Iron Man 2 (a movie review post)

 

MCU #3

It's interesting looking back at the earlier Marvel movies now that we've reached the stage of "saving the world." The early movies were much "smaller" and personal. Iron Man is, ultimately, about the envy of a man and the repercussions caused from trying to kill the man he is envious of. Sure, there is a battle between the two men in mech armor, but, ultimately, it is a personal movie.

Incredible Hulk is the same. Basically, a dude doesn't like the guy her daughter is dating. His daughter is dating the Hulk, so there's a lot of smashing, but, at its heart, it's a personal rivalry. Maybe two, because there's also Tim Roth's character and his, again, envy.

Iron Man 2 is also "small" in that same way. It's a battle between the sons of two men, one who rose to greatness, the other who didn't even go on to live in infamy, just obscurity. I mean, Tony had never even heard of the other man. All of that with a side of man vs man as Tony battles with "addiction." Of course, it's not really addiction in the movie; it's his looming death from palladium poisoning, but that's a stand-in for the arc in the comics when Tony was battling his alcoholism, a groundbreaking story in its day. I think they did a decent job of reflecting that in the movie as he gets more and more out of control.

I think Iron Man 2 is a quite good sequel. Narratively, I don't find it quite as strong as Iron Man. It actually has a little too much going on in it. But, as a movie about characters, which Marvel movies ultimately are, it really shines. It introduces Black Widow, which is so much fun. We really get to encounter Nick Fury, and that's awesome. Pepper gets promoted and freaks out. Rhodey steps into his own, at least a bit. We start to get to know Coulson... Oh, and Justin Hammer!

Okay, let me just say that I love Sam Rockwell. He is completely underrated as an actor. At least, he must be due to his lack of big profile roles. I don't know; maybe he stays away from them, but he's an incredible actor, and he was so much fun in this role. His little dance across the stage at the expo is gold. Also, I just found out, he was considered for the role of Tony Stark, and that would not have been a bad choice. A different choice, because I think Rockwell would have, well, rocked in the role, though I do think Downey was the correct decision. Not that Downey is the better actor; they are different actors, and Downey is able to have a particular smugness about him that I have never seen Rockwell do, and I think that particular quality is what really sells Stark.

Anyway... It's tough to pick between two actors you think are awesome.

And, I think, that's all I have to say about this one. Oh, wait, no it's not.
I have always been ambivalent about Mickey Rourke as the villain in this movie. Or, maybe, I'm ambivalent about the villain. I don't know. I don't know if it's the character or the actor. I hoped re-watching it would help me come to some sort of decision, but it didn't. Maybe it's both. This is part of the narrative weakness of the plot. Whiplash feels retconned in because he kind of comes from nowhere and nothing. Clearly, this guy is a genius but was fine with, what, living in squalor? And we're supposed to just accept Fury's word that the guy's father was a bad guy.

And we are supposed to accept that because Fury, in the MCU, is the ultimate reliable narrator, which makes everything a bit too easy for me to be comfortable with, I guess. It's the thing that pulls this movie down a bit for me.

Still a great and fun movie.

Oh, here's an idea! My ranking of the MCU movies as I re-watch them.
Current rank:

1. Iron Man

2. Iron Man 2

3. (and it's a very, very distant third, watch for this one to just keep dropping until it hits 25) The Incredible Hulk

La La Land (a movie review post)

Let's have an honest moment: I really don't like Damien Chazelle. It's not a personal thing (Probably. Since I haven't met him, that's hard to say, but I did hear him on the radio, and he sounds like an okay guy other than the fact that he can't write and, so, should stop doing that.), but his movies need to go away now. (See my review of Whiplash.) No, I don't care that other people seem to like them. Actually, that's part of the problem. Chazelle's movies are like the Hershey's bars of chocolate: They're fine if that's all the chocolate you have access to but, once you've had good chocolate, you'll realize that Hershey's is kind of waxy and you won't want it again as anything other than a last resort.

Except I never want to see Whiplash again, even as a last resort.

Don't get me wrong, La La Land is a fun movie. Mostly. Fun in a cotton candy kind of way: It's all fluff and no substance. I like Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling just fine, and they do a fine job, but they never really gel. The movies feels like you're watching two people acting as if they are acting they are in love and having a relationship, which adds to the cotton candy-ness of the whole experience. None of it feels real. The whole movies feels as if it's about to dissolve under scrutiny.

I think the thing that most bothers me about the movie is the "message." Sure, it's an actual message, but it's a message that's endemic to our culture of positivity and to Hollywood in particular, so
1. It hardly seems like making a movie about this message anymore is worthwhile (especially since neither of the main characters have to go through any actual hardship (at least not within the action of the movie)).
2. It's a false message.
Oh, the message?
If you just follow your dream, if you're true to it to the exclusion of all else, your dream will come true. Even if it means giving up the "love of your life."

Maybe it's just me, but I'm really sick of that message, because it's not a true message. The problem, though, is that if someone doesn't succeed at achieving their dream, people take the stance, "Well, you just didn't try hard enough. You must have let yourself be distracted by other things." It's like the whole positive attitude with cancer patients, breast cancer especially. There's this pervasive belief that if someone just stays positive that she will beat the cancer. If she dies? She wasn't positive enough. The tragedy? Studies are showing that people who rely on positivity have a lower survival rate. (You can see my review of Bright-sided for more on this. Then go read that book.)

So, yes, the hype this movie is receiving makes me a bit mad. Probably more than a bit. It's so undeserving, especially in relation to all of the other movies, right now. Look, it's not that I have anything against people following their dreams. I'm all for it. I encourage it. However, this idea that if you are just steadfast in following your dream then it will definitely come true is a lie. Many people, people who are doggedly determined in following their dream, never see those things come true, because that's not all that it's about. To lead people to believe that it is is not just wrong, it's cruel. It leads people to believe that, somehow, if their dream doesn't come true then the fault is somehow inside of them, that they did something wrong, when, actually, they may have done everything right.

On top of all of that is this idea that Sebastian is some kind of white savior for jazz. Only he really appreciates it's true form, and only he can save it from extinction. If he can only manage to get his jazz club open. You know, if you "build" it, they will come and all that... wait for it... jazz. I find the whole thing kind of insulting. I mean, not only does he appreciate it more, but he plays it better. So, you know, you have all of these great black musicians in the movie, jazz musicians, but it's the lone white guy who is going to save them.

Give me a fucking break.

So, yes, I don't think La La Land deserved any of the Golden Globes it won, but Chazelle, especially, didn't deserve the awards for screenplay and directing.

Whiplash (a movie review post)

This is the kind of movie that might mean something if it was based on something that actually happened but, as it is, it's almost meaningless. Which is not to say that the message -- greatness comes from adversity -- isn't true, but making up a story to prove your premise doesn't prove anything. I mean, I could make up a story to "prove" that eating spinach gives you massive forearms, but it doesn't mean anything without something real or true to back it up. So, you know, great: A fictional kid becomes a great drummer because a fictional band director is a supreme asshole to him.

And I'm not trying to knock the impact of a fictional story, but it usually helps if your protagonist isn't also an asshole if you want the story to be "inspirational." It also helps when the crisis moment is at least remotely believable. So let's walk through that. Yes, there will be spoilers.

Andrew has worked his ass off to get the drum part for a significant competition. He is by far the best player, but the director, Fletcher, is threatening to give the part to someone else in order to get Andrew to be even better. So far so good.

On the way to the performance, the bus Andrew has taken gets a flat tire which makes him late. This is awfully convenient (read: contrived), but it does happen. I suppose it does, anyway. In all my years of riding school buses (similar in most respects to paid public transportation), we never once had a flat tire. I did have a couple of buses break down, though, so I'll concede the possibility, We're still okay.

Andrew, in an effort to make the performance on time, runs to a conveniently located (convenient in that he could get to it on foot) car rental place. Okay, so I have a bit more of an issue with this. In my experience, car rental places aren't just scattered around randomly like gas stations. We're beginning to stretch things, but I'll still go along.

Andrew leaves his (drum) stick case at the rental agency.
Really?

Andrew gets to the place where they are performing. He's past call time, but he's in time to play for the performance. Fletcher is pissed that Andrew's later and threatens to give the part to another of the drummers. They have an argument, but Fletcher, evidently, agrees to let Andrew play... except that Andrew doesn't have his sticks, and Fletcher refuses to let him borrow some from one of the other students. He may play if he can be back with his sticks in five minutes.

Okay, I have a really difficult time accepting this bit. Fletcher wants to win the competition. He is completely about winning. Andrew is by far his best drummer (probably his best musician), but he's going to let someone else play instead? It just doesn't fit with Fletcher's personality. He would wait until after the performance to punish Andrew for his tardiness rather than risk losing the competition.

At any rate, Andrew dashes back to the car, speeds back to the rental place, grabs his bag, and speeds back... and he has a car accident. A bad one. The car rolls several times and stops upside down. Yet, Andrew crawls from the wreckage, covered in blood, and runs, sort of, the last few blocks to where they are performing. And I'll give them that. As unlikely as it is, sometimes people do do extraordinary things. However, it completely falls apart after that...

Andrew is bleeding from his head, blood is dripping off of one hand, and his clothes are ripped and shredded. In short, he looks like he was just in a car accident. He makes it all the way through the building without anyone stopping him. He makes it onto the stage without anyone stopping him...
Wait a minute. His band is already on stage, evidently, just waiting for him. During a competition, the band is sitting there with no one at the drums just waiting for... him.
1. Um, we're supposed to assume that the judges are just waiting patiently for some indefinite amount of time for the late drummer to show up. The drummer who ran out of time before he even made it back to the car rental agency.
2. We're supposed to assume that Fletcher did not put in one of the reserve drummers he had on hand. One of them was good. Not as good as Andrew, but he was good. That we're supposed to believe this of Fletcher, that he is just waiting for Andrew, is even more unbelievable than that the judges are waiting for Andrew.
3. When Andrew walks onto the stage, covered in blood, no one interferes. He just goes and sits down at the drums and starts playing. No one -- NO ONE! -- is like, "Dude! You're covered in blood! What happened? What are you doing?" Not any of his bandmates, not Fletcher, not any of the judges or any of the people watching. Um, I'm sorry... That's insane that we're expected to believe that he just walks out onto the stage in that condition and no one stops the proceedings to see what's going on.
4. Andrew isn't able to keep up; he's dripping blood all over the drums; he drops one of the sticks and has trouble retrieving it. Finally Fletcher does something. He comes over and orders Andrew off the stage. Not nicely. I don't care how big of an asshole you are; if your best drummer is bleeding out on stage, you have more concern than to come over and yell him off the stage.
5. Andrew loses it, about the only thing in this sequence that makes any sense, and attacks Fletcher right there on the stage in front of everyone. And gets expelled for it. What? Seriously? We're expected to believe that a kid who was just in a car accident, bleeding from a head wound, and was just screamed at by his director during a performance got kicked out of school for losing control?

Basically, this whole sequence dance along the Cliff of Belief like a blind man, almost falling, almost falling, almost falling until, finally, falling right down into the Sea of Disbelief far below. Nothing that comes after this really works, including the scene where they are convincing Andrew to testify (for lack of a better word) against Fletcher about his abusive ways. So they know they way Fletcher treated people and they still expelled Andrew? Riiight...

So, yeah... I really couldn't buy into the movie. I get that music is competitive and can be harsh, but, honestly, Damien Chazelle has admitted to basing Fletcher on one of his band directors, so the whole thing comes of as sort of a bitter, "You wrecked my life," kind of thing. I don't feel bad for him, nor did I fee bad for Andrew. Andrew was an arrogant asshole. And, well, if the point of the movie is that you only become great through adversity, then we see that Chazelle gave up and walked away from music. As the movie points out, if you become discouraged enough to abandon the thing you love, you were never meant to be great, anyway, so Chazelle needs to just get over it.

Oh, and the recurring story about Charlie Parker (an actual jazz player) isn't accurate. Chazelle re-wrote that to fit his movie.

All of that said, J. K. Simmons is fantastic as Fletcher. He is the kind of villain that you hate and respect at the same time. Then hate some more. The best supporting actor nomination for him is well-deserved.

Miles Teller is also pretty good. Not great, but he was good. And good at not being likable. Even when wanting him to succeed, you also wanted him to fail. Basically, it's a movie of not likable characters. The only two people in the movie who are decent human beings are Andrew's father and Andrew's (short-lived) girlfriend.

It's not a movie I would recommend to, well, anyone, and it doesn't belong on the best picture nomination list. It's more deserving than The Theory of Everything, but that's not saying much.