Category Archives: Movies

Captain America: The First Avenger

Action, SciFi-Fantasy; U.S.; 2011; 121 minutes; directed by Joe Johnston

Medium:  Netflix Blu-Ray (Available on DVD)

Rating:  3.5 (5-point system)

I thought perhaps that maybe, just maybe, Marvel Studios had finally hit their stride when they came out with the exceptional Iron Man  and followed that up with The Incredible Hulk all in the same wonderful year—2008.  I mean, after all, what’s to argue with Robert Downey, Jr’s, exquisitely narcissistic Tony Stark or Edward Norton’s brooding portrayal of Bruce Banner?  And real scripts with actual character develpment?  Had Marvel finally rediscovered what Warner Bros./DC Comics had unearthed before with Batman Begins (2005), and then followed up with the superlative The Dark Knight (2008)—that real characters with real emotions and real problems will sell real movie tickets and real popcorn with fake butter, even when the subject is a comic book hero?

Alas, if 2011 is any indication, then no.  The lessons we all hoped Marvel had learned just three short years ago were apparently soon lost.  First we had the passable but effects-overburdened X-Men: First Class.  Next up was the tepid and overbearing Thor.  And finally this year we got the best of the bunch which, unfortunately, isn’t saying a whole lot.

It’s not that Captain America wasn’t entertaining.  It was, in a silly, retro sort of way reminiscent of the movie serials of the 1940s.  It’s just that I was expecting so much more, especially considering the favorable reviews this movie garnered.  Unfortunately, it appears that this film only looked good in comparison with this year’s previous two Marvel offerings.

The back story was actually pretty good.  Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) wants to enlist in the darkest days of World War II, but the asthmatic weakling with the irregular heartbeat who gets pummeled by assorted bullies with distressing regularity keeps getting rejected for service (hey, Stevie boy, don’t mouth off to someone twice your size, telling them to shut up in the movie theater; it’s bad for your health, dude).  But European refugee scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) sees in Rogers an internal fortitude that others lack, and thus chooses the scrawny kid from Brooklyn to partake in a research program to develop the ultimate super soldier.

Obviously the procedure worked, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

From this point on, things start out a bit slow.  Not necessarily a bad thing if the slow points are used to advance some cinematic objective such as, say, plot or character development.  Alas, they do not.  When the film finally reengages the viewer, the momentum is lost and the subsequent action seems out of context with the rest of the movie.  Further hampering the film are the silly high-tech weaponry and delivery systems that are far too advanced for the era in which the movie is set.

There are things to like about this film, however, such as the acting.  Chris Evans does an adequate job, but he pales in comparison to such heavyweights as Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci, perhaps the most underrated character actor of this generation.  Even Hugo Weaving manages to outshine our intrepid hero as the film’s properly menacing villain Johann Schmidt, aka, The Red Skull.  In comparison, all I can say is that Chris Evans is all dressed up with no place to glow.

As with the past Iron Man films, the last Hulk movie, and this year’s Thor, Captain America is merely a buildup to the main event—next year’s The Avengers, which ties together all these Marvel heroes into one ensemble blockbuster.

But a word of warning to Marvel:  Don’t forsake what made the first Iron Man and the last Hulk so entertaining.  Try to throw in some actual plot and character development this time.  Yes, Captain America was better than X-Men: First Class, but just barely.  Indeed, I gave both a 3.5, but that’s only because I don’t give 3.75s and the Captain just wasn’t worthy of a 4.0.

He never should have been promoted from private.

Well, we’ve already tried one double move review (127 Hours vs Nordwand), but that involved movies unrelated except in general terms concerning genre and themes.  Today we try something a little different:  A double movie review of an original award-winning film and its award-nominated remake.  In both versions, the lead actor received an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, with John Wayne taking home the Oscar for his performance and Jeff Bridges placing as an also-ran behind Colin Firth’s tour de force performance in The King’s Speech.  So, how do these two films compare?  Let’s take a look.

True Grit

Western, Drama; U.S.; 1969; 127 minutes; directed by Henry Hathaway

Medium:  Netflix Blu-ray (also available in DVD)

Rating:  4.5 (5-point system)

Versus

True Grit

Western, Drama; U.S.; 2010; 110 minutes; directed by Ethan Coen & Joel Coen

Medium:  Netflix Blu-ray (Available on DVD)

Rating:  4.5 (5-point system)

First up, True Grit (1969):

Young Mattie Ross’s (a rather stilted Kim Darby) father is murdered by lazy, drunken ranch hand Tom Chaney (portrayed with more than adequate menace by a very talented Jeff Corey), who then escapes into Oklahoma Indian territory.  Fearing that her father’s killer will never be brought to justice, Mattie hires the federal marshal with the meanest reputation, Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn (John Wayne in his only Oscar-winning performance).  Unfortunately, Mattie’s choice in federal marshals is fraught with human frailties.  Cogburn is just as lawless, untrustworthy, and conniving as the men he pursues—a drunk and former bank robber who uses the powers of his office to get away with sometimes killing his quarry in cold blood.

Also pursuing Tom Chaney is Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Glenn Campbell in a far from memorable, almost cardboard-like piece of acting).  With a manufactured charm and good-guy image more befitting Dudley Do-right of the Mounties, La Beouf subverts the conditions of Mattie’s “contract” with Cogburn, enticing the federal marshal into joining forces for a far more lucrative reward for Chaney.

Eventually, and very reluctantly, the three team up to go after Chaney despite knowing that this pursuit will put them in a direct confrontation with the nefarious and deadly “Lucky” Ned Pepper (tepidly portrayed by Robert Duvall) and his gang of cutthroats, with whom Chaney has now thrown in his lot.

Next, True Grit (2010):

Young Mattie Ross’s (charmingly and convincingly portrayed by a very talented Hailee Steinfield) father is murdered by lazy, drunken ranch hand Tom Chaney (played by Josh Brolin far less menacingly than the part requires), who escapes into Oklahoma Indian territory.  Fearing that her father’s killer will never be brought to justice, Mattie hires the federal marshal with the meanest reputation, Reuben “Rooster” Cogburn (Jeff Bridges in an Oscar-nominated and very worthy performance).  Unfortunately, Mattie’s choice in federal marshals is fraught with human frailties.  Cogburn is just as lawless, untrustworthy, and conniving as the men he pursues—a drunk and former bank robber who uses the powers of his office to get away with sometimes killing his quarry in cold blood.

Also pursuing Tom Chaney is Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Matt Damon, who far outshines his predecessor in the role, but still falls somewhat short).  With a manufactured charm and tough-but-nice-guy demeanor more befitting the original Steve McGarrett, La Beouf subverts the conditions of Mattie’s “contract” with Cogburn, enticing the federal marshal into joining forces for a far more lucrative reward for Chaney.

Eventually, and very reluctantly, the three team up to go after Chaney despite knowing that this pursuit will put them in a direct confrontation with the nefarious and deadly “Lucky” Ned Pepper (a very menacing and believable Barry Pepper) and his gang of cutthroats, with whom Chaney has now thrown in his lot.

Much of the two movies parallel each other through this point (as you can tell from the synopses), but there are divergences.  In the Coen Brothers’ version, La Beouf disappears for whole segments of the movie, only to reappear at seemingly random times when his character mysteriously becomes “important” once again to the movie.  Indeed, in one memorable scene in which a chimney is blocked to smoke out the men inside, the 1969 picture has Glen Campbell’s La Beouf up on the roof.  In the 2010 remake, La Beouf is off somewhere else entirely, and Mattie is left to do the chimney stuffing.  There is, therefore, a sense that story continuity is occasionally lost in the Coen Brothers’ version, even though it is purported to be closer to the Charles Portis novel on which both films are based.  Beyond that, however, the two films are indeed very close, clear down to a lot of the dialog and the formal, almost contraction-free speech patterns of the era.  Watching the original, this speech pattern comes off more as poor acting (especially when coming out of the mouths of Darby and Campbell), but it all somehow works better in the superior performances of the remake.

The more evident differences between the two films are in their overall style and feel.  The 1969 version contains much more humor.  The 2010 film is far darker and much more grim, from the scenery and the weather to the characterizations and the at times plodding action.  And this style and feel extends to the ending.  Whereas the original ends on a feel-good note, the remake’s ending almost leaves the viewer thinking, “What a downer.  Why did I even bother?”  But this is the ending Charles Portis wrote, and the Coen brothers should be commended in sticking with it.

Head-to-Head:  Wayne versus Bridges.  Now this one is sure to raise a few hackles, but here it goes.  Both performances are excellent, even though the characters are portrayed quite differently and very distinctly by the two actors.  And both performances were worthy of their Oscar nominations.  Where John Wayne’s portrayal comes off with humor and a vein of compassion that runs through the character almost from the start, Jeff Bridges’ Rooster Cogburn appears to have almost no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  With Bridges, a hint of humanity appears only near the end of the action, but the viewer’s sense of it is lost again in the final narration of the story as told by a much older Mattie years later.  At the end of the remake, I was left wondering if Mattie really did mean anything to Rooster, or if his struggle to save her had more to do with any potential monetary reward than any true sense of compassion or caring.  No such doubt exists at the end of Wayne’s performance.

At the end of it all, both movies are equally good.  The 1969version is superior in humor and produces a more satisfying ending, but there’s just something about the gritty realism of the 2010 version that places it on the same plane of quality as the original, only from an entirely different perspective and feel.  I would highly recommend seeing both versions within a short span of time to get the true sense for these two distinctly different takes on the same tale.

X-Men: First Class

Action, Drama, Fantasy.  2011, U.S., 131 Minutes, directed by Matthew Vaughn

Medium:  Currently in Theaters

Rating:  3.5 (5-point system)

Well, here we go again.  Another summer blockbuster review of yet another comic book-inspired superhero.  Or, in this case, an ensemble cast of superheros.

Sorry.  Things still haven’t changed since my review of Thor.  I’m still a DC guy over Marvel.  But that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy this particular movie.  I actually did, and for the same reasons Thor really stuck in my side like a thorn.

Whereas Thor sacrificed story for special effects, X-Men: First Class is a movie rife with plot and character development that also just happens to contain a lot of CGI (Computer Generated Imagery).  This is precisely the kind of movie to which I was referring when I said that Thor failed where the first Iron Man and the most recent two Batman movies succeeded.  That’s not to say I didn’t wind up suffering from SFxF (Special Effects Fatigue) by the end of the film, because I did.  And ultimately that is why I deducted half a point from my overall rating here.  But more on that in a moment.

The Backstory:  Adolescents Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) are the flip sides of the same mutated coin.  Both are growing up during World War II.  But whereas the former is a child of wealth and privilege with a deep sense of empathy toward others fanned by his ability to read minds, the latter is molded by the inhumanity and horror inflicted upon him during his stay in a German concentration camp, where he mother is callously killed before his very eyes when the young Erik Lehnsherr is unable to demonstrate on command his ability to move metal objects by mentally generating and manipulating magnetic fields.

The Set Up:  The U.S. is threatened by a sinister band of powerful mutants headed by Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), a mutant himself with the power to store and then redirect energy.  Professor Charles Xavier of Oxford is tapped by the CIA to assist in identifying, locating, and bringing together a band of benevolent mutants to combat the threat.  Meanwhile, Erik Lehnsherr is a man on a mission.  He travels the world seeking to avenge his mother’s death by finding and then killing the man who murdered her—former Nazi researcher Sebastian Shaw.

The Meeting:  Charles convinces Erik to join forces with him in his search for other mutants.  Together they form a CIA training camp to harness and focus each mutant’s special ability.  As Charles assists Erik in refining and directing his own powers, the two become the best of friends.  But there is a hidden tension between them.  Charles is convinced that mutants will one day be accepted into society, whereas Erik believes normal humans will forever fear and never tolerate in their midst beings capable of such awesome powers.

The External Conflict:  Set amid the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crises, Charles and Erik lead their newly formed team of mutants in an effort to stop an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers.  Opposing them are Sebastian Shaw and a team of equally powerful mutants bent on starting World War III in an effort to eradicate the normal humans who fear and and despise them, and to accelerate the mutation process among survivors through environmental radiation.

The Internal Conflict:  Never let it be said that Stan Lee doesn’t understand the basic appeal of the tragic Shakespearian hero.  And in X-Men: First Class his characters and their deeply rooted angst and divergent backgrounds really display this fundamental understanding.  I don’t want to give away critical plot elements here, so I’ll just say this:  By the end of this film you will understand how such close friends become such bitter yet respectful rivals.  You will also discover the origins of Charles’ paraplegic, wheelchair-bound existence, the beginnings of the Xavier Institute where mutants are trained while simultaneously being protected from a hostile and fearful public, and Erik’s transformation into the helmet-wearing, human-hating Magneto.

So . . . what’s not to like?  A lot, unfortunately.  Superman very nearly gets away with his fantastical powers because he’s an alien.  Spider-Man makes it work because his powers are limited, and were brought about by exposure to an external influence.  Iron Man successfully portrays at least a modicum of realism by obtaining his “abilities” through mechanical means.  Batman has them all beat because he’s merely a superbly athletic individual proficient in the martial arts and backed up by all the wonderful toys that a wealthy billionaire can afford.  Additionally, each and every one of these examples has an Achilles’ Heel—from a vulnerable love interest, to Kryptonite, to the need to maintain a secret identity.  Also, each displays a flawed and perhaps at times even wimpish alter ego.  Clark Kent is a timid, almost painfully shy reporter.  Peter Parker is a bullied, nerdish student whom girls ignore.  Tony Stark is a philandering egotist of monumental proportions.  Bruce Wayne is also a wealthy playboy who puts forth a persona that prefers the flash of a Lamborghini to the philanthropy of a social cause.  No such limiting considerations are evident among either the X-Men or their mutant opposition.  Each is powerful beyond all reason, and thus all believability is destroyed in the process.  And this is where the film fails, at least slightly.  All that wonderful setup and backstory are squandered in the ridiculous battles and displays of incredible power that hijack the last half of the motion picture, only to be redeemed at the very end by the eventual tragic, heartrending split between Charles and Erik.  Thus, you have what should have been a solid 4.0 rating getting knocked down to a rather tepid but still encouraging 3.5.

Is it worth seeing?  You bet.  Is it great cinema in the summer blockbuster tradition, or even in the superhero genre?  No way.