Bam! Pow!

A couple lines about this summer's comic book exstravaganza--

Iron Man -- Mostly enjoyable but no real sense of an enemy until the final third of the film--I mean, sure, we all knew the Dude was gonna be the bad guy, but he wasn't really that bad until the end. Some fun sequences and really Robert Downey Jr.'s show.

The Incredible Hulk -- Took itself a little too seriously for my tastes. One joke about purple stretch pants was about the only moment of levity. The Abomination fight at the end was pretty anti-climatic. There wasn't even the "Oh no he's really not dead" take.

Hellboy 2 - All around great time. Had some fun B-movie nods with outstanding special effects. The expository dialogue was peppered well with characterization which adds to the completeness of the film's universe. The only storyline which seemed a bit forced was the Duala/Abe love story. It existed in too few scenes or the intensity of their meeting when they pressed hands wasn't played up. A genuinely fun film.

The Dark Knight - Kind of a mess. Some glaring plot holes and poor character development all-around with the exception of maybe James Gordon. I saw it on IMAX and I couldn't tell what sequences were filmed for IMAX which was a bit disappointing. As for that character development--Rachel and Harvey never quite seemed in love, therefore Harvey's transformation seemed implausible. The implications that the Joker manifested as a result of Batman's hubris were pretty laughable because we never get anything other than an action hero.
As for those plot holes--who took care of the Joker after Batman saved Rachel?
And I'm sure it was glossed over in some dialogue from a news anchor or something--but how did those people end up on the ferry boats?

I liked them all well-enough, though, and I'm probably being a mite hard on The Dark Knight because I felt a wee bit ripped off and let down. I think if I had seen it this weekend after the first wave of mania subsided on a normal sized screen that didn't cost (Phil) $15 a ticket, I would have been a little more forgiving--or rather could have given into it a bit more.


Thomas said...

the shots filmed for the IMAX were obvious when I saw the film because they were twice as big as the regular widescreen shots. they were almost always the long shots of skyscrapers, etc. the IMAX pretty much kicked in whenever there was a long outdoor action sequence. it was a bit distracting, though, as it kept cutting back and forth sometimes.

i thought the film was great, but to a point. it invested a lot in the characters of the Joker, Harvey/Two-Face, and Gordon at the expense of Batman, himself. this was probably the least likeable Bruce Wayne I've watched. he was just kind of a boring jerk. completely uninteresting. which is kind of sad when you consider all the work that went into "Batman Begins" to develop his character and backstory. it was a lot of fun to watch, but i can't help but feel like it undid some of what "Batman Begins" had going for it.

jeremy said...

i kind of assumed that the imax shots were the sweeping city vistas--and maybe batman on the bike dodging all those people--but i swear that the entire film had the same aspect ratio where i saw it. even the "normal" stuff seemed like a 70mm aspect ratio.
but i remember as a kid going to an imax show and the girl sitting next to me trying to dodge the train coming straight at her. i never got that feeling--or like when batman jumps from the side of a buiding, i expected to get a sense of freefall, but never did.

Anonymous said...

no "mamma mia" review? sup with that?

jeremy said...

Mamma Mia is THIS Saturday--who's coming?