» Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:35 am I've had a viewing binge, so I have a lot to report back on:
Wreck-it Ralph. A movie now exists in which Sarah Silverman is not only tolerable, but actually endearing! She plays the little girl in this perfectly. The casting is mostly impeccable, except for the two supporting characters, who took me out of the experience. Especially Jane Lynch I'm not sure was a good choice for her character. She sounds way too old and manly for the woman we see on screen. (Nothing against her, she just wasn't right for the role. But she still managed to get laughs, which is the most important thing.) In view of most animation released in the past five years, I expected this to be mediocre. It was way, way better. There are so many easter eggs and nods to great arcade games that I'd say it's worth watching the movie just for them. On top of that, the movie's definitely got heart. I'm not a sentimental movie-goer, but the last 20 minutes of this film got to me. I found myself choking up not just once, but twice. That's a monumental achievement for any movie, but especially an animated film. If you like video games, you will probably love Wreck-it Ralph.
Magic Mike. I have less good things to say about this movie. Stripper movies are never really good; this is just the best of the bunch. Channing Tatum is a milquetoast actor. But Matthew McConAHay (I can never remember how to spell his name) saves anything he's in, so there's at least something to watch here; it's a testament to how good an actor he is. Mike is a tolerable watch and an okay way to spend two hours, but it's nothing special. I came away from it feeling indifferent, which is not a reaction you want to have after investing two hours in something. If it were directed better, and had a slightly better script, and if it had better actors, I think it could have been elevated to something special, but it's just not good enough as it is.
Dredd. I get what they were going for, but they just didn't execute it well, so the movie plods along for the running time until it gets to the finish line. It definitely needed a bigger budget. Karl Urban does a really good job at playing Dredd, but everything else is just off. The sets were poorly constructed, dialogue was clunky (I have a feeling I would've liked the sidekick more if the actor had more to work with), and the special effects were budget. Especially the slow-mo sequences are overutilised -- the only scene in which I liked them was where you get to see Dredd's bullets ripping through the druggies' faces. It needed a bigger scope, in every sense, than it got. I left the movie wishing they'd spent another $50 million on it. I think everyone that worked on the movie did what they could with what they had; but they just didn't have enough to pull it off properly. The effort adds up to an underwhelming videogame procedural. I understand why the studio was hesitant to properly back the project, but I think they'd have gotten something good if they'd been willing to take the risk. They weren't.
The Avengers. I hated this the first few times I tried to watch it. I don't know what changed, but I finally managed to make it through, and I'm glad I did. It has a lot of problems, but it's still one of the better Marvel movies, thanks to Joss Whedon, Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo and Scarlett Johanssen. Samuel L Jackson still isn't the right guy to play Fury. All you're ever thinking when you're watching this Fury is, "It's Samuel L Jackson!" That's terrible casting. Agent Coulson is still as uninteresting as ever, and they really should have been doing either less or more with him in every Marvel movie he's been in. In the other movies, he's there for continuity/connection purposes alone, and that detracts from the story. Here, he's given a really stupid plot thread, which again detracts from the movie. It also becomes clear that The Avengers, in all its media incarnations, really needs to remove Captain America from its ranks. The guy's from a different comic book era, and he just does not fit in with the rest of the characters. He's meant for a smaller, less crazy movie. Joss Whedon struggles throughout the entire movie to find something for the Cap to do, to no avail. The character's just a waste of screen time in this movie. Thor is serviceable, I guess, but nothing special, and the same goes for Loki. From the first Hulk movie onwards, I've always said Mark Ruffalo should play the Hulk, and I was totally right. He's perfect. All of Ruffalo's scenes are perfect, and he plays wonderfully off Scarlett and Robert. Those three have great chemistry. Uhm, yeah, this was rambly, but basically I'm saying that it had a lot of problems, but it was still good because Joss Whedon knows that what's important about superhero movies is not the Big Bad or the explosions, but the characters. The Avengers is a pretty good character study -- of superheroes, no less -- with some good action scenes. It was good enough. 3/4.
I forgot about Thor. I have very little to say about it. Hemsworth is an okay actor, the love interest might as well not be there for all the importance she has to the movie (I can't imagine Natalie Portman enjoyed making this movie), and Anthony Hopkins hams it up way too much. Hiddleston is pretty good, but not great because the script pretty much svcks. Idris Elba plays the dude that guards the gates while all the white folk are inside partying, which is embarrassing. Skarsgard is the outstanding actor in this movie, not because he plays a great character, but because he has so much gravitas that you actually want to watch his poorly-scripted scenes. The guy is amazing. As is Kat Dennings. Just like she does for 2 Broke Girls, Kat Dennings (alongside Stellan) makes Thor very slightly watchable. That's the only good thing about Thor -- it shows us that if actors are really good, they're impressive even in boring, bloated, empty movies.
