A to B Back and Forth Review: Iron Man 2, Part II

Yesterday, Kozy and I started with our analysis of Iron Man 2, posting Part I of our back and forth conversation. So yeah, read that first. Today we conclude with Part II.

ANDREW

OK, so you've given me a lot to chew on here. Let me take things point by point.

I really feel like they didn't give Rourke enough to work with here. Even his weapons are stupid. Why on earth would anyone use whips to fight an opponent who can fire missiles from a distance? And why on earth would Ironman ever let Rourke get close enough to him to cause any damage? Dammit, I'm digressing again into discussions of rationality in an entirely irrational movie. Regarding Rourke, they wasted an opportunity to have an all-time great villain and instead gave us someone who had only a single remotely memorable line: "I want my bird." That's really the only moment you can give The Ram? Weak.

How many of these hoodies you think they went through due to bird-related "accidents"?

Is Paltrow a hottie in this movie? Of course not! Paltrow has never been a hottie in any movie! She's in the long list of actresses that many women believe are beautiful, but no man has ever fantasized about. Others on the list include Linda Evans, Laura Dern, Lili Taylor, Barbara Streisand, and the leader of the gang, Drew Barrymore. She seems like a nice lady, though. But speaking of that irrationality thing (SPOILER ALERT), did you buy the movie-ending kiss? That's the most forced make-out session I've seen since Borat tried to kiss a stranger on the New York City subway. (END OF SPOILER) However, I must agree that Scarlett Johansson certainly impressed - this is perhaps the best she's looked on film. Obviously that's a pretty strong statement.

Not exactly Jessica Alba, is she?

But you didn't see her as big as you expected because these days IMAX theaters are generally not "real" IMAX. That is to say, the company is selling a false product. Check out Roger Ebert's comments on the matter, and you can easily see that you have been ripped off. The theaters from your youth were bigger than the one you just visited. And yes, the volume was simply too much. I'm growing half-deaf in my middle age, and Iron Man 2 and AC/DC didn't do me any favors.

So I must again pull myself out of my cavern of negativity and repeat that Downey is superb in this movie, and that there are enough gags to make it worthwhile. I don't know that I'll have an urge to watch it again. If I do, it will surely be under better volume control.

What you left out of your reply was your synopsis of the black guys. What did you think about the Terrence Howard replacement and what the hell was Samuel Jackson even doing in this picture?

BRAD

Hey Reed,

Your Paltrow analysis is totally spot on. Love the Drew Barrymore and Borat comparisons!

So, you are wondering what I thought of Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard, aka the star of the hit swim team movie, "Pride"? According to the IMDb, Howard declined reprising his Rhodey role due to a falling out with Marvel Studios. I interpret "falling out" as a metaphor for, "pay me money!" According to Cheadle, he tried to make the role of Rhodey his own. But that proved too difficult so he “eventually stole as much as possible from Howard's performance in the first film to bring him (i.e. Rhodey) to life." Cheadle had such a hard time creating this one dimensional character that he had to openly steal his performance from Howard? Well, that's not saying much about Cheadle's creative mojo, that's for sure!

Lastly, the IMDb goes on to give us this little nugget - that two actors worked together previously on a film I know you loathed, Crash. I thought they saved this "previously worked together" crap for the annual Oscar’s show? Anyhow. Cheadle? Howard? Really, it didn’t make much of a difference to me. Rhodey doesn't do anything in Iron Man 2, except during the house destroying and closing fight scenes. And in those he is in full body armor. For all I know it was Dave Chappelle in that suit.

And Sam Jackson? Unlike Rhodey, the Nick Fury character Jackson portrays is white, in the comics. In fact, Fury is so white he was previously portrayed by Baywatch babe and German recording sensation David Hasselhoff in the TV flop Nick Fury: Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. So Jackson’s casting is solely due to the fact that he is a bad-ass actor. But Nick Fury’s casting? That is the better question? I know neither of us are hardcore comic fans, but I think Fury is a stretch even for casual fans. As best I can tell, Marvel Studios plans on using Jackson as a conduit, linking together their mega-hit films. So as they jettison into murkier territory (i.e. "in production" flicks Captain America, The Avengers) they have a bankable star to insert in coming attraction teasers. After the first Iron Man, Jackson signed a landmark nine picture deal to appear as Nick Fury. So while his appearance in Iron Man 2 made little sense from a plot perspective, it makes oodles of sense from a marketing slant.

Think the Hoff is miffed he was passed over for Jackson?

It has been a week now since I caught Iron Man 2 at the IMAX and I am already having trouble remembering much about it. Clearly we both enjoyed ourselves while watching this flick, which showcases a very funny Downey Jr., but longer-term, this isn’t a movie either of us will be catching again in the theatre.

Until next time.
Cheers, Kozy

A to B Back and Forth Review: Iron Man 2, Part I

I'm teaming up with longtime friend, Kozy of April 31st to review films. We're calling the segment "A to B" because I'm Andrew and he's Brad. And he lives in Amsterdam, and I live in Buenos Aires. We generally won't get the new releases when the States do, but hopefully we can either help you reminisce or offer advice before you head out to the video store. So let's get to our eleventh review - Iron Man 2.

ANDREW

My main man Brad!

It's been a while since we've "gotten together" to review modern cinema, so it's high time we jumped back in the saddle. We hadn't yet started these reviews when the first Iron Man hit theaters (even overseas), but we have reviewed recent output by the film's two headlining stars, with Mickey Rourke's The Wrestler getting far superior marks to Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock Holmes. So without further ado, let's dig in to Iron Man 2!

It's only fitting that in yet another of our reviews, the movie began in Russian with subtitles, challenging us yet again to practice our local languages. Though since it was just Rourke and his dad sadly muttering through vodka-enhanced grief, I suppose that it wasn't so hard to follow. But that's just the intro as the movie immediately transports us to the most exciting of settings - testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I couldn't help but think of The Godfather, Part II and how the only reason it doesn't surpass the first chapter is because of the fascinatingly boring Senate hearings. This is where director Jon Favreau wants to begin in order to take things up a notch? Sure, Downey made things a bit interesting by the end, but I felt like we were already off on the wrong foot.

This is the theme to Garry's hearing; the theme to Garry's hearing. Gary thought he'd start the movie off with something boring.

It doesn't help that during the same scene we realize (after a few minutes of screen time) that Terrance Howard has been replaced by Don Cheadle. This proves to be a curious decision and Cheadle brings nothing to the role, only standing out by being boring. The story proceeds in a linear manner, adding characters who are each either 100% good guys or 100% bad guys and meanders its way to a climactic fight scene. Along the way, we get a series of action sequences that are hard to follow and possess few remotely new ideas. Aside from some decent moments at the Monaco Grand Prix, I found myself just waiting for all the flying and bullets and missiles and explosions to end.

The movie simply lacks the thrill of the first one. The Tony Stark character is no longer new, and the efforts to make him seem more fragile only serve to make the character less interesting. Those criticisms aside, there remains a lot to like about Iron Man 2. The jokes really work, even better than in the first film. Rourke makes a frightening villain, even if his motives, methods, and abilities are wholly ridiculous. I know. This is a popcorn movie and I shouldn't take it seriously. Believe me - I'm not. I wasn't hoping for The Godfather, Part II. I was hoping for a suped up Iron Man. The only problem here is that Favreau brought the corn, but we never got the pop. Still, I do like me some corn.

Not mere sprinkles, Downey Jr. does brings the levity by the dozen.

So let me know, did Iron Man 2 keep the peace for you?

BRAD

Hey, hey, hey Andrew!

Last night I saw Tony Stark, louder than live, catching Iron Man 2 at the Amsterdam IMAX theatre. I was excited to see my first IMAX movie since childhood. Really, I can’t believe how different IMAX is than I remember it. As a kid I remember the screen being enormous!!! Really, that’s about all I remember of it. A screen so huge I could not see all of it at the same time. This time around the screen seemed big certainly, but enormous? Certainly not. So right off the bat, I was greeted with a downer.

However, what the screen lacked in footage, the speakers made-up for in decibels. At times, it was so freaking loud I was longing for ear plugs. This also reminds me that at long last I finally caught She & Him last week at the Melkweg theatre. As an A2B favorite, and all around highly rated hottie, Zooey Deschanel delivered the goods -- those goods being looking hot and pouty simultaneously.

On the subject of hotties, Iron Man 2 has two offerings; one old and one new. Returning for the sequel is Gwyneth Paltrow, reprising her role as Virginia “Pepper” Potts. New to the action is Scarlett Johansson as Natasha Romanoff. Paltrow has basically put her career on hold since marrying Coldstar crooner Chris Martin, appearing in only one small film since the last Iron Man film. At first glance she looked quite a bit older and more tired then I remembered. Perhaps she was just in character, as her Pepper Potts' main duty is to clean-up Tony Stark’s booze-fueled messes. Not helping Paltrow's cause was the new addition of Johansson, who frankly looks waaaay better in this movie then Paltrow. Fit and energetic, Woody Allen’s muse does a nice job advertising Marvel’s upcoming The Avengers flick (really her only purpose in the film as far as I could tell). What was your take on the ladies in this one Reed?

Ass-kicking hot

As is well established in comic adaptations these days, the bad guys have all the fun. This time around Mickey Rourke is great, playing the mad, drunken Russian physicist role. By the time we learn of Rourke’s motivation for wanting Stark dead it no longer matters, and we just accept that this is a movie with some good people and some bad people. As an aside, this topic of all good/bad characters reminds me of a fantastic film I saw last week, Green Zone. If you are interested in a flick with moral ambiguity, this is the one for you. It's the opposite of a comic book.

Anyways, wrapping up the Rourke talk, don’t you think that with his recent credits as Whiplash in this flick and The Ram in the Wrestler, he has really prepared himself for my proposed re-make of The Running Man? He would make the ultimate stalker!

But what would Ben Richards say upon killing Whiplash? Probably "When a problem comes along, you must whip it."

This is not a film of any consequence, and that’s OK. An hour into the movie I asked myself, “is there a plot yet?” I suppose in the end, the plot of Iron Man 2 is so simple that I just could not see it: Tony Stark must save himself from dying and the world from evil-doers.

As you state, this one is for the popcorn crowd and to that end it delivers the butter. Still, I want answers to my questions. What say you?

Come back tomorrow for Part II where we will take things up a notch as that's what you're supposed to do with sequels.

Previous A to Bs:
Sherlock Holmes
Avatar
500 Days of Summer
Inglorious Basterds
Public Enemies
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler
Watchmen
Star Trek
Terminator 4: Salvation

A to B Back and Forth Review: Sherlock Holmes, Part II

Yesterday, Kozy and I started with our analysis of Sherlock Holmes, posting Part I of our back and forth conversation. So yeah, read that first. Today we conclude with Part II.

ANDREW

My Dear Brad,

I´m going to assume that the promise of one Rachel McAdams was enough to keep you past that 15 minute threshold. Though I must say as much as I think she´s got a ton of potential as an actress and a hottie, she really drags this film down. It could be that Ritchie simply has no idea how to create a female character. His only previous attempt was Swept Away, and the 12 people who went to see it know how badly that turned out.

I´m glad you stayed so you can help me calibrate my opinion on this film. I must say that I agree with just about everything you write, yet I still enjoyed the film a bit more than you did. I guess I had the good fortune of accepting the "modernization" (or should I say abandonment?) of the Holmes legend. It definitely freed me up to just go with the flow. Had I known Ritchie was directing, I would have made this decision before I got in the car to head to the theater. He´s all about style over substance, and this film is no exception.

More like the Holmes we would have preferred.

Regarding Moriarty, yes I think they were clearly taking baby steps, seeing if what they were doing worked, and will then bring in a top star for the role. The movie´s already grossed over $200,000,000 domestic. This was just the setup. They did the same with Batman, waiting to include the baddies we know and love until the second film.

I am of two minds here - I wish I were a more knowledgeable Holmes scholar, so I could verify how far they deviated. At the same time, I am better off not knowing. Actually, I think it´s pretty clear that not knowing is winning. Funny that you mention House MD (or as it is called here in Argentina, "DOCTOR HOUSE!"). After leaving the theater, Mati informed me that House was in fact based on Sherlock Holmes. That makes me appreciate the show all the more, but also leaves me all the more flat about this movie.

In the end, I am hard-pressed to make any profound statements about a movie that is so blatantly shallow. Again, I liked the acting by both Downey and Law, but there is nothing else to which I can grab onto in this film. I´d say I was disappointed if it weren´t for the fact that I wasn´t exactly hopeful going in. Can you wrap it up with some elementary conclusions?

Un abrazo!
Dr. Drew

BRAD

Dear Dr. Drew,

I have a sex question and I am hoping you can help me. Every time I think about doing "it" I start to visualize Bea Arthur wearing nothing but a corset. How do I take it to the next level? Ooops! Sorry, this was an email I intended to send to Loveline.

Only in your dreams, Brad.

I meant, err, that I ever time I think about doing 'it’ I begin visualizing Rachael McAdams. Anyhoo. Sherlock Holmes. That’s what we were talking about! Yeah, Rachael McAdams. Our old friend from the Arcade Fire. That was awesome! And she was nice to look at as well. :-) But I must confess she has not been doing much for me lately. The Family Stone. The Time Traveler's Wife. Enough said. I totally agree with you that Guy Ritchie has no idea what to do with actresses and that surely played a role in her mediocrity in this film.

Only in everyone's dreams.

So Dr. Drew, can I answer your challenge and wrap it up with some elementary conclusions?

1. Sherlock Holmes is pretty clever
2. Watson is a patient man.
3. Rachael McAdams is a hottie.

And now some predictions:

1. Sherlock Holmes will be equally, if not even more clever in Sherlock Holmes II
2. When we see Moriarty next, he will appear with a celebrity face -- my vote is for Mr. Bean!
3. A2B will not review Sherlock Holmes II

I write to you on my way home from the Carnival celebration in Cologne. What a great time! German’s in colorful costumes, breaking all the rules. During this special weekend you can even cross the street when it says ‘do not walk’, without fear of penalty! At the Friday night Carnival celebration I enthusiastically spotted a small group of girls dressed as human feces. Apparently that is a hot costume for eligible 20-something ladies. To achieve this look, all four of them dressed in matching hot fudge colored shirts and pants and crowned themselves with plastic poo, complete with swarming flies.

Quoting Stan Marsh, "Dude, what the fuck is wrong with German people?" And why the hell is Brad describing this to me?

Those "scheiße" ladies reminded me of my Sherlock Holmes experience. At first glance I was intrigued, wanting to know more. But in the end, things got smelly and I was left with a bit of distaste.

Until next time my friend!
- Kozy

A to B Back and Forth Review: Sherlock Holmes, Part I

I'm teaming up with longtime friend, Kozy of April 31st to review films. We're calling the segment "A to B" because I'm Andrew and he's Brad. And he lives in Amsterdam, and I live in Buenos Aires. We generally won't get the new releases when the States do, but hopefully we can either help you reminisce or offer advice before you head out to the video store. So let's get to our tenth review - Sherlock Holmes.

ANDREW

What up, Homes???

I assume we won't be debating preferences for clothing or music this time around since, well, the film takes place in the 1800s, well before the invention of the noise reducing headphone. But no matter, Guy Ritchie has done his thing and put a very modern take on the classic character of Sherlock Holmes. The film is littered with slow-motion action scenes and a helluva lot of bare-knuckled punching - not exactly what I expected from Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes. I'll be honest. I was a bad reviewer and didn't even realize that Ritchie was at the helm on this film until the credits rolled. Suddenly it all made sense.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the character, but I did enjoy a couple of Doyle's books when I was a lad. Needless to say, this was a departure from my preconceived notions of the characters. Yet this modern approach was a winning one nonetheless. Downey and Jude Law give plenty of oomph to the two lead characters, and even though it seemed contrived, I still enjoyed the way Ritchie brought to life 1800s London. There was just enough filth and grime to satisfy reality, and keep the film from venturing too far into Hudson Hawk territory (though I must say there was plenty of flirtation with farce).

"Just be quiet and boring and will be the easiest paycheck you've earned, 'kay?"

There was basically no effort to explain to us who Holmes is. If you had never heard of Sherlock Holmes before, you would spend most of this movie wondering what the hell was going on. But given that everyone has their preconceived notions of the character, Ritchie did nothing to adjust those notions one way or another. This was a smart decision, as it lets the viewer add more depth to the character on her own.

On the other hand, it's clear that nobody put much effort into crafting a decent story. This is all the more glaring considering that Doyle wrote 60 stories about the character. First of all, there were moments where Ritchie was intentionally misleading us, not simply the characters on screen, such as Holmes' "trip" into the cult's practices. A great mystery doesn't need such tricks. Furthermore, a mystery should not simply consist of people running around from one place to another until things get resolved. You can have an action movie and a mystery at the same time. Also, the action scenes were nothing special. I'm OK with the idea of making an action movie out of this. Incidentally, I'm one of the few people who actually liked Hudson Hawk. So I'm not that hard to win over. But outside of the Quebecois gigantor, none of the action sequences did much for me.

Most obscure reference made in an A-to-B yet? Just wait until you see what Brad rolls out tomorrow...

All that said, I must say I enjoyed the movie. The acting was superb, and the polish carried it the rest of the way. That said, I can't really think of one thing that I'm going to remember about this film two weeks from now. It was fine for what it was, and didn't do anything to offend me. I just hope the sequel has a bit more care put into the details.

So, my good Dr. Watson (or are you Sherlock? - we should let the readers decide), what say you?

BRAD

My good man, Mr. Reed,

You have given a very fair review of the film. It is indeed a movie with positive qualities, but one that will not leave you asking questions weeks later. I suppose I can begin by revealing that I contemplated standing up and walking out of the theatre after just the first 15 minutes. That’s right, walking out. From the get-go there was something about this movie that just did not work for me. Days later it is still difficult to put my finger on what exactly that was. But I will try.

For beginners I was bored. I did have the benefit of knowing Guy Ritchie was sitting in the Director’s chair on this project. I liked that Ritchie brought a strong visual identity to the movie. However, for an action movie that was so dependent on CGI, I found the pacing downright plodding.

Secondly, as you aptly noted, there was basically no effort to explain to us who Holmes is. However, unlike you, I did not find this to be a wise decision. According to Wikipedia, Holmes is famous for his intellectual prowess and is renowned for his skillful use of astute observation, deductive reasoning and forensic skills to solve difficult cases. That description plays nearly identical to my understanding of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's beloved character.

With that in mind, I spent almost the entire movie scratching my head and muttering, "is this really how Holmes would handle or approach this situation?" Of course many of the situations were so far removed from the pretext of the character the answer to that question was invariably "no." And this bothered me.

"Seriously, nobody's going to notice that we're butchering the legacy."

The Holmes portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. participates in bare-knuckled cage fight matches, narrowly escapes large scale bombings, and is so socially inept he gets a glass of red wine thrown in his face by Watson’s fiancée. Yet he is so suave he wins over the woman trying to ruin him. This was not a Holmes that deduced things through clever observation and reasoning, so really then, why even pretend the audience has gathered to watch him solve a mystery?

Equally strange was the behavior of Watson. I won’t bother to analyze his character in the same way, but I will say this. Watching Homes and Watson interact, I was reminded of another cranky Brit and his reluctant enabling partner. I am of course referring to Dr. Gregory House and Dr. James Wilson of the hit TV show House MD. I am serious, get these 4 guys together and you have the beginnings of a great support group.

Lastly, what was up with Moriarty? To begin with, Guy Ritchie chose again not to do anything to develop this character. I suppose he assumed everyone in the audience knew Moriarty. Secondly, his only purpose in this movie is to set-up the sequel. I find that extremely annoying. And lastly (but most importantly), why did Guy Ritchie not reveal the face of Moriarty? Most likely because he could secure an A-level star for the sequel, but not for throw away scenes in the original. But of course I do have another pet theory. Maybe Ritchie sat home one rainy Saturday morning with his lads watching cartoons and found inspiration. Maybe it’s just me, but the portrayal of Moriarty is shocking similar to the faceless and mysterious Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget fame.

Brad's on to you, Mister Ritchie.

So I was far more engaged writing this email then I was during my screening of Sherlock Holmes. What do you think of my criticisms? Have I given this flick to much thought when I should just go with the flow?

T. Ziens, Brad

Tune in tomorrow for Part II where things will take a turn for the gross. Just remember that I warned you.

Previous A to Bs:
Avatar
500 Days of Summer
Inglorious Basterds
Public Enemies
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler
Watchmen
Star Trek
Terminator 4: Salvation

A to B Back and Forth Review: Avatar, Part II

Yesterday, Kozy and I started with our analysis of Avatar, posting Part I of our back and forth conversation. So yeah, read that first. Today we conclude with Part II.

ANDREW

Hiya Brad. I see you!

Yet another reason to go to I-MAX: No commercials! The movie just started right up. So we're even in agreement about Jaws 3-D? I guess we won't have the opportunity for an e-mail scuffle this week, but let me see if I can find one by raising some other points that came to mind.

You asked about our friend Zoe Saldana. I gotta say that if nobody got an acting nomination for Titanic, and Andy Serkis was shut out as Gollum, I feel pretty certain that Zoe ain't going to get one for this movie. At the same time I feel compelled to mention that as hot as she was in Star Trek, she may have been even more attractive here, even in CGI form. I'm sure this was helped by her role in the story. Her attempts to teach Jake the Na'vi language were very reminiscent of my Spanish profesora here (who at times can be just as strict with me). Who knew being repeatedly corrected could be so romantic? Apparently Cameron filmed a more explicit love scene, but it was removed to keep the rating intact. I assume it will be on the DVD.

Yes, Zoe even looks good when it's not her.

But then again, I can't imagine watching this film on my flatscreen. People often talk about movies you "have to see in the theaters." I often think this is applied incorrectly. I have a kickass stereo and a great TV. Sometimes it's more about the fact that you are held captive and can't be distracted by anything. Lost in Translation is a great example. Everyone I know who saw this movie in the theater loved it, and everyone who saw it on video had an opinion that ranged between "meh" and "nah." But in this case? Without the 3-D, on a (by comparison) tiny screen, we're going to lose all that wonderful detail. Because of that I can see this movie being played on screens for years to come. There's no reason for it to leave the I-MAX because it's only taking the place of bad dinosaur reenactments. I know I'm going to see it there again, possibly soon.

A long time ago - way before Titanic came out, my brother mentioned to me that James Cameron always makes the most expensive movie ever made and then it always becomes the highest grossing picture of all time. It's hard to believe, but Aliens only cost 18.5 million dollars, but things skyrocketed from there. The Abyss cost 65 million, Terminator 2, over 100 million, True Lies, 110 million, and Titanic 200 million. Aside from The Abyss, all of these were smashing successes in the box office and beyond. And Avatar of course follows that trend. I'm sure when he presented this idea to the studio, they were skeptical. I would have been. But his track record gave him the opportunity. For that, we can all be grateful.

This may seem like a weird comment, but whenever I see a truly remarkable film, I often think of Gene Siskel. I didn't often find myself agreeing with the man, but he was passionate about film (and the Bulls!) until the day he died. I have no idea if he would have liked Avatar or not, but I sure as hell know he would have wanted to see it. It just makes me feel lucky that we can, even living in random parts of the world. As you said, this is a global experience, and we should appreciate it.

OK, I'm gonna go back to struggling with my Spanish. If only I had an Argentine avatar I could send out to do my grocery shopping. He would have a Euro-mullet and an 8 o'clock shadow, but would at least he wouldn't have to ask the lady working at the checkout to repeat even the simplest questions two or three times. Hey, if you had a Dutch one, he'd be tall enough to hang with the Na'vi!

My Spanish teacher hates when I post this picture. But I bet you don't.

Saludos!
A

BRAD

Hey Reed,

I really like your idea of creating my Dutch Avatar! He could spend his time brushing aside his long blonde hair, hot-rodding scooters, smoking Marlboro’s till his lungs bleed and wearing those 28/48 jeans that have been sitting in my closet for years. And of course, most importantly, he would translate the monthly packet of pension papers I receive from ASR.

One option for the prototype Bradvatar.

I agree this is definitely a film to see in the theatre. Something I plan to do again sometime very soon at my local I-MAX. To truly experience a movie you really need to be distraction free. As you know all too well, I am notorious for watching movies at home in up to four sittings. Watch for a bit, go for a run and then start it back up! That’s been my calling card. For Avatar this would greatly deteriorate the experience.

Avatar should continue playing for years to come. As I said before, this is more than just a movie. This is an amusement park ride brought directly to you. And I totally agree with you that bad dinosaur reenactments will do little to knock Avatar from IMAX theatres.

Of course the potential fallout from this type of massive success will be tons and tons of imitators for years to come. As we both know, like cougars, when studio execs smell blood, they pounce. And the prospect of increased revenue from 3D and I-MAX has to have them foaming wildly at the mouth.This means we may get resurrected franchises, with titles like, Speed IV: In Your Face.

No, Brad! Don't give them any ideas. Look what you've done!

The only thing that could have enhanced my Avatar experience is if we had gotten to see it together while I was in Buenos Aires. Years later, this is a movie that I will recite details on ‘where I was’ when I first experienced it; kind of like watching OJ’s freeway pursuit, only this one lives up to the hype. What a great time!

Until next time, tot ziens!
Brad

A to B Back and Forth Review: Avatar, Part I

I'm teaming up with longtime friend, Kozy of April 31st to review films. We're calling the segment "A to B" because I'm Andrew and he's Brad. And he lives in Amsterdam, and I live in Buenos Aires. We generally won't get the new releases when the States do, but hopefully we can either help you reminisce or offer advice before you head out to the video store. So let's get to our ninth review - Avatar.

ANDREW

My main man Brad!

Today we move from counter-culture to pop-culture for a review of the HIGHEST GROSSING FILM IN HISTORY, James Cameron´s Avatar. Nobody seems to want to mention the fact that moviegoers had to pay extra to rent those 3-D glasses, jacking up the overall box office, but then again nobody ever mentions inflation, either. The most-watched movie in history is still Gone With The Wind, and that doesn´t count TV and rentales. Hey, when are we going to AtoB that one? OK, so I got our first wildly tangential comment out of the way early today. Let´s get back to the subject at hand: gigantic blue hippies.

Obviously this movie comes to us with a ton of hype. Roger Ebert loved it. The fanboys have been out in full effect. And despite my nit-picking above, the box office speaks for itself. We had to wait extra time in order to find available tickets at the only I-MAX in town because everyone told us it would be better. The I-MAX is also the only theater in Buenos Aires where you don´t buy your seat, so we had to line up one and a half hours early to make sure we weren´t stuck in the front corner. I must say that it was totally worth it. From the moment Jake Sully awoke from his cryogenic sleep, I was awestruck. He floated out of his pod and into a version of 3-D that was unlike anything I´d seen. And things just got better from there.

What's bluer and steelier than Blue Steel? These guys!

To be honest, the storyline leaves much to be desired. This is easily the most cliche movie we´ve reviewed so far, filled with good guys and bad guys and deus ex machinas. But I didn´t care. The film was a treat - a truly joyful experience. Even after 2 hours and 46 minutes, I didn´t want it to end. I would have happily sat there for another three hours if Cameron had given us more to look at.

Also, I couldn´t help thinking about Jaws III. Let me explain. When I was a kid, we used to watch and greatly enjoy all three Jaws movies on a very regular basis (thankfully, Jaws: The Revenge had yet to be invented or I would have likely grown up to be a different person). Jaws III was set in a marine park complete with an underwater glass tunnel where one could see the fish swimming above. That alone fascinated me as a child, but furthermore, the film was to be a revolution because of its employment of improved 3-D technology. What Cameron has done here is to deliver on both promises a mere 26 years later. I felt like I was inside this movie. The characters and animals weren´t merely on the screen in front of me, I felt like they were all around me. Jaws 3-D was a total flop because the story was beyond horrible. Put another way, it is the worst movie in Dennis Quaid´s ouevre. But at age 8, it was more than enough for me. I can say that at age 34 the fact that this story was limited to cliches wasn´t so bothersome either. The wonder of the look and feel of this film vastly outweighed any of its structural problems.

Seriously, there was a time when this was state of the art for 3D! I mean, my God look at that horrible thing!

I am looking forward to seeing it again, as long as I can find a decent seat at the 3-D I-MAX. So what did you think?

Abrazo!
A

BRAD

Hey Andrew,

I am in total agreement with you. Avatar is truly a marvel - a visceral treat. I saw Avatar in 3D, but not in the IMAX. Only through a stroke of luck did we even get tickets and great seats to the Friday night showing. The movie was totally sold out, but 30 minutes before show time the theatre release 15 unclaimed reserve tickets. Luckily I was in the right place at the right time and staked a claim!

Entering, the entire 3D thing had me very skeptical. I carried negative preconceived notions that it was a gimmick and an annoying way to jack-up the ticket price. The commercials and previews, many also in 3D did little to persuade me otherwise. A Coca-Cola ad featured a fella break-dancing, with an end routine hat flip that careened straight at my face. This had me concerned that Avatar was going to spend 2+ hours hurling asteroids and rocks at me. That would be some shit I certainly did not need after a long work week!

Stop yelling at us, Coca-cola! You're scaring everyone!

Cameron, however, chose not to break the 4th wall (too bad he could not convince the ad-men at Coke of this!!), which was a brilliant move. Like you, from the very opening I felt like I was living in a new world, surrounded by so many interesting things that I wanted to see and touch for myself. But never did I have that awkward feeling of having my personal space intruded upon.

As for the story, while perhaps cliché, I actually really liked it. The plot was simple and poignant; and I saw this as a benefit to the overall experience. Avatar offers so much to see and do that I think a complicated story would have distracted from my experience. Cameron using this movie to promote his conservationist ideology to such an enormous and diverse global audience is brilliant. The fact that he chose to tell a story with a moral, instead of just mindless action is extremely impressive.

I am glad that you mentioned Jaws III, because I as well brought up that flick in pre movie conversation. After the movie I also thought about another childhood 3D experience. As a kid I remember waiting in a long line at Six Flags to “experience” a revolutionary 3D movie. I queued for 40 minutes to sit in an IMAX theatre for 10 minutes to watch a 3D movie that basically consisted of kitchen appliance moving around. This was an offering at an amusement park. Mid-Westerners lined-up for the chance to experience it. What Cameron has done with Avatar is bring an amusement park ride to every nook and cranny of the globe. Avatar is the new standard for what a movie experience can be.

An example of the good 'ol days not being so good. Though I must admit we still look pretty stupid with 3D glasses on in a theater.

So, do you think a CGI blue hippie chick can receive an Oscar nod?
- Kozy

Tune in tomorrow for Part II where Brad and Andrew will continue with the Pandora Accords.

Previous A to Bs:
500 Days of Summer
Inglorious Basterds
Public Enemies
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler
Watchmen
Star Trek
Terminator 4: Salvation

A to B Back and Forth Review: 500 Days of Summer, Part II

Yesterday, Kozy and I started with our analysis of 500 Days of Summer, posting Part I of our back and forth conversation. So yeah, read that first. Today we conclude with Part II.

BRAD

Hey Andrew,

I saw (500) Days of Summer twice in the cinema. That is a lot for me. Normally I won’t see a movie twice in any format, even if I think it is great. My second screening was with two friends. Following a noon show we all walked out onto a sun filled Amsterdam street with smiles on our faces and bliss in our hearts. That was the exact sentiment from all 3 of us.

We were happy. I did not have to spend the following days thinking "what do I make of this movie?" like after Inglorious Basterds. No. I just lived in the moment and enjoyed my ear-to-ear grin. What more can I ask from a movie, really?

To assert that this movie is 99.4% hipster and then criticize it for that reason seems a tad hypocritical. As a blogger currently ranking the top 50 albums of the 2000s, many with titles that nobody outside the hipster indie music scene have heard of you walk a fine line.

Look at those cute little Hipsters!

I realize that you are not a self identified RomCom fan, but surly you would choose a hip, innovate ‘gimmick’ movie (your word), over any of 2009’s generous offering of bad romantic comedies. I defy you to find a film from this list better than (500) Days of Summer. The Proposal, Couples Retreat, He’s Just Not That Into You, Ghost of Girlfriends Past, All About Steve, New in Town, Jennifer’s Body, I Love You Beth Cooper, Away We Go. Only a few of these films were tolerable, and only one was, dare I say good; and that one, Away We Go, was slapped with your exact same criticism as being too ‘hipster’.

So did I read your email right – your biggest knock on (500) is that it has an “excellent” gimmick? That it tries too hard to be off-beat, clever and different? If that is the case, then I think you should just declare yourself genre opposed and step away from the category.

Anyways, Tom is not hipster. He is cool in that undiscovered way. A hidden gem if you will. He is hip in the romantic Lloyd Dobler sense, but not in the Tyler Durden rock star kind of way. Clearly, like Dobler he is inexperienced in relationships and that is part of his appeal. Luckily Tom’s got a plucky little sister who is smart and funny without crossing into the dreaded Juno territory of acting and speaking like someone twice her age.

Maybe there is a good reason you and your friends could not define a hipster. Hip people tend to be critical and uncompromising. Frankly I am surprised at your distant view of hipsters. Maybe that means you are one...

Cheers,
Brad

ANDREW

My main man!

Why is it that on the movies where we disagree, even slightly, you bounce back armed with an ad hominem using cherrypicked evidence from this here blog? First I'm not sufficiently nerdy to appreciate Science Fiction and now I'm not allowed to like a Romantic Comedy? You know that I think that 80% of them are terrible, and your helpful list serves to drive that point home. 80% of them are terrible. I don't begrudge your smile, and I didn't hate this movie. I in no way implied that it's in the lousy 80%. Perhaps my observations were too highbrow; but then again a sunny smile is not exactly a review.

Here's where I'm netting out. The movie was creative in its gimmick, and yes, I'm going to keep using that word. It's a great way to approach a relationship because it's exactly how we view them at the end. That they tell us right up front that this is not a love story, so we really shouldn't get our hopes up. That they deliver on the promise makes it all the more unique within the RomCom genre.

A gimmicky photo, yet this gimmick is also quite worthwhile, hmm?

I brought up the Hipster approach to this movie as observation, not attack. Though I do think that there were cop-outs galore. Characters were built on superficiality, with Hipster counterculture being the vehicle. But as I said before, this is a great way for the movie to make its point. Tom falls in love for reasons that are largely superficial. It blinds him into thinking he has a real relationship. (Speaking of, Paste Magazine presents the the ten year Evolution of the Hipster.)

As far as my biggest knock on this movie, it is that it just wasn't very funny. I found its most "creative" scenes, like the post-copulation dance routine to be pretty hackneyed humor - the kind of stuff you saw on Friends ten years ago. Besides that, they totally distracted the viewer from the main story. But the overall concept made the film worthwhile. There are thoughts to be provoked here. We grow up. We get better at this whole dating thing - not necessarily at "bagging chicks," but getting into relationships that work. That's how you got yourself a wonderful wife, superior in every way to Raquel. I'm in a great relationship, one I would have surely screwed up ten years ago. You get the feeling that Tom will be there one day, too, though it may take him a lot longer than a mere 500 additional days...

So we agree to (kind of) disagree on this film. I'm in no hurry to watch it again, but I'm sure one day I'll give it another peek. Maybe you're already gunning for round three!

Until next time (most likely a certain James Cameron vehicle...?), Saludos y un abrazo muy fuerte!

A to B Back and Forth Review: 500 Days of Summer, Part I

I'm teaming up with longtime friend, Kozy of April 31st to review films. We're calling the segment "A to B" because I'm Andrew and he's Brad. And he lives in Amsterdam, and I live in Buenos Aires. We generally won't get the new releases when the States do, but hopefully we can either help you reminisce or offer advice before you head out to the video store. So let's get to our seventh review - 500 Days of Summer.

BRAD

Hey Andrew!
It's official. I'm in love with Summer. I love her smile. I love her hair. I love her knees. I love how she licks her lips before she talks. I love her heart-shaped birthmark on her neck. I love it when she sleeps.

After being bathed in revisionist history gore with Inglorious Basterds, I am more than ready to move on to modern day Los Angeles and something lighter. 500 Days of Summer is a romance and a comedy. But as the narrator quickly tells us, it is not a love story. Tragedy is also a central theme. So instead of labeling it a RomCom, I’d call it a TrageRcom. Or a ComRomedy. But definitely not a downer!
500 Days of Summer begins at the end of a relationship, doubles back to experience those first amazing stomach butterflies and awkward conversations, and then traverses the relationship highlights in between. Most of the highlights deal with the post-breakup phase. This is the period where the dumpee suffers intolerable depression, goes crazy second guessing himself and in general, more than anything obsesses over every detail of the relationship.

Brad's new movie crush - much cuter than Edward Furlong, no?

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom, a trained architect who has taken the lazy way out and instead works as a writer for a greeting-card company. Zooey Deschanel (or as my wife likes to call her Zooey Douche-bagger) is Summer, a young woman who's just taken a job as an assistant to the head of the company.

Deschanel plays Summer as that hot hipster chick you see at Rainbow Club on Division in Chicago. The kind of girl you look at twice and then keep peering at all night long just to see what she’s doing and to maybe try and figure out what she’s thinking. She is also the kind of girl that is so good looking and stylized that you're led to assume she must be a pretentious bitch. At the start, this is exactly what Tom thinks of Summer. But when she approaches him on the way into the office he quickly realizes this is a cool girl - they like the same music!

What was so magical about 500 Days is its relate-ability; both at the best and worst of times. I felt like I was Tom, or at least we would be friends. I think nearly every guy out there has had his Summer. The girl that you thought was perfect, but for some reason or another she couldn’t feel the same way about you. For me it was Raquel (names have been changed to protect the innocent). She was young, exciting, beautiful and she liked me. But as time moved on the chemistry wore thin. Later in my dating life I would simply move on when things didn’t work, but when I was 20-something I didn’t give up so easily.

While Zooey and Gordon are fantastic, I think more than anything this films success belongs to its writers, Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber. Funny and thoughtful lines abound, and a quirky black-and-white section and a dance number kept me engaged. OK, maybe I’ve been gushing too much. In a rare move for us, I saw this film first and recommended it to you. So tell me, what did you think of this flick?

Ciao,
Kozy

ANDREW

Hiya Brad!

Yes, you recommended the film to me, but followed strict guidelines of saying nothing more. I appreciate that. I was already excited to see it, in large part because of Deschanel's presence. I adore her, and have ever since the first time I saw Almost Famous. Hell, her scenes even made Failure to Launch tolerable (well, only when she was onscreen, but that's still Oscar-worthy work right there). The narrator set her up to be some sort of irresistible goddess, but I have to say I found this to be one of her least compelling roles. She just kind of floated through this film, but perhaps that's with good reason. She's not the one in love. She's inherently distant and aloof, something she rarely brings to a role. I take it your wife doesn't share my fondness for Zooey? That's a shame, 'cause she's going to be around for a really long time.

During a trip to Colombia last weekend the topic of "Hipsters" came up. We were trying to explain the concept to some Argentine and Colombian friends. It was not easy, partly because each American had their own slightly different view of what a Hipster actually is. That same claim would apply to the filmmakers, but it's clear that they wanted to embrace their version of the concept. The film spends every second screaming HipsterHipsterHipsterHipster in the most overt ways possible. I mean come on, Ringo Starr? Summer even goes so far as to tell us the only reason she likes him is that nobody else does.

Tom wears Joy Division t-shirts and listens to The Smiths, but also spends time in a tie and sweatervest. He shows up at work with his oversized headphones blatantly on display. His work is at a greeting card company - not exactly Initech. But that's deemed not creative enough of a job by the filmmakers, so he must reach for something more lofty, uhhh.... I know - architecture!

I think I saw this dude get thrown out of the empty bottle for smoking Winstons in the bathroom.

I must tell you that I find it hilarious that you said you might be friends with Tom, because I was all set to mention that you've long had a penchant for Hipster friends. Don't get me wrong, you know I really dig your Hipster friends. They are too cool! But given that background, I can see why you like this movie so much. For me, it was a bit of an overload. The obvious musical cues, fashion, and trips to Ikea simply to make fun of it... I'll put it this way. I knew we were going to hear a song by Feist. I was waiting for it. I just couldn't believe that they actually threw it in during the wedding of a 40-something black couple.

One could argue that though the film is 99.4% pure Hipster, Tom is supposedly only a pseudo-Hipster because he's such a romantic. My only problem with this is that he is so completely removed in every scene with Summer. Sure, she intimidates him, but women don't go for guys that always respond, "I don't know, whatever you want to do" when asked "What do you want to do?" I think many of us aloof pseudo hipsters have learned this the hard way. Then again, perhaps that's the point. He thinks the superficial stuff should have been enough and therefore equal love. That list you read at the outset - does any of it really mean anything? Yes, it does when you're 20. But not at 34...

Given all those complaints, and though this movie doesn't really connect with its own characters, it does an excellent job of showing that some relationships simply aren't meant to be. And sometimes it's just because it's not meant to be for only one person. If you're calling yours Raquel, I'm going to call my Dolores. I'm sure every guy who ever liked the same band as a cute girl has a Dolores.

At its core, I think this movie is really just a gimmick, but an excellent one. It puts the relationship in clear relief in the same way we all do in those miserable days after they end. Despite the light treatment, they find the right tone in the end, and make a movie that's easily relatable. Thank goodness we've moved past this point in life, eh?

I'm curious to hear your reaction to my reaction. I also have a question for you. Is Tom supposed to be cool? Hes clearly cooler than his loser friends, but clearly nowhere near as cool as his 14 year old precocious sister...

Abrazo!
A

Tune in tomorrow for Part II where Brad and Andrew will get a bit chippy as they continue to argue the merits of this TragerCom...

Previous A to Bs:
Inglorious Basterds
Public Enemies
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler
Watchmen
Star Trek
Terminator 4: Salvation

A to B Back and Forth Review: Inglorious Basterds, Part II

Yesterday, Kozy and I started with our analysis of Inglorious Basterds, posting Part I of our back and forth conversation. So yeah, read that first. Today we conclude with Part II.

BRAD

Yola Reed!

You have an amazing family history -- your dad kicks ass!!

I totally agree the use of the German and French languages and dialect added a sense of realism to an otherwise ridiculous story. It also made it tougher for me to realize that Inglorious Basterds is in fact an absurdist fable and a not a film to be taken seriously. I suppose there are some drawbacks to knowing nothing going into a movie. Perhaps if I had known this fact I would have approached the film differently.

From what I have read, Tarantino gives many other blunt hints to the audience that the whole thing is wink-wink. Apparently there are several obvious translation gaffes and of course the film’s title is misspelled, a joke that was totally lost on me as I did not even blink an eye at seeing these words spelled incorrectly. You should see the emails I read every day at work by non-native English speakers and you will realize that overseas, anything goes (especially when it comes to spelling).

I am sure these details, which Tarantino relishes, were lost in many European countries. Last night I was out to dinner with a table full of Italians for Tapas. I asked if anyone had seen Basterds yet, and my co-worker Silvano said that he had caught it when he was home visiting family in southern Italy. I tried to set him up for a laugh by asking what he thought of the Basterds' Italian in the climactic movie house scene, leading him with a Pitt-esque “Bo-germ-o”. But Silvano didn’t hit it out of the park. Rather he said, “yes, Brad Pitt and the other Basterds had a few lines in Italian. It was very nice.”

Very nice? What the hell was he talking about?

He then went on to explain that he had seen the dubbed Italian version, the only one available in Italy. So I guess Italian voiceover actors are indeed not that talented at doing a hackneyed Italian accent. And the American boorishness you referred to was lost as well. This same dubbing is done for nearly all American films released in France and Germany.

Types in stereo

Of course from my viewpoint, the movie house finale was yet another great scene for Waltz as the "Jew Hunter" who will garner Oscar talk, and could very likely win. I totally agree with you and your co-worker that his performance is masterful. Again I also agree that Waltz plays an incredibly sophisticated Nazi. You said, “He had more elegance in his fingernail than all the Basterds combined. And maybe that's OK.” My response to your question is no, it’s not OK.

In Salon.com's review, I found a quote that rung true for me. In his Basterds review, Hollywood Elsewhere blogger Jeffrey Wells wrote about a scene earlier in the film, where this same Nazi elegance is portrayed, this time by Richard Sammel as Sgt. Werner Rachtman. “The German soldier, despite cursing out his tormentors as 'Jew dogs,' behaves like a man of honor, accepting a brutal and painful death rather than ratting out his comrades. In Sammel's brief performance, he depicts the German as a man of intelligence and perception with a certain regular-Joe decency, while Raine and Donowitz come off as butt-ugly sadists.”

After reading that commentary I couldn’t help but think back to other sadist characters created by Tarantino. Immediately my mind turned to Pulp Fiction and the sadistic interchanges between Zed and Maynard that serve to only temporarily interrupt the rape and torture of Marsellus Wallace. For me to so quickly draw a comparison between Zed commanding Maynard to ‘bring out the gimp’ and Raine beckoning the “Bear Jew” is very unflattering. But sadly, the comparison is easy to make.

Over the past few days I have given a great deal of thought to Inglorious Basterds. When we do these reviews, I always like to think about what my exact reaction was when I walked out of the cinema. This time, I remember walking out after the tension filled final act with a smile on my face but doubts in my mind as to what I had just watched and just how exactly I felt about it. In the end, we all bring our own experiences (and baggage) into everything we do. In this particular case, I perhaps have too much baggage to take this premise as lightly as Tarantino. I remember thinking that I would definitely re-watch Basterds when I have a version with English subtitles. Now, after further thought, I am not so sure I am going to do that.

While I do not think that this movie tarnishes Tarantino’s well-respected (and well deserved) reputation, it does make me wonder what exactly he was thinking this film's reception would be. He is a man that clearly lives without any sacred cows, which is admirable in many ways. But this time around his history has the potential to cause real damage. And to that I cannot support.

- Kozy

ANDREW

Bernjango, Brad!

I am concerned that you find yourself laughing at the e-mails you receive at work that are written in poor English. The reason I am concerned because it likely means that nearly every Spanish e-mail I write is drawing snickers or worse. There was one such moment when I wrote to one of my company's VPs. I showed the note to my girlfriend and she said, "Well, you probably shouldn't have used that word. He's going to think you're hitting on him." Live and learn...

What a shame that anyone allowed this film to be overdubbed! I understand that some films benefit from overdubbing. Nobody is going to say that a Disney cartoon needs to be seen in its original language. But the language was the most earnest thing about this picture. (By the way, my favorite of the "Italians" was easily DeCocco, though he didn't utter a word.) But the silly humor brought in during that scene was what really gave the film its final push. The horrific violence didn't do much for me, I guess. Then again, since the violence was being inflicted upon the Nazi leadership, horrific is probably not the right word.

So what to finally declare about this film? As it did for you, this movie tumbled around in my head for days after I left the theater. It's been a month and, really it still hasn't found a place to land. There are a few things of which I'm pretty sure. First of all, the movie was about 40 minutes too long. I realize QT wanted to take his time building tension whenever possible. But since we've established that none of this is real, how tension-filled can it be, really? Hitchcock's most fraught scenes were unnerving because there was something at stake. You really thought a person was in jeopardy. If these aren't real people, it takes the air out of the balloon a bit.

The most real character, but still a long way from Memorex

My end result is that this is more a series of vignettes than a film that is supposed to mean anything. It's a proof of concept. What's the concept? That QT can get away with anything. He obviously thinks he can do whatever he wants. The thing is, he's absolutely right. Inglorious Basterds his is second-highest grossing film to date. The IMDb says it's the 47th best movie in history. Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, and Rotten Tomatoes has it at 88%. It is a smashing success by any measure. He took a huge gamble making a movie like this, and it has paid off for him. I must give him some credit. In the history of film, there's never been another director who could have pulled this off.

I have come to the conclusion that any opinion about this film is valid. A teenage boy who finds the violence exhilarating is not wrong. Someone drawn to the poetic tale of the Jewish girl's plight and vengeance is not wrong. Someone who finds the ridiculousness of the movie hilarious is not wrong. Someone who revels in seeing the Nazi's get their comeuppance is not wrong. Your condemnation of this movie is not wrong. It's the opposite of a blank slate, but at the same time leaves the whole range of interpretation and feeling to the viewer.

There sure are a lot of smokers in this picture

This is my least favorite Tarantino movie. But I love everything else he's made. In many ways, I thought it was a fantastic picture, and there's no questioning that it has sparked a more lofty conversation between us than anything else we've AtoB'd. I may have to see it again just to give myself the peace of mind of really knowing my complete reaction. For now, I can say that I think it's vastly overrated, but QT deserves a helluva lot of credit for pushing the limit.

Un abrazo!
Andrew