"Why don't you cover the big movies?" I am once-in-a-while asked. Because they don't need me, for starters. And they are simply not very interesting or intelligent, except as fodder for cultural pronouncements about the state of mainstream movie-making/watching. (And, yes, I am including The Dark Knight in the preceding not very interesting or intelligent comment.) I am seeing fewer and fewer of these "big" movies, and after this past summer I will probably see even less. I did manage to visit my local theatres (even an IMAX) for three films (Iron Man, the latest Indiana Jones and the aforementioned gloomy chevalier. On DVD just yesterday, I saw The Incredible Hulk. Only one of these films was remotely worth my time.
My companion of 20 years came home from IRON MAN raving about how much fun -- how intelligent -- it was. Because our tastes, while not alike are often similar, I headed out to a theatre ASAP and sat there waiting for all that fun and intelligence to make itself plain. After all, director Jon Favreau had already given us three enjoyable movies -- Made, Elf and yes, even Zathura (Try the latter. Really). But the sparking repartee I had hoped for too often seemed on the level of a mediocre James Bond movie; the story plodded; the action scenes all went on too long and -- other than a brief moment in that small village when Iron Man first tries out his "stuff" -- were remarkably uninventive; Gwyneth, Jeff and Terrence were wasted; and, if you're looking for some fine acting from Mr. Downey Jr., try Charlie Bartlett -- a little (and little-seen) delight from last winter.
Soon after this tiresome afternoon, two friends wanted to see INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (Gee: Couldn't they have made that title a little longer?). I joined them, and all three of us could not believe (pace Barry Levinson) what just happened. Yes, there were moments, but one expects a bit more than that from the likes of Speilberg & Lucas. (Or does one? Perhaps not anymore.) By the end of this far too lengthy movie, it seemed as if everything including the kitchen sink had been tossed into the mix. And none of it remotely mattered. The three people in our crowd represented pretty much the spectrum: mainstream, independent/foreign, and rarely-goes-to-movies. We all felt exactly the same: one fat waste of time.
I no longer expect any intelligence from the movie-going public, but I do expect some from critics. And most of them abdicated altogether regarding this one. Just because a movie nods now and again toward current events (terrorism, the dark side, anarchy, etc.) does not mean that it has anything remotely interesting to say about these events. The Dark Knight does nothing thought-provoking with any idea it raises. Finally, though, the coup de grace is delivered by an ending so ridiculous as to be almost a joke. Spoiler ahead, though is there anyone left who has not seen this movie? Since nobody (save Batman and one other person) knows what actually happened to the Aaron Eckhart character, why do they decide to claim that Batman did the dirty deed? If they're going to lie, as the person-in-charge quickly decides to do, why not lie helpfully and say that some unknown assailant killed Eckhart? This would leave Batman, instead of spending his time running from the powers that be, free to continue fighting for truth, justice, and the blah, blah, blah. But no. The moviemakers opt for stupidity instead. What a crock! The only reason for this, of course, is to spin another sequel that gives us more dark, phony angst. There is not a trace of logic here, and this ridiculous ending renders Gotham City not worth saving -- neither the idiots who run it, nor the idiots they rule, nor especially the idiots who sat slavering in those darkened theatres and will soon be watching again from their couches at home.
Which brings us to THE INCREDIBLE HULK, just out on DVD. I wasn't even going to bother with this one, since Hollywood had so thoroughly screwed it up only a few years back with the "deep" and dreadful Ang Lee version. But my companion seemed to want to give it a try, so… OK. Comic book movies are rarely, maybe never, able to be more than comic book movies. (Uh... that's why they're called comic book movies.) Director Louis Leterrier and writer Zak Penn seem to have understood this and so give us an action movie that's swift, sharp and relatively short (for this genre). They nod with charm and appreciation to (some) former Hulk incarnations, and they compress the backstory so quickly and cleverly into the film's beginning that you are immediately put on notice to pay attention.
The dialog is occasionally witty and subtle ("You wouldn't like me when I'm hungry," is one good example), and the special effects are fun (though the Hulk, as usual, looks a little fake). Best of all, nothing -- especially the fight scenes and chases -- outlasts its welcome. This may be a silly movie, but it's a lively one. Edward Norton and Liv Tyler make a nice couple, providing the heat and feeling missing from the Bale/Gyllenhaal pairing, with Tim Blake Nelson making a late entrance that adds some unexpected zip to the proceedings. All in all, no great shakes but finally: a summer blockbuster that offers a decent serving of escapist entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment