I wanted to see Captain America: The Winter Soldier (PG-13, 136 minutes) immediately when it came out, but life with children being what it is, I had to put it off for a bit. I might not have gotten to see it even as soon as I did if not for the fact that I was told I couldn't continue to watch one of my favorite TV shows (Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D) if I didn't watch the movie first; the show ties into the movie so well. So, my husband and I made the time to see it. It's probably too late now to warn you, but if you are a fan of the Marvel movies and the show, you should have watched the movie the first weekend it came out (April 4), before the April 8 episode of S.H.I.E.L.D. Fortunately, I watch the show online on regular hulu and had to wait a week anyway, so it wasn't a problem to wait a few more days, see the movie, and then watch the TV episode. Awesome tie-in episode. (SPOILER alert!) This latest Marvel movie has really changed the whole show: characters, settings, relationships. What has thus far been a pretty stable, no-rocking-the-boat, episodic kind of show has been flipped on its head in a fairly dramatic way. Some of the trappings will still be there, but there's going to be major fallout for some time to come, I think. It's pretty cool to see a movie and a show work together like that.
As for the movie itself, I liked it. I'd been warned it was a bit dark for Captain America, but being a big fan of Batman Begins and the Dark Knight movies, I wasn't bothered by that. (Possible minor SPOILERS ahead.) The short of the plot is that Steve Rogers (Captain America) and Natasha Romanoff (Black Widow) find themselves in the suddenly-not-so-friendly cross hairs of the very agency they work for, and they have to go on the run while also putting together a plan to fight back. Meanwhile, in the minor subplot that gives the movie its name, Rogers's old friend from his pre-Captain days, Bucky (Sebastian Stan), is alive and has it in for Captain America. I call it a subplot because that's not what the movie is about, but it's a nice subplot that gives even more depth to our hero as he continues to mourn the loss of his past and tries to find meaning and purpose in the future he's found himself in. (End Spoilers.)
Chris Evans continues to be great as Captain America in this sequel which also ties in nicely to his first solo movie. He's super serious, but he also has a comic side. Let me just say this: elevator scene! He continues to be a sensitive guy, but this movie is darker thematically and emotionally because he doesn't know whom to trust. He cares about people, but he doesn't know who deserves his care anymore.
Scarlett Johansson is a fabulous Black Widow. (Just to be clear, though, I only know her character from the movies. I'm not familiar with the comic book world.) Everyone always says that Hollywood can't seem to get its female superheroes right and that a movie with one as its titular character would not go off well. However, I think they got it right this time, or at least Johansson got it right. She pulls off a character who has multiple layers, is sympathetic but can kick butt, and who has the prerequisite looks but doesn't need them to make her character. If my memory is correct, after she starts off the movie in a black combat suit (which inspired thoughts of whom I could be for next Halloween--after all, my name is Natasha, and I already have red hair!), she spends the rest of the movie in normal, modest civilian clothes and ends up doing a fight scene in a matronly dress suit. I think she could carry her own movie.
Samuel L. Jackson is, as usual, entertaining as Nick Fury, and he gets his own scenes, for once! And Anthony Mackie, as the Falcon, is a great addition to Black Widow and Captain America's team. He's funny but sincere and provides a nice counterbalance to Rogers's darker side in this movie.
Altogether, The Winter Soldier is a nice mix of funny and serious, of fight scenes and relationship dynamics (though practically no romance!). I enjoyed it, but at the same time, I don't need to see it again. Though there are a few memorable parts, I didn't find it so memorable as a whole, and it didn't grab me emotionally. But I wasn't looking for that. On the other hand, some said it ran too long, and I didn't feel that either. I simply enjoyed it. It's a nice piece of the Marvel universe puzzle, but what I'm really looking forward to is the next installment of the Avengers because I think the team dynamics are some of the best of what Marvel offers.
Showing posts with label sequel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sequel. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire in Theaters Now
Though I've been excited to see Catching Fire, I find myself, surprisingly, with little to say after having watched it. I feel like I need to watch it again to fully absorb it. I really enjoyed it, but another pass or two might help me to fully appreciate it.
In some ways, this sequel didn't grip me the way the first movie did. Nothing has really changed; just the newness has worn off. But I don't think it is inferior to the first movie. I thought this new director would change the feel of the movie, but he manages to capture the weight of the first movie while also adding his own flair nearly seamlessly.
As for keeping close to the book, I don't remember well enough. I read it years ago and purposefully did not read it again so that I wouldn't compare too closely. But now that I have seen the movie, I can say this: it felt right, and it just made me want to read the book again, which I will now allow myself to do. If a movie adaptation can be entertaining and make you want to read the book again, I'd say it's done its job.
One change from the first movie to the second that I thought was well-done, and perhaps even an improvement from the first, was the layout and action in the arena. Granted, the second movie had more to work with from the book. The 75th Hunger Games are special and meant to be extra "exciting." Catching Fire captures this change with a more fascinating, tighter arena and heart-pounding suspense. Although I loved the first movie, the arena itself didn't seem all that high-tech and other-worldly. It didn't matter so much because the focus was on the characters and their fight to the death. (SPOILER alert) In Catching Fire, the dynamics between the characters are much different than in The Hunger Games, less cutthroat, so you almost need that special arena to heighten the stakes.
Another change I heard about was that Peeta was going to be a little tougher in the movie than in the book. I thought that was kind of a cheap Hollywood thing to do, but somehow the movie actually keeps his character intact. Having not read the book recently, the change was not blatant to me. Peeta is still soft and caring and protective in his own way--everything that makes him who he is. If he's now also a little more handy with a small weapon and a little more sure of himself, I don't think that takes away from his significance.
One thing I do love about the movie, as I did in the first, is its characters, all played with so much feeling. I can't list them because then I'd have to list all of them. No one really felt off to me. And the way those characters interact...well, that's really the author's doing, but the movie captures it poignantly.
Catching Fire is rated PG-13 for, obviously, violence, disturbing themes, and some language, apparently. I think the language is probably a low concern next to the violence. A boy, probably ten years old, was sitting behind me in the theater, telling his mother he was going to "literally die" as he waited for the movie to start. Ironic...but more importantly, he was only ten. This is a mature book and movie series, whose popularity, unfortunately, has probably created something of a culture the author was actually speaking against. Readers and viewers don't always use their best judgment and sometimes seem to mindlessly absorb whatever they see. My blog is a teeny tiny revolution against that. (And I bet you thought I had nothing in common with Katniss.) I do believe there is value in such books and movies, even as entertainment, but they should be approached thoughtfully and with a concern for discerning right from wrong, something that does not come as easily to those younger viewers. (Cue stepping off soapbox.)
I would like to see this movie again. I would like to own it. I am very pleased with how this series has been adapted to the screen, and I'm curious as to whether or not they will be able to keep it up with the controversial last book.
Four stars.
In some ways, this sequel didn't grip me the way the first movie did. Nothing has really changed; just the newness has worn off. But I don't think it is inferior to the first movie. I thought this new director would change the feel of the movie, but he manages to capture the weight of the first movie while also adding his own flair nearly seamlessly.
As for keeping close to the book, I don't remember well enough. I read it years ago and purposefully did not read it again so that I wouldn't compare too closely. But now that I have seen the movie, I can say this: it felt right, and it just made me want to read the book again, which I will now allow myself to do. If a movie adaptation can be entertaining and make you want to read the book again, I'd say it's done its job.
One change from the first movie to the second that I thought was well-done, and perhaps even an improvement from the first, was the layout and action in the arena. Granted, the second movie had more to work with from the book. The 75th Hunger Games are special and meant to be extra "exciting." Catching Fire captures this change with a more fascinating, tighter arena and heart-pounding suspense. Although I loved the first movie, the arena itself didn't seem all that high-tech and other-worldly. It didn't matter so much because the focus was on the characters and their fight to the death. (SPOILER alert) In Catching Fire, the dynamics between the characters are much different than in The Hunger Games, less cutthroat, so you almost need that special arena to heighten the stakes.
Another change I heard about was that Peeta was going to be a little tougher in the movie than in the book. I thought that was kind of a cheap Hollywood thing to do, but somehow the movie actually keeps his character intact. Having not read the book recently, the change was not blatant to me. Peeta is still soft and caring and protective in his own way--everything that makes him who he is. If he's now also a little more handy with a small weapon and a little more sure of himself, I don't think that takes away from his significance.
One thing I do love about the movie, as I did in the first, is its characters, all played with so much feeling. I can't list them because then I'd have to list all of them. No one really felt off to me. And the way those characters interact...well, that's really the author's doing, but the movie captures it poignantly.
Catching Fire is rated PG-13 for, obviously, violence, disturbing themes, and some language, apparently. I think the language is probably a low concern next to the violence. A boy, probably ten years old, was sitting behind me in the theater, telling his mother he was going to "literally die" as he waited for the movie to start. Ironic...but more importantly, he was only ten. This is a mature book and movie series, whose popularity, unfortunately, has probably created something of a culture the author was actually speaking against. Readers and viewers don't always use their best judgment and sometimes seem to mindlessly absorb whatever they see. My blog is a teeny tiny revolution against that. (And I bet you thought I had nothing in common with Katniss.) I do believe there is value in such books and movies, even as entertainment, but they should be approached thoughtfully and with a concern for discerning right from wrong, something that does not come as easily to those younger viewers. (Cue stepping off soapbox.)
I would like to see this movie again. I would like to own it. I am very pleased with how this series has been adapted to the screen, and I'm curious as to whether or not they will be able to keep it up with the controversial last book.
Four stars.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Thor: The Dark World in Theaters Now
I got to see Thor: The Dark World last night on its release date. (Or should I say, the 8:00 pm showing which used to be the midnight showing the night before its release date? Hey, I'm not complaining about the time; I just think it's funny.)
My husband and I like to joke about the fact that we would never have guessed Thor to be interesting fodder for the movies. I mean, come on, he's a god with a sledgehammer. (And I'm aware that all the fans out there are saying, "Yeah, he's a god with a sledgehammer!") Well, I stand corrected. I loved the first Thor, and this second is an excellent follow-up, especially with the help of the tie-in movie The Avengers. Really, Dark World is our third time getting to watch these characters on the screen, and I'd be happy with more.
So, what is it about this world and these characters that brings us all back again and again? Is it the tightly written script (A lot happens in just under 2 hours!), the exquisite look of Asgard (with more detail even than the last movie), the high stakes (All the realms, including Earth, are in peril!), the unequal romance of a god to a mere mortal, the humor and quick wit of some of the dialog, the superb acting, or the mixed motivations of a villain we begrudgingly root for? All of these things impact us, I'm sure, but right now, I think the biggest factor is the last.
Tom Hiddleston's Loki is the perfect villain. In this movie, his scheming takes second place to a larger threat, but he's still there, lurking magnificently in the shadows. The thing about Loki: you just don't know who the real guy is. He's an illusionist. He's something of a victim, and we feel that, but what he's done with his anger is wrong, hence the title "villain." Does he have room for love in his heart, or are revenge and power all he seeks? He's a charmer, willing to pretend and say whatever you want to hear, but sometimes we hope he means it, even though we know we should know better.
The media loves him. The fans love him. I think I even love him. And I'm not sure I should. He's the bad guy, right? He's done terrible things. A smile here, a good joke there, and a little emotion we viewers can identify with don't change the fact that he's bad. But I think part of the reason I love him is that I am always hoping for character redemption. It's the same reason I love characters like Ben Linus, from TV's Lost, and Regina, from Once Upon a Time. There's more to those characters than just one-dimensional evilness. They are complicated, like us.
Having said all that, I also think there's a danger in that belief. We more easily overlook the truly awful things such characters have done. It's difficult to process a character like Loki morally, and I'm not saying I have the answers. It's just something to consider and something that needed mentioning on this blog.
Of course, there's a lot more to this story than Loki. There are darker villains, and oh, yeah, the heroes are pretty great, too. Thor may be a little too perfect now, unlike in the first movie, but I'm not going to complain about a good hero. In a superhero movie, it's probably best to keep a clear definition of good versus evil, especially when you have bad enough evil characters. There has to be good to balance it out. And morality is plenty murky in our world as it is.
Thor: The Dark World is appropriately rated PG-13 for some dark sci-fi action and violence, but it's nothing you wouldn't expect in a comic book movie. In short, if comic books and superheroes are your thing, this movie has it all and is worth seeing in the theater. Four and a half stars.
My husband and I like to joke about the fact that we would never have guessed Thor to be interesting fodder for the movies. I mean, come on, he's a god with a sledgehammer. (And I'm aware that all the fans out there are saying, "Yeah, he's a god with a sledgehammer!") Well, I stand corrected. I loved the first Thor, and this second is an excellent follow-up, especially with the help of the tie-in movie The Avengers. Really, Dark World is our third time getting to watch these characters on the screen, and I'd be happy with more.
So, what is it about this world and these characters that brings us all back again and again? Is it the tightly written script (A lot happens in just under 2 hours!), the exquisite look of Asgard (with more detail even than the last movie), the high stakes (All the realms, including Earth, are in peril!), the unequal romance of a god to a mere mortal, the humor and quick wit of some of the dialog, the superb acting, or the mixed motivations of a villain we begrudgingly root for? All of these things impact us, I'm sure, but right now, I think the biggest factor is the last.
Tom Hiddleston's Loki is the perfect villain. In this movie, his scheming takes second place to a larger threat, but he's still there, lurking magnificently in the shadows. The thing about Loki: you just don't know who the real guy is. He's an illusionist. He's something of a victim, and we feel that, but what he's done with his anger is wrong, hence the title "villain." Does he have room for love in his heart, or are revenge and power all he seeks? He's a charmer, willing to pretend and say whatever you want to hear, but sometimes we hope he means it, even though we know we should know better.
The media loves him. The fans love him. I think I even love him. And I'm not sure I should. He's the bad guy, right? He's done terrible things. A smile here, a good joke there, and a little emotion we viewers can identify with don't change the fact that he's bad. But I think part of the reason I love him is that I am always hoping for character redemption. It's the same reason I love characters like Ben Linus, from TV's Lost, and Regina, from Once Upon a Time. There's more to those characters than just one-dimensional evilness. They are complicated, like us.
Having said all that, I also think there's a danger in that belief. We more easily overlook the truly awful things such characters have done. It's difficult to process a character like Loki morally, and I'm not saying I have the answers. It's just something to consider and something that needed mentioning on this blog.
Of course, there's a lot more to this story than Loki. There are darker villains, and oh, yeah, the heroes are pretty great, too. Thor may be a little too perfect now, unlike in the first movie, but I'm not going to complain about a good hero. In a superhero movie, it's probably best to keep a clear definition of good versus evil, especially when you have bad enough evil characters. There has to be good to balance it out. And morality is plenty murky in our world as it is.
Thor: The Dark World is appropriately rated PG-13 for some dark sci-fi action and violence, but it's nothing you wouldn't expect in a comic book movie. In short, if comic books and superheroes are your thing, this movie has it all and is worth seeing in the theater. Four and a half stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)