I was initially very excited to see this film, going into it I had mixed feelings after hearing reviews from friends.
At least the first half of the film excited me. The dynamic and cinematography of the courtroom scene was a surprising standout scene, given that there is no crazy action going on. The dynamic and push and pull tension between Stark and Potts, Stark and his nemesis, and Stark and the senator had a refreshing feel to it. I also enjoyed how this scene was shot in also a cinema verite style. The camera was fluid rather than traditional cut and paste style. I found myself really drawn into the scene. Also the scene where Mickey Rourke and Downey Jr. battle on the race track in Monaco was really cool and well paced.
Around the three-quarter mark though my attention started to wain. I really kind of gave up on a come-back when Rockwell's character is doing the public presentation of his iron man droids. It's funny because during this scene I couldn't help but think how the iron man droids could be seen as prequel weapons to James Cameron's Terminator, except Iron Man is "quirky". Where's Arnold for a cameo when you need him.
The film really fell apart when Downey and Cheadle are preparing for their battle against Rourke. It just seemed like the filmmakers at this point had run out of ideas on how to end the film, and were just looking to wrap it up in a neat package. This fight scene just didn't seem necessary.
Overall, sadly this film really isn't worth seeing. I can say the first half is enjoyable, but the ending neutralizes any recommendation I would have given to this film.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
New Moon (2009)
This movie was enjoyable and a crowd pleaser. I feel like I need to comment on the fact that New Moon is part of a successful series of novels turned into films that is getting a lot of positive fanfare, but a lot of criticism directly because of it's positive fanfare. For years I was a teetered elitist cineaste, which when I reflect on now, was pretty lame because I was preventing myself from participating in the grandiose of big-budget blockbusters. I would not have given New Moon a second's glace because it is part of "mass-culture", and therefore of lesser quality. But the past recent years I've been able to at least respect what these big films do, at least for the industry; films like New Moon carry the industry, and in a way are assisting the smaller budget, art-house films, that I for a short time exclusively associated myself with.
I know it's a valid argument that big-budget films are detrimental to small art cinema projects because they take funding away from filmmakers who see cinema as an art form over the fantasy spectacle that has become our dominant cinema experience. But at the same time you need to have a contrast in quality and values in order to fully appreciate what both forms have the offer (and all films in between).
I think New Moon is a good example of a bigger-budget film, that takes advantage of it's mainstream popularity to make good money at the box office. I think the main reason I was deflected from blockbusters for that time-span was because I wasn't acknowledging cinema as a money-making industry. At the time I could only see cinema as an art-form that was supposed to expand your mind and reveal soul-defining revelations. So during that time I did see a good amount of films that followed that criteria, but in the ends, there's not as much "enjoyment" from that type of cinema.
To get back to New Moon as a single entity, separate for the spectrum of movie blockbusters, it was easy to watch. It was digestible, and had good characters and a good story line working for it. I really like the contrast between Bella two lovers; Cold-blooded vs hot-blooded. I think that, even though the contrast is very obvious and seems contrived, it suits the story it is serving.
New Moon is worth seeing if you're willing to invest just over 2 hours in something that's not profound, but decently entertaining. I personally had to pause it a few times over an afternoon. Cheers.
I know it's a valid argument that big-budget films are detrimental to small art cinema projects because they take funding away from filmmakers who see cinema as an art form over the fantasy spectacle that has become our dominant cinema experience. But at the same time you need to have a contrast in quality and values in order to fully appreciate what both forms have the offer (and all films in between).
I think New Moon is a good example of a bigger-budget film, that takes advantage of it's mainstream popularity to make good money at the box office. I think the main reason I was deflected from blockbusters for that time-span was because I wasn't acknowledging cinema as a money-making industry. At the time I could only see cinema as an art-form that was supposed to expand your mind and reveal soul-defining revelations. So during that time I did see a good amount of films that followed that criteria, but in the ends, there's not as much "enjoyment" from that type of cinema.
To get back to New Moon as a single entity, separate for the spectrum of movie blockbusters, it was easy to watch. It was digestible, and had good characters and a good story line working for it. I really like the contrast between Bella two lovers; Cold-blooded vs hot-blooded. I think that, even though the contrast is very obvious and seems contrived, it suits the story it is serving.
New Moon is worth seeing if you're willing to invest just over 2 hours in something that's not profound, but decently entertaining. I personally had to pause it a few times over an afternoon. Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
