the idea that he doesn't actually do much good. I think this is a weakness of the movie: we need more of him fighting crime in a reckless fashion before he can begin to turn things around. But, that's a requirement of the shitty second half, I suppose. Have to have room for the bullshit.
* The prison visit by Aaron and Mary seems like it will have a big impact on Hancock, but it just makes him more withdrawn. That's an interesting choice. Mary showing up is a sign that another person has accepted him and doesn't hate him, which is what he wants, but it causes him to crawl into himself more.
* The wall carvings Hancock does in prison is all we should get of his origin, of his past. Because his past doesn't matter.
* A key scene: Hancock throws a basketball, which bounces over the prison's fence, so he hopes out to get it. He's just staring, going from the prison to the empty space... before he jumps back. Why does he return to prison? I love that scene. It reaffirms his desire to be accepted... and, in prison, he's just like everyone else.
* It cuts immediately to another therapy sessions where they force him to share: "My name is Hancock and I drink and stuff," and they react with enthusiasm. We get tangible proof that they will accept him.
* The hostage situation comes too soon, I think. We just saw a small breakthrough and to have Hancock leave prison this quickly is rushing it. He should have stayed there longer, be shown to be more comfortable in that setting where he is just another inmate. His superpowers mean nothing in prison, because he's trapped there like everyone else. While it's his choice to be trapped, that doesn't change anything in reality.
* Hancock repeating "Good job" to the cops is great. He's making an effort!
* When they launch that grenade at him, it shows that he still hasn't changed, because he simply deflects it, which could hurt someone but doesn't. It's still a thoughtless, lazy action.
* The lead crook in the bank robbery is a bit of a moron. How is he not aware of Hancock? Sure, Hancock was in prison, but when he men are being taken away by something... of course it's Hancock!
* Hancock cuts off the guy's hand to keep his thumb on the detonator: lateral thinking at its best.
* Hancock is faced with his first largescale positive reaction and, like most introverts, doesn't know how to react, so he nods awkwardly and stands there before taking off. And, from there, we go to a restaurants where he's loved. He's asked to smile and we get a weird grimace.
* The dinner with Ray and Mary points to the direction where the movie should have gone (and sort of does): Hancock wants what Ray has. The public liking him isn't as great as he thought it would. It's awkward and weird, it's not that different from the public hating him. It's a mob mentality -- he wants acceptance on a more personal, intimate level. Mary is the only woman who's shown him that, so, naturally, he tries to hit on her. The movie should have had her rebuff him and Ray discover it, so Hancock destroys that relationship.
* We're pretty much at the point where I stop this, because Hancock just put Ray to bed and is about to try and kiss Mary.
* Some final thoughts: this first hour or so of the movie is rushed because they want to have room for the Mary plot, which, as I said, is a mistake. It loses the point of Hancock wanting acceptance and working to become better to gain it. We don't get enough of his recklessness, nor of him improving in prison... it's all very much one or two short scenes and moving on. No, the movie needed to slow down, take its time, and stick with the point. Hancock wants acceptance, ultimately, from himself. While he gains that in the movie, it comes about through an inane manner. Otherwise, that first hour is pretty good. I didn't enjoy it as much this time around since I noticed how compressed it is. But, still, pretty good.
Hope you enjoyed this.
* Hancock kicks off with the brilliant Atticus Shaffer calling Hancock an asshole. That kid is amazingly cute and funny -- he's the youngest kid in the new sitcom The Middle and fantastic there.
* Hancock watching the new coverage of himself in a bar... a public place, a need to be accepted after performing an action meant to do the same -- but it results in people hating him. He can't help but tell a woman off as he lashes out after being hurt emotionally.
* I don't actually care about Ray that much. His little quest to 'change the world' doesn't really come off that well here. It's too vague and unfocused -- too idealistic in that obvious way, meant for failure. He reaches too far, wanting too much, while Hancock wants too little.
* "All you people, blocking the intersection... you're all idiots..." Great line. Hancock mouthing off to the crowd is great, because it's the only personal interaction he gets. Not only that, but this is the sort of personal interaction he's accustomed to. This is the thanks he gets and while he wants better, he'll take what he can get. He's mystified at Ray's actual gratitude -- and, later, at Ray's son, Aaron's awe.
* Every action Hancock undertakes is the laziest, most thoughtless one possible.
* The discomfort Hancock experiences at dinner... and filling his glass with booze... he's trapped in his little anti-social world of self-loathing and loneliness. Or, Hancock's advice to Aaron about how to deal with Michel, the neighbourhood bully, reveals that Hancock's superpowers have taught him the only way to solve problems is violence. He's like a little boy who likes a girl, but the only thing he knows to do to get her attention it hit her: the human race is that little girl and his acts of 'heroism' are odd attempts to get affection. He doesn't know any better.
* "Did he just take the whiskey bottle to the bathroom?" "Do you want him to kill us all?" Great.
* I'm trying to reconcile Mary's dislike of Hancock with where I think the movie should have gone and I'm not sure I can yet.
* Hankcock waking up outside of his trailer that's out in the middle of nowhere, his sad, lonely life... Will Smith plays this perfectly, the way he looks at that movie ticket he keeps... it tortures him to have that reminder of a life he can't remember, but he can't let go.
* What a surprise: the little douchebag bully is a French kid...
* Hancock's dealing with the kid is exactly how 95% of us want to deal with a little shit like that. A mouthy little fucker that you just want to smack... Hancock can do what we all want to do because no one can hold him accountable really.
* Aaaaaaaaaaand he's tossed the whale... aaaaaaaaaaand it's hit the boat. I love that scene.
* "Homo... Homo in red... Norwegian homo..."
* Ray tells us the point of the character and what he really wants just under the 30 minute mark in case you didn't understand it yourself.
* I fucking hate Nancy Grace.
* And, then, Hancock's little speech about how he'll be better adds the other half of the point of the movie, in case you didn't understand it yourself.
* The point: he's lonely and wants acceptance -- and, to get it, he'll improve himself. That is the point of the movie. That the film deviates from that point when Mary is revealed as another immortal superpowered being is a huge flaw.
* Hancock shoves one inmate's head up another inmate's ass... perhaps the most unexpected, fucked up scene in recent Hollywood history. Worth it for all of the reaction shots. And the theme from Sanford and Son plays!
* Ogre! Ogre! Ogre!
* Hancock's group therapy sessions are engaging. A chance to actually open up in a safe environment where he will gain acceptance and he never takes advantage of it. He doesn't know how to open up to these people who won't judge him because they are just as fucked up and lonely as he is.
* The revelation that Hancock's incarceration actually causes crime to rise is interesting, because we get the idea that he doesn't actually do much good. I think this is a weakness of the movie: we need more of him fighting crime in a reckless fashion before he can begin to turn things around. But, that's a requirement of the shitty second half, I suppose. Have to have room for the bullshit.
* The prison visit by Aaron and Mary seems like it will have a big impact on Hancock, but it just makes him more withdrawn. That's an interesting choice. Mary showing up is a sign that another person has accepted him and doesn't hate him, which is what he wants, but it causes him to crawl into himself more.
* The wall carvings Hancock does in prison is all we should get of his origin, of his past. Because his past doesn't matter.
* A key scene: Hancock throws a basketball, which bounces over the prison's fence, so he hopes out to get it. He's just staring, going from the prison to the empty space... before he jumps back. Why does he return to prison? I love that scene. It reaffirms his desire to be accepted... and, in prison, he's just like everyone else.
* It cuts immediately to another therapy sessions where they force him to share: "My name is Hancock and I drink and stuff," and they react with enthusiasm. We get tangible proof that they will accept him.
* The hostage situation comes too soon, I think. We just saw a small breakthrough and to have Hancock leave prison this quickly is rushing it. He should have stayed there longer, be shown to be more comfortable in that setting where he is just another inmate. His superpowers mean nothing in prison, because he's trapped there like everyone else. While it's his choice to be trapped, that doesn't change anything in reality.
* Hancock repeating "Good job" to the cops is great. He's making an effort!
* When they launch that grenade at him, it shows that he still hasn't changed, because he simply deflects it, which could hurt someone but doesn't. It's still a thoughtless, lazy action.
* The lead crook in the bank robbery is a bit of a moron. How is he not aware of Hancock? Sure, Hancock was in prison, but when he men are being taken away by something... of course it's Hancock!
* Hancock cuts off the guy's hand to keep his thumb on the detonator: lateral thinking at its best.
* Hancock is faced with his first largescale positive reaction and, like most introverts, doesn't know how to react, so he nods awkwardly and stands there before taking off. And, from there, we go to a restaurants where he's loved. He's asked to smile and we get a weird grimace.
* The dinner with Ray and Mary points to the direction where the movie should have gone (and sort of does): Hancock wants what Ray has. The public liking him isn't as great as he thought it would. It's awkward and weird, it's not that different from the public hating him. It's a mob mentality -- he wants acceptance on a more personal, intimate level. Mary is the only woman who's shown him that, so, naturally, he tries to hit on her. The movie should have had her rebuff him and Ray discover it, so Hancock destroys that relationship.
* We're pretty much at the point where I stop this, because Hancock just put Ray to bed and is about to try and kiss Mary.
* Some final thoughts: this first hour or so of the movie is rushed because they want to have room for the Mary plot, which, as I said, is a mistake. It loses the point of Hancock wanting acceptance and working to become better to gain it. We don't get enough of his recklessness, nor of him improving in prison... it's all very much one or two short scenes and moving on. No, the movie needed to slow down, take its time, and stick with the point. Hancock wants acceptance, ultimately, from himself. While he gains that in the movie, it comes about through an inane manner. Otherwise, that first hour is pretty good. I didn't enjoy it as much this time around since I noticed how compressed it is. But, still, pretty good.
Hope you enjoyed this.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Some Short Thoughts on Hancock
[Note: spoilers of Hancock and I am Legend below.]
I saw Hancock the other night on TV and, honestly, it was one of the more interesting superhero stories I've encountered in a while. Oh, as long as you stop the movie after he stops the hostage situation in the bank... everything after that takes the story in a mistaken direction of unimportance (I'll get to that). But, for that first hour, the movie is oddly engaging as we watch Hancock struggle with being apart from humanity and wanting to be a part of humanity... and how that desire causes him to act in a way that further distances him from humanity. He fights crime, but in a sloppy, ill-conceived manner, often screwing up only because he didn't stop for two seconds to think his actions through. He wants to save a beached whale? Great! Except he simply chucks it into the ocean without bothering to aim and hits a boat. Why not pick the whale up, fly it over the ocean and set it in the water? Because he wants to help, but not really. There's an element of his character that resents who he is and what he can do: he will help but only in a way that's self-destructive.
The scene that stands out to me most of all is when he shoots a basketball in prison that bounces off the rim and over the fence of the prison (since he chucked the ball from the other side of the yard), so he jumps over the fence to get the ball, picks it up, and stands there. The prison sirens go wailing, the prisoners shout at him because they resent his ability to leave at will... and he stands there, looking at the open space ahead of him. He could just leave, he doesn't need to stay in prison, he doesn't need to win people over, he doesn't need to be a hero... and, then, he jumps back behind the prison fence. Because, he does need acceptence and, oddly, in prison, he's found it: he's found some security in the daily routine, in the fact that he's just another prisoner, that he could be like anyone else in there. There are no chances to play hero in prison, so he doesn't need to, whereas, in the world, there are always chances and he can't help himself.
Hancock is complex and simple: lots of self-loathing, he resents his powers as much as everyone around him resents them, he sees himself as superior to humanity because he is and can't hide that from everyone around him...
He's a criticism of the idea that simply having powers is enough to be a superhero, that training and practice isn't needed. Nor that being a hero is what comes naturally to everyone.
"Why does Hancock keep trying to play hero?" That is the central question of the movie and it gets lost after the hostage rescue in favour of the bullshit with his immortal wife. That second half is where the move goes off the rails as it tries to fill in the mystery of Hancock's background and create a credible nemesis/enemy for him (which he doesn't need since he's his enemy) and it sucks the air out of the whole thing. Up until then, it was a character study of this guy who wants to be loved and accepted but does almost everything he can to drive people away.
It falls into the same trap as the comic that explained Wolverine's origin: origins don't always matter and, sometimes, make a character or story weaker. All we need from Hancock's origin: he woke up in a hospital eighty years ago, couldn't remember who he was, has superpowers. If the answer to who he was before that hasn't presented itself in the past eighty years then it isn't necessary.
What should have happened is Hancock tries to kiss Mary and, as a result, drives away Ray, the one guy who believed in him and accepted him. Because Hancock can't help but drive people away. For act of heroism comes an act of self-destruction... no matter how well-intentioned.
It reminds me of I am Legend, another Will Smith movie from the last year or two, where a guy struggles with loneliness, and another movie that was absolutely fantastic until the last half/third. In that movie, it was him being saved from the Darkseekers... man, how great would that movie have been if it ended with Neville dying in that one last, insane attempt to kill as many of those fuckers as possible? What is it with these movies and not knowing how to end? It's like they don't notice their own potential to be great instead of some useless Hollywood piece of shit. And, no, I don't think those 'darker' changes would hurt them at the box office since I've yet to hear anyone say anything good about the final halves/thirds of those movies.
I think I need to see Hancock again to really delve into it. An oddly mature and realistic take on a superhero story that doesn't immediately remind me of something I've read before. Come on, that's rare.
I saw Hancock the other night on TV and, honestly, it was one of the more interesting superhero stories I've encountered in a while. Oh, as long as you stop the movie after he stops the hostage situation in the bank... everything after that takes the story in a mistaken direction of unimportance (I'll get to that). But, for that first hour, the movie is oddly engaging as we watch Hancock struggle with being apart from humanity and wanting to be a part of humanity... and how that desire causes him to act in a way that further distances him from humanity. He fights crime, but in a sloppy, ill-conceived manner, often screwing up only because he didn't stop for two seconds to think his actions through. He wants to save a beached whale? Great! Except he simply chucks it into the ocean without bothering to aim and hits a boat. Why not pick the whale up, fly it over the ocean and set it in the water? Because he wants to help, but not really. There's an element of his character that resents who he is and what he can do: he will help but only in a way that's self-destructive.
The scene that stands out to me most of all is when he shoots a basketball in prison that bounces off the rim and over the fence of the prison (since he chucked the ball from the other side of the yard), so he jumps over the fence to get the ball, picks it up, and stands there. The prison sirens go wailing, the prisoners shout at him because they resent his ability to leave at will... and he stands there, looking at the open space ahead of him. He could just leave, he doesn't need to stay in prison, he doesn't need to win people over, he doesn't need to be a hero... and, then, he jumps back behind the prison fence. Because, he does need acceptence and, oddly, in prison, he's found it: he's found some security in the daily routine, in the fact that he's just another prisoner, that he could be like anyone else in there. There are no chances to play hero in prison, so he doesn't need to, whereas, in the world, there are always chances and he can't help himself.
Hancock is complex and simple: lots of self-loathing, he resents his powers as much as everyone around him resents them, he sees himself as superior to humanity because he is and can't hide that from everyone around him...
He's a criticism of the idea that simply having powers is enough to be a superhero, that training and practice isn't needed. Nor that being a hero is what comes naturally to everyone.
"Why does Hancock keep trying to play hero?" That is the central question of the movie and it gets lost after the hostage rescue in favour of the bullshit with his immortal wife. That second half is where the move goes off the rails as it tries to fill in the mystery of Hancock's background and create a credible nemesis/enemy for him (which he doesn't need since he's his enemy) and it sucks the air out of the whole thing. Up until then, it was a character study of this guy who wants to be loved and accepted but does almost everything he can to drive people away.
It falls into the same trap as the comic that explained Wolverine's origin: origins don't always matter and, sometimes, make a character or story weaker. All we need from Hancock's origin: he woke up in a hospital eighty years ago, couldn't remember who he was, has superpowers. If the answer to who he was before that hasn't presented itself in the past eighty years then it isn't necessary.
What should have happened is Hancock tries to kiss Mary and, as a result, drives away Ray, the one guy who believed in him and accepted him. Because Hancock can't help but drive people away. For act of heroism comes an act of self-destruction... no matter how well-intentioned.
It reminds me of I am Legend, another Will Smith movie from the last year or two, where a guy struggles with loneliness, and another movie that was absolutely fantastic until the last half/third. In that movie, it was him being saved from the Darkseekers... man, how great would that movie have been if it ended with Neville dying in that one last, insane attempt to kill as many of those fuckers as possible? What is it with these movies and not knowing how to end? It's like they don't notice their own potential to be great instead of some useless Hollywood piece of shit. And, no, I don't think those 'darker' changes would hurt them at the box office since I've yet to hear anyone say anything good about the final halves/thirds of those movies.
I think I need to see Hancock again to really delve into it. An oddly mature and realistic take on a superhero story that doesn't immediately remind me of something I've read before. Come on, that's rare.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
I'm Bateman. (Or, One of Many Reasons Why I Will Never Be Allowed to Write Batman)
I just finished rereading Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho the other night after watching the film adaptation again a week or two back. This was my second time reading the book and, I dunno, fourth or fifth time seeing the flick. (I also watched The Rules of Attraction and am currently rereading it. I'm in an Ellis mood.) Watching the movie and reading the book again reminded me just how disappointed I was with Batman Begins.
Now, I tend to avoid superhero flicks because, well, I don't care. I find them tedious. It's always the same sort of story--which is a story I've read dozens of times in various forms--and I just can't be bothered. Batman films, in particular, annoy me because they always feel the need to give the guy a love interest and I don't see the point beyond "Hollywood thinking," which just isn't a good enough reason for me. But, I did see Batman Begins when it was on The Movie Network here in Canada for one reason: Christian Bale and his performance as Patrick Bateman in America Psycho.
Am I the only one who watched that movie/read that book and thought, "Hey, wouldn't Bruce Wayne kind of act like this?"
Note that I said Bruce Wayne, not Batman. Obviously, the characters are different, but replace the homicidal tendencies of Bateman with the crimefighting tendencies of Batman and they're not that different. Hell, Bruce Wayne is recognised as a performance put on that WOULD match up with the way Bateman acts in public. Drinking and meaningless bullshit talk with the guys, treating women like walking vaginas and, basically, obsessed with money.
Actually, American Psycho made me ask various questions: wouldn't 1980s Bruce Wayne have done an inordinate amount of cocaine while socialising with Gotham's upper crust? How would he feel about illegal immigrants working as servants for his friends? What about gang-banging a hooker?
Would Batman have to break the law as Bruce Wayne in order to keep up the facade?
See, to me, that's where a lot of interesting material lies in the character: the disarity between Batman and Bruce Wayne.
And, man, Batman Begins was just a disappointment in that regard. I know, I know, they couldn't have a children's hero snorting cocaine before fucking two prostitutes, but going from Bale as Patrick Bateman to him as Batman was just such a depressing experience. There was no edge, none of the craze I had expected. I dunno.
That said, it was an enjoyable film overall and I'll see the next one, because, as far as superhero flicks go, it was top-notch. Still, am I so wrong for longing for scenes of Bruce Wayne "powdering his nose"?
Now, I tend to avoid superhero flicks because, well, I don't care. I find them tedious. It's always the same sort of story--which is a story I've read dozens of times in various forms--and I just can't be bothered. Batman films, in particular, annoy me because they always feel the need to give the guy a love interest and I don't see the point beyond "Hollywood thinking," which just isn't a good enough reason for me. But, I did see Batman Begins when it was on The Movie Network here in Canada for one reason: Christian Bale and his performance as Patrick Bateman in America Psycho.
Am I the only one who watched that movie/read that book and thought, "Hey, wouldn't Bruce Wayne kind of act like this?"
Note that I said Bruce Wayne, not Batman. Obviously, the characters are different, but replace the homicidal tendencies of Bateman with the crimefighting tendencies of Batman and they're not that different. Hell, Bruce Wayne is recognised as a performance put on that WOULD match up with the way Bateman acts in public. Drinking and meaningless bullshit talk with the guys, treating women like walking vaginas and, basically, obsessed with money.
Actually, American Psycho made me ask various questions: wouldn't 1980s Bruce Wayne have done an inordinate amount of cocaine while socialising with Gotham's upper crust? How would he feel about illegal immigrants working as servants for his friends? What about gang-banging a hooker?
Would Batman have to break the law as Bruce Wayne in order to keep up the facade?
See, to me, that's where a lot of interesting material lies in the character: the disarity between Batman and Bruce Wayne.
And, man, Batman Begins was just a disappointment in that regard. I know, I know, they couldn't have a children's hero snorting cocaine before fucking two prostitutes, but going from Bale as Patrick Bateman to him as Batman was just such a depressing experience. There was no edge, none of the craze I had expected. I dunno.
That said, it was an enjoyable film overall and I'll see the next one, because, as far as superhero flicks go, it was top-notch. Still, am I so wrong for longing for scenes of Bruce Wayne "powdering his nose"?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
300
Just got back from going to see 300 with a couple of friends, Amir and Jacqui. It was good. Not great, not amazing, not spectacular--good. If I were writing a review, I'd give it 3/5, maybe 3.5, but probably not. It's a decent flick.
What I found interesting was talking about it in the car after. Now, each of us had a different perspective. I have read the graphic novel; Jacqui had seen it before; and Amir was completely fresh. And you know what parts of the movie all three of us thought sucked? Anything that wasn't in the graphic novel. At first, I thought it was simply me being one of those people who sit in the theatres and go "That wasn't in Miller's comic! Fuck that!"
But no.
No, it was unanimous: all of the shit with the queen that was thrown in? Worthless. Slowed the movie right down and was, generally, boring as fuck. And, let's be honest, all of that stuff was the typical Hollywood let's-round-out-the-picture-and-make-it-a-Movie bullshit. My friends could spot it a mile away.
It's stuff like that that's my biggest problem with adaptations, and what generally pisses off fans of the original pieces of work the most. It's not the CHANGES, it's the changes that don't actually add to the movie, but, in fact, detract from it as every single scene with the queen does. Once they leave Sparta, the movie should leave Sparta. What happens there isn't important.
Otherwise, it was a good movie. At some points, the overly stylised nature get in the way. On that regard, one cannot help compare it to Sin City, which I think is the superior adaptation. I think the problem was the mixing of realist and unrealistic stylised elements. But, not to a point where it harms the movie in any large way.
The flick is worth seeing.
What I found interesting was talking about it in the car after. Now, each of us had a different perspective. I have read the graphic novel; Jacqui had seen it before; and Amir was completely fresh. And you know what parts of the movie all three of us thought sucked? Anything that wasn't in the graphic novel. At first, I thought it was simply me being one of those people who sit in the theatres and go "That wasn't in Miller's comic! Fuck that!"
But no.
No, it was unanimous: all of the shit with the queen that was thrown in? Worthless. Slowed the movie right down and was, generally, boring as fuck. And, let's be honest, all of that stuff was the typical Hollywood let's-round-out-the-picture-and-make-it-a-Movie bullshit. My friends could spot it a mile away.
It's stuff like that that's my biggest problem with adaptations, and what generally pisses off fans of the original pieces of work the most. It's not the CHANGES, it's the changes that don't actually add to the movie, but, in fact, detract from it as every single scene with the queen does. Once they leave Sparta, the movie should leave Sparta. What happens there isn't important.
Otherwise, it was a good movie. At some points, the overly stylised nature get in the way. On that regard, one cannot help compare it to Sin City, which I think is the superior adaptation. I think the problem was the mixing of realist and unrealistic stylised elements. But, not to a point where it harms the movie in any large way.
The flick is worth seeing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
