Iron Man was the first engineering superhero. Sure Spiderman created his webbing from his chem knowledge, but only after that radioactive spider had given him most of his powers. And Batman's toys always took second place to his physical conditioning. Iron Man created his own powers one step at a time, one model suit at a time.
That is why I was so excited when the first Iron Man movie came out to see what they would do with it. And I was not disappointed. This was a movie that reveled in the engineering, delighted itself in the process of creation. Too often science is viewed as a static memorization of facts and laws rather than the creative process that it really is. To do science is to create something new, to connect to the world in a way that no one else has done before.
I saw Iron Man 2 last weekend, and this is one sequel that accomplishes the rare feat of improving upon the original. Early in the film we see a clip of Tony Stark's father (played by the always delightful John Slattery) introducing the Stark Expo in the 70's. The standard touchstones are there: grainy film quality, toy model city of the future, optimism that science will lead to a better world.
What struck me was that this was presented in an entirely irony free way. There's no Men in Black style behind the curtain pullback, no tongue in cheek "boy weren't they idiots in earlier times" subtext. This is played straight: the simple idea that good science can prevail over evil in the world.
This is the story of our time. There seems to be a sense that we are entering a new age of technology. One where technological progress is not only important, but necessary to our survival. The last century was the age of Petroleum and the Green Revolution, where cheap energy and massive increases in food production led to unintended consequences. To master the problems these "advances" created, society is looking toward science and engineering. It is not an option to return to a preindustrial time, there are too many people to feed, too much at stake. So now society is going double or nothing: pouring money into green technology in hopes of keeping the plates spinning.
That is the same story unfolding in Iron Man 2. The power technology that Stark thought he had perfected has unintended consequences of its own. Every military in the world seeks it, while it slowly poisons Stark's body from within. The only way through? Advance the science his father started, create a truly clean energy source.
Easy to do for a superhero in a summer blockbuster. Will the world succeed on this course? The next few decades should be interesting.
Iron Man: 4 out of 5 stars
Iron Man 2: 4 1/2 out of 5 stars
Showing posts with label Movie review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie review. Show all posts
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A tale of a prophet
Ever since the Road Warrior, I have enjoyed a good apocalyptic film. This year has seen a resurgence, first with Terminator: Salvation, then the adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road", and now with Denzel Washington and "The Book of Eli".
I enjoyed this film immensely. The movie is full of tiny moments, starting from the very first scene that do not make sense in a particular way. At first this rubbed me the wrong way, as I thought it was simply another example of substituting movie style for practicality. But the movie's wonderful twist ending redeemed all these small moments. And unlike films like the Sixth Sense which felt the need for a montage to relive all the out of place moments, The Book of Eli confidently keeps moving forward after the reveal, letting the viewer sort through memory and pick out those off moments that now make sense.
Even before the ending, however, this movie has a lot going for it. The bright palette (explained through use of a weapon that caused the apocalypse by altering the atmosphere) and gritty surroundings give the film a look half Road Warrior and half Western. It's an environment that encourages compromise. Who wouldn't follow the direction of the man who provides the only water in hundreds of miles? Even if he is a dictator who rules with an iron hand and treats the world as his inferior.
Our hero, that's who. Denzel Washington has always been good at projecting the calm in the storm, and this role as a wandering prophet was tailor made for him. But he is an old school prophet--bringing unyielding death and destruction to those who would thwart the path God has laid out for him.
The movie walks the fine line between faith and evidence, and raises wonderful questions. In the events of the film, we have only the word of Eli himself that he has been chosen by God. Is his survival evidence that he is in fact divinely protected? Or just another coincidence in a world turned intolerably cruel? Were the survivors of the apocalypse right to turn against religion as the cause of the war that tore their world apart? Or is it the only thing that can save the survivors? Images and events can lend credence to arguments in either direction. It is hard not to feel the positive aspect of faith as a girl prays before eating for the first time, but then the plan of the dictator to use religion to control an empire emphasizes the terrible things that have been done by people to other people in the name of faith and religion.
The Book of Eli, a tale of a prophet in a future that hopefully will never be.
4 out of 5 stars
I enjoyed this film immensely. The movie is full of tiny moments, starting from the very first scene that do not make sense in a particular way. At first this rubbed me the wrong way, as I thought it was simply another example of substituting movie style for practicality. But the movie's wonderful twist ending redeemed all these small moments. And unlike films like the Sixth Sense which felt the need for a montage to relive all the out of place moments, The Book of Eli confidently keeps moving forward after the reveal, letting the viewer sort through memory and pick out those off moments that now make sense.
Even before the ending, however, this movie has a lot going for it. The bright palette (explained through use of a weapon that caused the apocalypse by altering the atmosphere) and gritty surroundings give the film a look half Road Warrior and half Western. It's an environment that encourages compromise. Who wouldn't follow the direction of the man who provides the only water in hundreds of miles? Even if he is a dictator who rules with an iron hand and treats the world as his inferior.
Our hero, that's who. Denzel Washington has always been good at projecting the calm in the storm, and this role as a wandering prophet was tailor made for him. But he is an old school prophet--bringing unyielding death and destruction to those who would thwart the path God has laid out for him.
The movie walks the fine line between faith and evidence, and raises wonderful questions. In the events of the film, we have only the word of Eli himself that he has been chosen by God. Is his survival evidence that he is in fact divinely protected? Or just another coincidence in a world turned intolerably cruel? Were the survivors of the apocalypse right to turn against religion as the cause of the war that tore their world apart? Or is it the only thing that can save the survivors? Images and events can lend credence to arguments in either direction. It is hard not to feel the positive aspect of faith as a girl prays before eating for the first time, but then the plan of the dictator to use religion to control an empire emphasizes the terrible things that have been done by people to other people in the name of faith and religion.
The Book of Eli, a tale of a prophet in a future that hopefully will never be.
4 out of 5 stars
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Elementary
One Christmas long ago my brother and I received a pair of novels. His was a collection of Edgar Allen Poe, and mine was a collection of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories of Sherlock Holmes. I fell in love with the character, and today consider this fictional hero a wonderful introduction to the work of a scientist. He was methodical, observant, and careful to always put observation before theory. Moreover, he was endlessly curious, taking cases because of their difficulty, not because they were easy.
These sides of the fictional detective have been captured in movies galore. But they usually failed to capture some of Holmes other qualities--his martial skills as a fencer and boxer, his slovenly ways, and his maniacal focus on a case.
So you can imagine my delight when I heard that Guy Ritchie (of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch fame) was directing a Sherlock Holmes movie. Ritchie has built a career out of constructing intricate action films with thugs in the leading role. Men for whom violence was not an abstraction, but an integral part of their world. That is how the Holmes stories felt to me. Some (like "The Hound of the Baskervilles") took place in rarefied settings, but most of the short stories took place in the grimy streets of the London underground. Holmes dove headfirst into these settings, disguising himself until he became one with the criminal element.
For me, the movie did not disappoint. The classic Watson Holmes banter was there, and the offhand deductive showpieces, but also a strong sense of Holmes as character actually driven to solve a case, who experiments with drugs and insects, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of London and its environs.
I have noted critics expressed surprise at Holmes in an action movie, but seem to forget that Holmes was the character who fought Moriarty atop a waterfall to the death. Holmes was not an armchair detective, but someone who put all his energy and action into a case. This is a fresh, fun take on Holmes that is rife with clues for the observant, a solvable mystery, and yes, action packed sequences that give new life to industrial era London. Grime included.
Sherlock Holmes
4 1/2 out of 5 stars
These sides of the fictional detective have been captured in movies galore. But they usually failed to capture some of Holmes other qualities--his martial skills as a fencer and boxer, his slovenly ways, and his maniacal focus on a case.
So you can imagine my delight when I heard that Guy Ritchie (of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch fame) was directing a Sherlock Holmes movie. Ritchie has built a career out of constructing intricate action films with thugs in the leading role. Men for whom violence was not an abstraction, but an integral part of their world. That is how the Holmes stories felt to me. Some (like "The Hound of the Baskervilles") took place in rarefied settings, but most of the short stories took place in the grimy streets of the London underground. Holmes dove headfirst into these settings, disguising himself until he became one with the criminal element.
For me, the movie did not disappoint. The classic Watson Holmes banter was there, and the offhand deductive showpieces, but also a strong sense of Holmes as character actually driven to solve a case, who experiments with drugs and insects, who has an encyclopedic knowledge of London and its environs.
I have noted critics expressed surprise at Holmes in an action movie, but seem to forget that Holmes was the character who fought Moriarty atop a waterfall to the death. Holmes was not an armchair detective, but someone who put all his energy and action into a case. This is a fresh, fun take on Holmes that is rife with clues for the observant, a solvable mystery, and yes, action packed sequences that give new life to industrial era London. Grime included.
Sherlock Holmes
4 1/2 out of 5 stars
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Bleh.
Ok, sure, there are some nice action scenes in here, but they are wrapped around a plot that we already knew. Most of Wolverine's (movie) history comes from X-Men 2 and the taunts of Colonel Stryker. Origins fails to deliver much more in the way of background. Sure, it fills in the fine details of why Wolverine "volunteered" for the Weapon X program, but did anyone really think Wolverine entered because Stryker was such an upstanding guy?
No new characterization and no important revelations make this movie a nonstarter. Still the continuity was much better thought out then some other prequels (cough *Star Wars* cough) I could name.
In the end, the movie fails mainly because there is too much in it. There are too many mutants to give any one fight the attention it deserves, the outcome of each fight is predetermined early by the needs of the plot, and despite the fact that our hero is onscreen most of the time, we come away knowing very little more about Wolverine than when we started.
2 out of 5 stars
Ok, sure, there are some nice action scenes in here, but they are wrapped around a plot that we already knew. Most of Wolverine's (movie) history comes from X-Men 2 and the taunts of Colonel Stryker. Origins fails to deliver much more in the way of background. Sure, it fills in the fine details of why Wolverine "volunteered" for the Weapon X program, but did anyone really think Wolverine entered because Stryker was such an upstanding guy?
No new characterization and no important revelations make this movie a nonstarter. Still the continuity was much better thought out then some other prequels (cough *Star Wars* cough) I could name.
In the end, the movie fails mainly because there is too much in it. There are too many mutants to give any one fight the attention it deserves, the outcome of each fight is predetermined early by the needs of the plot, and despite the fact that our hero is onscreen most of the time, we come away knowing very little more about Wolverine than when we started.
2 out of 5 stars
Monday, February 9, 2009
Coraline
This is good stuff.
This is scary, not in the thrill ride way, but in the slow exploration of dark things that go bump in the night kind of way. This is a movie where insects and black cats, rats and the demonic shadow selves that lurk around the corner of reality just out of sight behind the corner of your eye get to come out and play.
This is life writ large--hopes and dreams of a perfect world contrasting the drab eventuality of gray uniforms and candy that's been in the cupboard too long. But there's always a price to pay for perfection.
This is handcrafted, in the way only a stop-motion film can be, where every detail, every second is the work of days. Behind every scene lurks a woodcarver, a precision painter, an intricate machine to move the puppets and control the world up on the screen.
Coraline. This is good stuff.
This is scary, not in the thrill ride way, but in the slow exploration of dark things that go bump in the night kind of way. This is a movie where insects and black cats, rats and the demonic shadow selves that lurk around the corner of reality just out of sight behind the corner of your eye get to come out and play.
This is life writ large--hopes and dreams of a perfect world contrasting the drab eventuality of gray uniforms and candy that's been in the cupboard too long. But there's always a price to pay for perfection.
This is handcrafted, in the way only a stop-motion film can be, where every detail, every second is the work of days. Behind every scene lurks a woodcarver, a precision painter, an intricate machine to move the puppets and control the world up on the screen.
Coraline. This is good stuff.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Quantum of Solace
I saw the new James Bond movie last Wednesday, and was blown away. Well, not literally, although they tried their hardest. This is a fast paced Bond that drives, runs, fights and shoots its way from one scene to the next, with barely a time for a breath.
The action scenes were shot with the kind of quick cuts intended to capture the chaos inherent in improvised action. The movie opens with a brilliantly staged car chase scene through a traffic jam. After that, you know that this is going to be an imaginative romp through Bond's paranoid world where all the women, whether a femme fatale or a brave agent, are drop dead gorgeous and all the villains are going to be unbearably fond of their own monologues.
This is a serious Bond--there's none of the camp of the Moore era on display here, and there's little in the way of comedic relief. Still, Craig is a powerful enough presence that he pulls Bond through his dark path without losing sight of his duty, a delicate balancing act is an increasingly unbalanced world.
4 out of 5 stars
The action scenes were shot with the kind of quick cuts intended to capture the chaos inherent in improvised action. The movie opens with a brilliantly staged car chase scene through a traffic jam. After that, you know that this is going to be an imaginative romp through Bond's paranoid world where all the women, whether a femme fatale or a brave agent, are drop dead gorgeous and all the villains are going to be unbearably fond of their own monologues.
This is a serious Bond--there's none of the camp of the Moore era on display here, and there's little in the way of comedic relief. Still, Craig is a powerful enough presence that he pulls Bond through his dark path without losing sight of his duty, a delicate balancing act is an increasingly unbalanced world.
4 out of 5 stars
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Max Payne
The history of video games that have been turned into live action movies goes back to 1993 and Super Mario Bros. Of course that was a side scroller with minimal plot. Today I went to see Max Payne. The difference between Super Mario Bros and Max Payne as video games is profound. Super Mario Bros grew purely out of the a desire to build a fun game within the limits of the technology of the time.
Max Payne, on the other hand, was heavily influenced by Hong Kong action movies. Its central feature, bullettime, seemed to be drawn directly from The Matrix. So how did it fare returning to its roots as a movie?
I'd have to say results were mixed. There are some truly awe-inspiring visuals set up throughout the film, but the intensity of the action scenes is blunted due to the PG-13 rating. In the Hong Kong action movies, the old ultraviolence never seemed squeamish, and neither did Max Payne the video game. The movie, however, feels somewhat constrained in that regard, and it shows.
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
For the record, here are the movies based on video games that I've seen:
Double Dragon
Mortal Kombat
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Wing Commander
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
Pokémon 4Ever - Celebi, Voice of the Forest
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Resident Evil
Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Doom
Resident Evil: Extinction
None so far have gotten 5 out of 5 stars from me. The closest is Resident Evil, that I'd give 4 stars. I do have hopes for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, on of my favorite video games of all time and one that prides itself on its cinematic sequences. I have great hopes for director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral). Here's hoping!
Max Payne, on the other hand, was heavily influenced by Hong Kong action movies. Its central feature, bullettime, seemed to be drawn directly from The Matrix. So how did it fare returning to its roots as a movie?
I'd have to say results were mixed. There are some truly awe-inspiring visuals set up throughout the film, but the intensity of the action scenes is blunted due to the PG-13 rating. In the Hong Kong action movies, the old ultraviolence never seemed squeamish, and neither did Max Payne the video game. The movie, however, feels somewhat constrained in that regard, and it shows.
My rating: 3 out of 5 stars
For the record, here are the movies based on video games that I've seen:
Double Dragon
Mortal Kombat
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Wing Commander
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
Pokémon 4Ever - Celebi, Voice of the Forest
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Resident Evil
Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life
Resident Evil: Apocalypse
Doom
Resident Evil: Extinction
None so far have gotten 5 out of 5 stars from me. The closest is Resident Evil, that I'd give 4 stars. I do have hopes for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, on of my favorite video games of all time and one that prides itself on its cinematic sequences. I have great hopes for director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral). Here's hoping!
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Burn after Reading
Burn after Reading is delightful fun. The Coen brother's genius is to take a chaotic world, and project it down to only a few characters. In this case we are treated to the Washington D.C. culture, both high and low. The weft and warp of the plot yield a delightfully absurd dark comedy that was enormously entertaining for me.
4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5 stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)