IMMORTALS.

So, this was basically my most anticipated movie for the second half of the year (Deathly Hallows being for the first). I'm a huge fan of mythologies of any kind, but Greek, of course, was my first love (as it is for most people). When I first saw the trailers for this film, I became pretty dang excited. But were my expectations too high? The movie tells us the story of Theseus (Henry Cavill), a peasant who gets caught up in the war to stop King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), who wants to free the Titans. Along the way, he teams up with a virgin oracle named Phaedra (Freida Pinto) among others, and gets help from the likes of Zeus (Luke Evans) and an Old Man (John Hurt). Stephen Dorff also co-stars as a rouge thief that teams up with Theseus.

Well, let's start with the obvious: this movie is freakin' gorgeous. If I were to make a Top 10 Most Gorgeous Movies Ever (and I just might), this would definitely make the list. Director Tarsem Singh aimed to make the film look like a painting, and he damn well succeeded. And sure, the costumes (particularly helmets and masks) could get a bit silly, but I still thought it fit the overall setting. But not only is it visually pleasing through the cinematography, but the action sequences are--at times--jaw dropping. In particular, any time the gods fight... well, let's just say it's what you'd expect to see in a God of War film adaptation. Fantastically stunning and brutal. The only visual issue was a CGI hyena (or something) that looks very fake, but it's probably in the movie for less than a minute total.

One thing it took me a while to figure out about this film is how it was approaching the mythology. I know chunks of Theseus' story (the labyrinth and minotaur, for instance), but that's about it. Typically, there are two ways to adapt a legendary story. The first is to keep in all the magic and mystical elements. The second is to make it more realistic, or the "how it really happened/what really inspired the legend" type stories (i.e. King Arthur or the most recent Robin Hood). The reason it took me so long to figure this movie out is that it mixes the two types together. Let me explain...

It makes things more realistic in that, for instance, Hyperion is a man instead of a Titan. The Minotaur is a brutal warrior in a rather freaky outfit (it works, though). The Titans themselves are more monstrous men instead of giant creatures. Tartarus is a mountain, not a pit in the Underworld. Things like that. However, at the same time it's doing this, it does keep in the gods. It does keep in mystical objects (like the Bow). It keeps that magic and mysticism to keep it routed in mythology. Once I figured this out, I enjoyed the film much more. I realized that this made it seem more realistic in terms of how the Greeks might have viewed things. The battles and wars and deaths and locations were all real, tangible things. But every now and then, when necessary, the gods would interfere. In other words, just because you say "this is how the legend really happened" doesn't mean the gods never existed or played a part.

The acting was pretty good around the board. None of it was super fantastic, but you don't really go into a movie like this and expect it to be, either. There were some interesting choices for the roles all around (John Hurt being the best). But I think these are probably the youngest I've seen the gods portrayed, particularly Zeus. Still, they did fine, as did the other actors. Though I'll be honest--Freida Pinto could be terrible and I wouldn't care. I think she's one of the most gorgeous actresses working today. (And she has a nude scene in this! I can't be 100% it wasn't a body double, though... but still!).

Most things I've read about it harp on the script and the dialogue. Besides the thousand mentions of either "the gods" or how one will be "immortalized in history" and the like, I don't recall anything that could give people much to complain about. In fact, I think the way the title was interpreted in the film was a good one. Instead of being about the obvious--the gods--it took it in a different direction. The title is more in reference to being remembered through time or being important in the grand scheme of things. There's also stuff about souls being immortal, as well.

In fact, if I find fault in anything in this movie, it's that there wasn't enough action. The action that is in the film is perfect. But I felt that when there wasn't any action going on, the film either tended to drag or not feel like it was moving forward. This mostly occurred in the first half of the film--and perhaps I felt this way because it was about the halfway point when I had my aforementioned realization. It just seemed like a lot was happening but it wasn't much at the same time. But then again, I'm sure if there was more action, people would be complaining that there wasn't enough substance. And I do have to say that the film does attempt to give you both substance and characters to care for. There was just an issue I can't quite put my finger on, and the best I can come up with is that it needed more action sequences.

The film has been compared non-stop to 300 (partially due to the fact it's the same producers). It's almost nothing like 300 outside of being a stylized Greek myth story. I do feel that Immortals won't find a proper audience until it hits DVD and Blu-Ray, which is a shame, as it's stunning enough that a big screen viewing of it is almost required to gather in all the aesthetics of it. Finally, I'll briefly mention the 3D--it doesn't add much, but it's not a detriment whatsoever. It still looks beautiful and the action brutally awesome. Perhaps I went in with expectations too high, but I still really enjoyed it, mostly thanks to the visuals and the action.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

IRON MAN 2.

It's here. The first big anticipated film of the year is here. The original was a big surprise when it came out. This sequel has been anticipated (as already stated) ever since. But the original weren't without its issues. My own personal problems were the character of Pepper Potts (I just didn't like how she was written), as well as the climax feeling, well, anti-climactic. So did the sequel fix these issues?

The story follows Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) after having announced himself to the world as Iron Man. The government wants his armor, seeing it as a weapon that belongs to "the people." Tony, of course, refuses. They eventually have to bring in his best friend, Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), to try and talk some sense in to him. Meanwhile, a man named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), the son of a Russian scientist, wants to take revenge on Stark. He builds an outfit to take on Iron Man, utilizing lightning whips. And then there's Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a weapons' specialist out to commercialize the Iron Man technology for the U.S. Military, and he ends up taking on Vanko as help. The film also stars Scarlett Johansson as a woman who might know more than she seems, working with Stark. And, of course, there is the return of Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury.

First off, the trailer is slightly misleading. It portrays Vanko as the primary villain, and I don't think that's true. Yes, he's a main villain, but the trailers hardly even show Sam Rockwell. Justin Hammer is a huge part of the movie, and really none of the plot could happen without him. But I suppose when you have the option of showcasing Mickey Rourke with lightning whips or the powerless love child of Edward Norton and Dana Carvey, I'd go with the former, too.

So how are the villains in this movie? They're pretty good. Vanko only wears his ridiculous costume for the racing scene as shown in the trailers, but comes up with something a bit more sophisticated (?) for the finale (which I'll get to later). Unfortunately, those are his only two fighting scenes. Hammer, on the other hand, is in the film constantly, either stumbling over his words trying to outwit Stark or trying to play the impressive businessman to Vanko. And he is a good villain, despite not really ever getting his own hands dirty.

And how about the good guys? RDJ is still hilarious as Tony Stark and badass as Iron Man. Don Cheadle steps in to replace Terrence Howard, and I'm not sure which I like better. I think Cheadle, overall. Howard was able to add some humor to the character, while Cheadle pretty much plays him straight, at least up until the third act. But I think Cheadle pulled off the straight-man aspect of the character better than Howard, seeming more serious and believable as a military man. And then there's Pepper Potts. I actually liked her in this movie, especially since they didn't have her yelling secret plans to overthrow the enemy while the enemy was right there like in the first movie. So yeah, she was much improved over the first movie. Oh, and... uh... Scarlett was hot (and awesome). And hot.

So what were some of the negatives, you might ask? Well, first, I don't think there was nearly enough action. There are really only three major action sequences in the movie, and only two of them serious. There's the race car fight where Vanko first shows his abilities. The fight itself occurs at the end of the first act and, depsite Vanko slicing cars in half and Stark using his awesome suitcase armor, the fight is relatively short--maybe only 1 or 2 minutes once Stark actually gets his armor on. Then there's a not-so-serious fight that introduces War Machine, which is pretty fun. And then...

...then there's the climax. As a whole, the climax is awesome. There's Scarlett Johansson kicking ass. There's Iron Man kicking ass. There's War Machine kicking ass. There's explosions, lasers, flying, dodging, martial arts, and even a bit of humor... everything. But then there's Vanko. What I was worried about was a fight like the first movie's, where Iron Man goes up against the big bad guy and it ends up only lasting a couple minutes, as Iron Man figures out some big explosion-type deal that can take him down. So how is it this time? It lasts even less time than the one in the first movie. I suppose I shouldn't be complaining, as the entire climax up to that point has already lasted a long time. But I figured all that would be just the warm-up battle to prepare for the Final Boss, as it were. At least in the original, they fly around, shoot at each other, throw some punches... in this one, it literally lasts only a minute or two, mostly of Vanko holding on to Iron Man and War Machine with his lightning whips and tossing them about. How awesome would a midair lightning whip/hand blasts battle have been? Maybe add some rain... stylish! But oh well. Everything leading up to it rocked pretty hardcore to at least make up for it to a degree.

Overall, the movie was really good. I wasn't even going to comment on the visuals, as they are amazingly well done. The action that was there was done very well, but I think there could have been a little more there. With so little action, everything else in between seemed to drag at times. I was about to get annoyed right before the racing scene came up. Yeah, he's in his suit more, but just wearing the suit does not Iron Man make. Everything else was amazing. So was it worse than, as good as, or better than the original? I certainly don't think it was worse than. I'm actually tempted to say it was even better than the original in some cases, while in others it was just as good as. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you liked the original, you will definitely like this one, possibly even more. It had a couple issues, but then again, so did the first. Has summer officially started, then? Hell yeah, baby.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Wait for the scene after the credits. On top of the million Avengers nods this movie throws at you, there's one after the credits that's pretty cool).

Bizarre Noir #4: Sin City.

Welcome to the fourth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Sin City.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantino (for one scene).

Why it's bizarre: The comic book look and multiple stories.

Sin City is more of an art form than a movie. With a huge cast, Sin City explodes with star power in three (and a half) different stories. The first snip starts with The Man (Josh Hartnett), an assassin-for-hire. After the short scene, it continues on to Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop that is trying to save young Nancy from Roark Jr. (Nick Stahl). Then we have the criminal Marv (Mickey Rourke). After Goldie (Jaime King) is murdered by silent assassin Kevin (Elijah Wood), Marv travels around town trying to figure out who killed Goldie and why. Then we have Dwight (Clive Owen), a criminal with a new face, who sets out to get revenge on lady friend Shellie’s (Brittney Murphy) ex-boyfriend, Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro). But he ends up in a tougher situation than originally planned. Then it goes back to Hartigan again, after getting out of jail. He goes to find grown Nancy (Jessica Alba), the only person who had kept him sane and alive through his years in prison. But, unfortunately, a Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl) has his own secret agenda. And there’s a whole bunch of other people in the movie, too.

As far as noirs go, this movie has it all. It has the shadowy and unique camera shots (in more ways than one). It has the voice-over narration. It has all the mystery and murder and sexuality you could expect. The star-power really shines, as the movie is really well acted for what it is.

The most obvious comment for the movie is its visual style. It is very comic book, and very original for a movie (only to be redone for the later 300, though to a slightly lesser degree). It was stunning to watch the first time, and it’s still fun to watch now. There really isn’t much more to say about it than that.

The only downfall to the movie is that it’s choppy and incoherent. What I mean to say is that, with the exception of Josh Hartnett’s character and story, none of the stories intersect in any meaningful way. And I understand that each segment was based on a different comic, but they could have connected them all together somehow. They even had a good opportunity to change it all up a little bit, assuming that’s not how it was in the comics (I haven’t read them). But Marv’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the prostitutes. And Hartigan’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the Roarks. But they weren’t… so, really, it was kinda like the ‘Series of Unfortunate Events’ movie, where each segment was almost unrelated to the one before it, making it feel slightly disjointed.

But I did love how Josh Hartnett’s character came back into play at the very end. I thought that was brilliant and made up for some of the lack of connection otherwise. So overall, I though it was brilliant in what it attempted (and succeeded) to do. It has its flaws, sure, and it’s one of those movies you have to be in the right mood to watch… but when you’re in that mood, it’s a good one.

A Keanu 'Whoa'