Now this was an odd movie to watch. It was equally frustrating and entertaining at the same time but no where near the mess that was Star Trek Into Darkness. There was so much in this movie that that had me rolling my eyes, but yet it was highly enjoyable also, in a Michael Bay sort of way. I will say this though, over the years movies seem to have adopted a Michael Bay template for everything that happens in them. Even as movies seem to be going the Bay route they are no where as entertaining as a Bay movie, because only Bay can do Bay.
Movies don't seem to do much anymore but be about action scene after action scene and a few filler moments that serve no purpose but to drive the plot forward where logic, and all sane reason, have been chucked out of the window in favor of CGI and explosions. Even after saying all of this the only reason this movie is saved from the muck of story line it has is Robert Downey, Jr. Who single handedly saves this movie with his performance, much like he did with Iron Man 2 and pretty much the first Iron Man movie. But this movie is still no where near as good as Iron Man, which only suffered from a poor act 3 but is infinitely better than Iron Man 2.
I don't know why everyone thinks that total all out destruction is the only way to go with superhero movies now-a-days because character can go so much farther into making the story line and movie better. I mean it gives the viewer something to hold on to and cheer for if character is sought after versus explosions and CGI overkill. Sadly, this just seems not to be the case for the state of movies with the way consumers are spending money on these overblown spectacles, these kinds of movies are going to continue to be churned out from the Hollywood cookie cutter factory. Yet in the end they end up being a non-spectacle in the long run despite all the spectacle on screen.
What do I mean when I say these spectacle movies have become non-spectacle movies? I mean their longevity has no no shelf life but for immediate gratification. These are movies that will only be talked about in the present they were released in. Then from here on out they fall completely off the radar from any conversation and only become mentioned in a conversation when in comparison with the other movies connected to them. The conversation will ultimately go something like this where Iron Man 2 and 3 will get mentioned then the first Iron Man movie will get talked about more than the sequels, "Iron Man 3 was good, but not as good as Iron Man, which was way better than Iron Man 3, which was better Iron Man 2. But still the first Iron Man was the best of the series as the plot and..." To full understand what I'm talking about compare Nolan's Batman trilogy, the Toy Story trilogy, or for that matter even the original Star Wars trilogy to see how sequels enhance a story line. Because those movies, when you talk about them, fold in and out on themselves so well that no one of them is better than the other as they all support themselves through character and story lines not getting lost in the spectacle thus ending up a non-spectacle.
I've got to honestly say I'm getting tired of endless explosions, one over-the-top set piece after the next over-the-top set piece, wildly diverting plot lines, and character shifts for no other reason than, well, hell why not. I'm getting really...to borrow a phrase from a wildly over-the-top action series and to crank the irony up to 11 by doing it...tired of this shit. It's funny too because the only thing that saves this movie from the insanity of itself is Robert Downey. He makes Tony Stark an interesting character, so much so, that I actually want to see how things turn out in his life and this is nothing based on how the character is written, but is purely based on how Downey plays him For this he is worth every dollar on that paycheck. Downey keeps the insanity some what masked by just playing the character as he plays the character. This goes back to what I was saying above, focus on character and people will care about what happens. This movie and story line chooses to focus on spectacle, but Downey makes Stark interesting enough to overlap most of the spectacle. I can only imagine how this movie would have turned out if the story had focused on Stark and his character. I think it would have been a much better movie and the over all trilogy would have turned out somewhere in the vein of Nolan's Batman trilogy, who did focus on character and you see how those movies turned out.
No comments:
Post a Comment