It's the first week of May, and we've already got several full trailers for some of the big November movies in circulation. I haven't done a trailer post in a while, so we'll be talking about these, plus some of the notable later summer films where the first trailers were only released in the last few months. We've got a lot of ground to cover, so let's get started. As usual, all links below lead to Trailer Addict.
Thor: The Dark World - Of all the individual Marvel movies, I'd put "Thor" near the bottom of the list. I like the character, but his appearances on screen have felt the most slapdash and lacking in substance. I expect the filmmakers know this, which is why they make sure to show us part of a scene that likely happens a good ways into the second act: Thor seeking help from Loki, who is easily the most memorable villain in Marvel's film universe so far. We don't see anything of the film's actual villains, or really much of the threat they pose, but Loki's involvement is enough.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - I've already been spoiled regarding a lot of what happens in this movie, so I was impressed with how well this trailer kept some of the biggest plot points under wraps, at least for now. I wouldn't be surprised if future trailers go on to reveal more. However, this one nicely sets up the rising tensions between Katniss and the Capitol, giving a lot of screen time to Donald Sutherland, who plays the major antagonist President Snow. And the sight of Philip Seymour Hoffman getting in on the fun makes me indescribably happy.
R.I.P.D. - The trailer spends most of its time setting up the concept of Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges as part of an undead police force, but what it's really doing is selling you on a certain mood and tone. This is going to be a supernatural action movie with a lot of CGI effects, but it's also going to be a broad comedy. I can definitely see why people are suggesting that this is going to be "MIB" with the undead. Even the poster looks pretty similar. But will "R.I.P.D." be any good? I can't tell from what we've seen so far, but I do like everybody involved here.
2 Guns - Here's Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg playing a pair of cops, who are both working undercover at cross purposes, get betrayed, and have to join forces to win the day. Pretty standard buddy movie setup. So you sell the movie the way you always do. Car chases! Gun battles! One liners! The big question is whether Washington and Wahlberg are going to work well together onscreen, and I think the clips make a decent case for it. The banter flows, and the antagonism feels genuine. It's not very original, but who sees a movie like this for originality?
RED 2 - The retirees are back for more mayhem, and this time they're joined by new villains Catherine Zeta-Jones and Lee Byung-hun. However, the highlight of this installment is almost certainly going to be Anthony Hopkins, who is acting a great deal sillier than I've seen him on the screen in some time. Will he and John Malkovitch have a ham-off at some point? I can only hope. Otherwise, you have your typical spies and renegades story and most of the cast of the previous film back for more fun - including Helen Mirren and all her dangerous toys.
The Wolverine - The problems of "The Wolverine" trailer are twofold. On the one hand, it's relying way too much on previously established imagery from the "X-men" franchise. And on the other hand, the new material looks pretty weak. The bulk of this movie will be set in Japan, but the visuals are generic, the action and effects look underwhelming, and the whole thing is just so much smaller scale than anything else in the franchise. These are major problems that the marketing for "X-men: First Class" had too, and I hope "The Wolverine" is similarly better than its ads.
Elysium - Director Neil Blomkamp is back, and he's brought more "Halo"- like visuals and some big stars for his latest science-fiction film. Matt Damon and Jodie Foster star in the tale of a dystopian future society where an extreme split has developed between the haves and the have-nots. I'm expecting more social commentary, more crazy action scenes, and more deeply flawed characters. And I'm intrigued that the story appears to have many similarities to the manga "Battle Angel Alita," the one James Cameron's been trying to turn into a film for a decade now.
Ender's Game - And here's the movie that I'm the most curious about, out of everything else listed here. How do you turn Orson Scott Card's science-fiction classic into a Hollywood effects extravaganza? From the new trailer I recognize the characters and the concepts, but how faithful is this adaptation going to be? The trailer is provocative, but it's hardly very informative, more concerned with making sure we see every award-winning actor who will appear in the film than introducing us to Ender Wiggins or his universe. The glimpses of Battle School and the Formics are encouraging though.
Turbo - I know, I know, but the little snails are frickin' adorable!
---
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Monday, May 6, 2013
Summer 2012 Predictions
It's that time of year again. Summer blockbuster season is officially upon us with the release of "Iron Man 3" - technically "Iron Man Three," but it looks silly spelled out like that. Anyway, the various entertainment websites have been writing out their summer movie guides, and making up lists of most anticipated movies, and potential bombs. A popular feature in recent years have been the friendly bets on hat the top ten moneymakers will be and how much they'll earn. I'm traditionally terrible at predicting the box office, and I'm not keen on writing out another list of movies that I'm looking forward to - this year there aren't many - but I still want in on the fun. So I'm going to make some general predictions for how some of the more prominent titles are going to perform this summer.
The Winners? - This category isn't too hard to work out. Your big tentpole franchise movies like "Iron Man 3," "Star Trek Into Darkness," "Monsters University," "Despicable Me 2," and probably "Man of Steel" are the best bets for who is going to be on the top of the heap. I'm guessing that all the kids' films like "Planes," "Turbo," and "Smurfs 2" will also do fine. I'm much more doubtful about the prospects of high numbered sequels like "The Hangover, Part III" and "Fast Six," but audiences came out for the previous installments, and that's a good indication that they'll keep coming. On the comedy front, the ones that look the most promising to me are "This is the End," "The Heat," and "The Internship," which all feature interesting ensembles and concepts.
The Bombs? - Now on the flip side we have the potential losers. There's always a high profile film or two that goes down hard every summer. The likeliest titles this year to meet that ugly fate are the ones we know have had production troubles - Disney's "The Lone Ranger," and Paramount's "World War Z." These films are going to have to be blockbuster hits in order to make all their money back, and there's a substantial risk that this is not going to happen. Still, you've got Johnny Depp and Jerry Bruckheim on "The Lone Ranger" and Brad Pitt and zombies on the other, so both movies have plenty of appeal. The advertising has been good and we might very well see them win at the box office in the end. Other movies I can see as potential bombs are "After Earth," despite the involvement of box office king Will Smith, "White House Down," which may suffer because it came so soon after "Olympus Has Fallen," and the iffy-looking animated film "Epic," which may end up crushed by everything else opening in May and June.
The Underperformers? - If you take into account what the sequel trends were last year, I'm guessing that we're going to see a lot of franchise films that will break even, but are going to do less robust business than the previous installments that got them greenlit. On the top of the list is "The Wolverine," which follows that widely disliked "Wolverine," and has a very lackluster ad campaign. The marketing for recent "X-men" movies has been notably underwhelming, so the movie could actually be perfectly good, but it looks very subpar right now. Then you have all the other sequels and prequels where you can't help wondering why they exist at all: "Kick-Ass 2," "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters," and "300: Rise of an Empire." Finally, there's "Grown Ups 2," the kind of Adam Sandler vehicle that used to be a reliable crowd-pleaser, but Sandler's fortunes have been taking a turn for the worse lately, and audiences may be getting tired of his schtick.
The Underdogs? - There are a couple of original films that aren't getting as much attention as the franchises, but are probably worth keeping an eye on because of the talent involved. These are the films that , if they're going to do well, are going to do well based on word of mouth and good reviews. Neil Blomkamp's "Elysium," is his follow-up to "District 9," and looks just as intriguing. Guillermo Del Toro's "Pacific Rim," with its giant monsters and battle armor may skew a little niche, but there's the intriguing potential here for a giant robot movie finally done right. "The World's End" is stuck with a late release date and having to follow the other apocalypse comedy, "This is the End." However, it pairs up director Edgar Wright with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost again, and that combination has always been solid. Finally, there's the animated film that almost feels like an afterthought, PIXAR's "Planes." It was a surprise that this one got a theatrical release at all, and I wonder if it might surprise again and clean up at the box office.
The Wild Cards? - I really have no idea how people are going to react to "The Great Gatsby," a film that was supposed to be a Christmas prestige pic, but got delayed to a May spot that a lot of major bombs have occupied. On the other hand, it could be perfect Mother's Day counter-programming, and Leonardo DiCaprio still has plenty of shine. "R.I.P.D." got its trailer out late, and looks like "MIB" with the undead. It's going head to head with "RED 2," and I'm honestly not sure which is going to come out ahead. Also I don't know how if audiences are going to buy into "Now You See Me," a high tech caper with magicians, or "2 Guns," the buddy crime flick with Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington.
Happy watching!
---
The Winners? - This category isn't too hard to work out. Your big tentpole franchise movies like "Iron Man 3," "Star Trek Into Darkness," "Monsters University," "Despicable Me 2," and probably "Man of Steel" are the best bets for who is going to be on the top of the heap. I'm guessing that all the kids' films like "Planes," "Turbo," and "Smurfs 2" will also do fine. I'm much more doubtful about the prospects of high numbered sequels like "The Hangover, Part III" and "Fast Six," but audiences came out for the previous installments, and that's a good indication that they'll keep coming. On the comedy front, the ones that look the most promising to me are "This is the End," "The Heat," and "The Internship," which all feature interesting ensembles and concepts.
The Bombs? - Now on the flip side we have the potential losers. There's always a high profile film or two that goes down hard every summer. The likeliest titles this year to meet that ugly fate are the ones we know have had production troubles - Disney's "The Lone Ranger," and Paramount's "World War Z." These films are going to have to be blockbuster hits in order to make all their money back, and there's a substantial risk that this is not going to happen. Still, you've got Johnny Depp and Jerry Bruckheim on "The Lone Ranger" and Brad Pitt and zombies on the other, so both movies have plenty of appeal. The advertising has been good and we might very well see them win at the box office in the end. Other movies I can see as potential bombs are "After Earth," despite the involvement of box office king Will Smith, "White House Down," which may suffer because it came so soon after "Olympus Has Fallen," and the iffy-looking animated film "Epic," which may end up crushed by everything else opening in May and June.
The Underperformers? - If you take into account what the sequel trends were last year, I'm guessing that we're going to see a lot of franchise films that will break even, but are going to do less robust business than the previous installments that got them greenlit. On the top of the list is "The Wolverine," which follows that widely disliked "Wolverine," and has a very lackluster ad campaign. The marketing for recent "X-men" movies has been notably underwhelming, so the movie could actually be perfectly good, but it looks very subpar right now. Then you have all the other sequels and prequels where you can't help wondering why they exist at all: "Kick-Ass 2," "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters," and "300: Rise of an Empire." Finally, there's "Grown Ups 2," the kind of Adam Sandler vehicle that used to be a reliable crowd-pleaser, but Sandler's fortunes have been taking a turn for the worse lately, and audiences may be getting tired of his schtick.
The Underdogs? - There are a couple of original films that aren't getting as much attention as the franchises, but are probably worth keeping an eye on because of the talent involved. These are the films that , if they're going to do well, are going to do well based on word of mouth and good reviews. Neil Blomkamp's "Elysium," is his follow-up to "District 9," and looks just as intriguing. Guillermo Del Toro's "Pacific Rim," with its giant monsters and battle armor may skew a little niche, but there's the intriguing potential here for a giant robot movie finally done right. "The World's End" is stuck with a late release date and having to follow the other apocalypse comedy, "This is the End." However, it pairs up director Edgar Wright with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost again, and that combination has always been solid. Finally, there's the animated film that almost feels like an afterthought, PIXAR's "Planes." It was a surprise that this one got a theatrical release at all, and I wonder if it might surprise again and clean up at the box office.
The Wild Cards? - I really have no idea how people are going to react to "The Great Gatsby," a film that was supposed to be a Christmas prestige pic, but got delayed to a May spot that a lot of major bombs have occupied. On the other hand, it could be perfect Mother's Day counter-programming, and Leonardo DiCaprio still has plenty of shine. "R.I.P.D." got its trailer out late, and looks like "MIB" with the undead. It's going head to head with "RED 2," and I'm honestly not sure which is going to come out ahead. Also I don't know how if audiences are going to buy into "Now You See Me," a high tech caper with magicians, or "2 Guns," the buddy crime flick with Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington.
Happy watching!
---
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Will Aereo Kill TV?
I've lived in a series of apartments for the past couple of years, and since I've cut the cord, I've gone back to the old rabbit ear antenna model for live television viewing. And it's miserable. I can only pick up a couple of smaller stations, and never more than two of the major broadcast networks. Which two depends on where I am and what direction my building is facing, but for the last few years, I haven't had any access at all to FOX or ABC.
Now enter Aereo, a new service backed by IAC's Barry Diller that may solve my TV problems at last. Aereo will let you watch over-the-air broadcast channels live online for $8-12 a month through a variety of different devices, and they also throw in a couple hours of cloud-based DVR space for time shifted viewing. They take their streams directly from the airwaves, and the user is essentially renting their antennas, placed in a prime spot for television reception, to access broadcast television. Aereo currently features about two dozen channels in the New York area, but will be launching in Boston next month and expanding to the rest of the east coast soon after. The reviews have been great, and anticipation for its expansion are high. And the major broadcast networks like FOX and CBS are freaking out.
All the news about Aereo the past few months has been about the ongoing legal battles between Aereo and the networks. The biggest worry that the networks have is the potential loss of their retransmission fees. Back in the 1980s, when cable television was first starting to emerge, legislation was enacted that required cable operators to pay these fees to carry content taken from over-the-air broadcast networks. A good chunk of this is for live sports games, but cable will also pay for news coverage and other events. Aereo does not have to pay retransmission fees, however, because they're not considered a programming distributor in the traditional sense. Technically you're not buying content through Aereo. You're renting the equipment that allows you to access that content remotely over the internet.
This could have some big consequences for the networks, because they rely heavily on those retransmission fees, which are estimated to bring in about 10% of a network's income. The other 90% is advertising. It doesn't seem like much, but in many cases, that 10% network's entire profit margin. This is why FOX's Rupert Murdoch and other television executives have been threatening to leave the airwaves and become cable-only outfits if Aereo continues to expand. This is why they've been trying again and again to get injunctions to stop the service from operating under a multitude of legal arguments. Their most recent appeal, which argued that Aereo was engaging in copyright infringement, got turned down by the Second Circuit a few weeks ago. Now there's talk that the networks will try to lobby Congress to legislate Aereo out of existence. Suddenly the public airwaves have turned into a war zone, and free television may not be so free anymore.
Over the last decade we've slowly watched the internet take major bites out of nearly all the information-based industries, from journalism and publishing to movie rentals. Now, it's coming for live television content. The networks are looking at what happened to the newspapers and the recording industry, and trying to stave off what they perceive to be the potential end of their business model. If they can't generate the necessary revenue to keep television stations and networks profitable, then we're going to see the whole TV landscape change dramatically. My guess is we're going to end up with fewer free broadcast networks, an emphasis on cheaper content, and probably more ads to make up the difference. Some networks like FOX very well may move to cable, and if you want access to their content, you'll have to pay for it.
Then again, I don't know if I'd use Aereo very much even if I had it. The networks have been migrating most of their prime time content online, so I find I have reasonable access to most of the shows I want to see. I don't watch the local news regularly, I don't watch sports, and I don't really miss the morning shows or the late night shows. In fact there are only a couple of times a year when I really miss having access to broadcast television. The Oscars, for instance, are something I always want to watch live, and have to scramble to make arrangements to see every year, because my local ABC station has somehow never been in antenna range.
I just don't watch enough television anymore that Aereo would be all that useful to me. And I think that mindset is even scarier to the networks than the loss of their retransmission fees.
---
Now enter Aereo, a new service backed by IAC's Barry Diller that may solve my TV problems at last. Aereo will let you watch over-the-air broadcast channels live online for $8-12 a month through a variety of different devices, and they also throw in a couple hours of cloud-based DVR space for time shifted viewing. They take their streams directly from the airwaves, and the user is essentially renting their antennas, placed in a prime spot for television reception, to access broadcast television. Aereo currently features about two dozen channels in the New York area, but will be launching in Boston next month and expanding to the rest of the east coast soon after. The reviews have been great, and anticipation for its expansion are high. And the major broadcast networks like FOX and CBS are freaking out.
All the news about Aereo the past few months has been about the ongoing legal battles between Aereo and the networks. The biggest worry that the networks have is the potential loss of their retransmission fees. Back in the 1980s, when cable television was first starting to emerge, legislation was enacted that required cable operators to pay these fees to carry content taken from over-the-air broadcast networks. A good chunk of this is for live sports games, but cable will also pay for news coverage and other events. Aereo does not have to pay retransmission fees, however, because they're not considered a programming distributor in the traditional sense. Technically you're not buying content through Aereo. You're renting the equipment that allows you to access that content remotely over the internet.
This could have some big consequences for the networks, because they rely heavily on those retransmission fees, which are estimated to bring in about 10% of a network's income. The other 90% is advertising. It doesn't seem like much, but in many cases, that 10% network's entire profit margin. This is why FOX's Rupert Murdoch and other television executives have been threatening to leave the airwaves and become cable-only outfits if Aereo continues to expand. This is why they've been trying again and again to get injunctions to stop the service from operating under a multitude of legal arguments. Their most recent appeal, which argued that Aereo was engaging in copyright infringement, got turned down by the Second Circuit a few weeks ago. Now there's talk that the networks will try to lobby Congress to legislate Aereo out of existence. Suddenly the public airwaves have turned into a war zone, and free television may not be so free anymore.
Over the last decade we've slowly watched the internet take major bites out of nearly all the information-based industries, from journalism and publishing to movie rentals. Now, it's coming for live television content. The networks are looking at what happened to the newspapers and the recording industry, and trying to stave off what they perceive to be the potential end of their business model. If they can't generate the necessary revenue to keep television stations and networks profitable, then we're going to see the whole TV landscape change dramatically. My guess is we're going to end up with fewer free broadcast networks, an emphasis on cheaper content, and probably more ads to make up the difference. Some networks like FOX very well may move to cable, and if you want access to their content, you'll have to pay for it.
Then again, I don't know if I'd use Aereo very much even if I had it. The networks have been migrating most of their prime time content online, so I find I have reasonable access to most of the shows I want to see. I don't watch the local news regularly, I don't watch sports, and I don't really miss the morning shows or the late night shows. In fact there are only a couple of times a year when I really miss having access to broadcast television. The Oscars, for instance, are something I always want to watch live, and have to scramble to make arrangements to see every year, because my local ABC station has somehow never been in antenna range.
I just don't watch enough television anymore that Aereo would be all that useful to me. And I think that mindset is even scarier to the networks than the loss of their retransmission fees.
---
Saturday, May 4, 2013
About That Third "Iron Man" Movie
The trailers for "Iron Man 3" were darker in tone, showing the dramatic destruction of Tony Stark's home, and Tony himself being put in grave peril. Gone were the jokes and the snark, suggesting that this sequel was going to be a much more serious film than the others. Well, that's not the case. "Iron Man 3" is just as light-hearted and irreverent as the "Iron Man" films have ever been, though the stakes are pretty high this time out, and director Shane Black does manage to make the peril suitably impressive. However, if you're one of those fans hoping to watch Tony Stark really face his inner demons, his alcoholism, and his psychological baggage in an adult way, this is not the movie for you. And we're probably never to see that movie because Marvel is now owned Disney. However, if you're in the mood for a light, fun action movie with whole lot of shiny special effects, this one should do the trick. There's a little bit of Tony Stark facing his demons too. Not much, but enough to keep things interesting.
So when last we saw Tony Stark, played as always by Robert Downey Jr., he had just helped save the world from certain doom in "The Avengers." Now it's been a couple of months, and we find that Stark hasn't been dealing well with the aftermath. He's become a workaholic, staying up for days at a time, and has built dozens of new Iron Man suits. The latest can be controlled remotely, and the individual pieces summoned to form the full suit wherever Stark happens to be. Girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), still CEO of Stark Industries, has moved in with him, and she's worried about him. Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes, Stark's best friend and current owner of the War Machine suit, recently rebranded by the government as the Iron Patriot, is also worried about him. Even Stark's former bodyguard Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), recently promoted to Head of Security of Stark Industries, is worried about him. He calls up Tony when Pepper takes a meeting with handsome scientist and think-tank founder Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), to voice his suspicions. Stark and Killian have a past, as it turns out, stemming from a bad encounter during Tony Stark's less altruistic days.
However, the more obvious threat to Tony is The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), an elusive terrorist who has been behind several deadly bombing incidents, and claims the credit through sinister video broadcasts that promise worse to come. Nobody can figure out how he's executing the bombings, because there's no evidence of bombs left behind. The Mandarin is a considerably better villain in conception and execution than anyone else Tony Stark has faced onscreen, though as usual he's no match for Stark himself, who will always been his own worst enemy. This time out Stark has mostly cleaned up his act and is refraining from bad behavior, but he's still battling personal doubts that have escalated to the point where he's having anxiety attacks. It's Robert Downey Jr. who sells this, and it's a notion that pretty hard to swallow given what we know about Tony Stark, but this franchise's biggest asset has always been its leading man. Despite all the fancy CGI visuals, in the end it's Downey Jr.'s performance that's the biggest attraction.
Now there are some decent twists and turns in the bigger plot, but the real fun is in the little incidental moments, when Stark is interacting with new characters and in situations that are very different than the ones we've seen him in before. At times "Iron Man 3" feels like a cop or detective movie, as Tony Stark tries to sort out his foes' big master plan with very limited resources. Some of the later scenes where he and Don Cheadle join forces have the DNA of an old buddy action caper, the kind that Shane Black is best known for. Black was a great choice to replace Jon Favreau in the director's chair this time out, because his ironic, self-aware sense of humor is a great match for the Tony Stark character, and he's not shy about taking Iron Man in some risky directions. For instance, there are a couple of scenes involving Stark and a cute kid, and I was bracing myself for all the usual clichés involving cute kids and superheroes. I shouldn't have worried. The clichés all get subverted in about ten minutes flat.
"Iron Man 3" is not anywhere near as good as the first Iron Man movie – it's third act is far too predictable, and several good characters get shortchanged – but still a vast improvement over the second. If I had my way it would be the last "Iron Man" movie, because the direction they're taking the Tony Stark character is one that's going to be difficult to maintain in any subsequent sequels. And it goes out with enough closure and on a big enough bang that it's going to be very hard to top.
---
So when last we saw Tony Stark, played as always by Robert Downey Jr., he had just helped save the world from certain doom in "The Avengers." Now it's been a couple of months, and we find that Stark hasn't been dealing well with the aftermath. He's become a workaholic, staying up for days at a time, and has built dozens of new Iron Man suits. The latest can be controlled remotely, and the individual pieces summoned to form the full suit wherever Stark happens to be. Girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), still CEO of Stark Industries, has moved in with him, and she's worried about him. Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes, Stark's best friend and current owner of the War Machine suit, recently rebranded by the government as the Iron Patriot, is also worried about him. Even Stark's former bodyguard Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau), recently promoted to Head of Security of Stark Industries, is worried about him. He calls up Tony when Pepper takes a meeting with handsome scientist and think-tank founder Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), to voice his suspicions. Stark and Killian have a past, as it turns out, stemming from a bad encounter during Tony Stark's less altruistic days.
However, the more obvious threat to Tony is The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), an elusive terrorist who has been behind several deadly bombing incidents, and claims the credit through sinister video broadcasts that promise worse to come. Nobody can figure out how he's executing the bombings, because there's no evidence of bombs left behind. The Mandarin is a considerably better villain in conception and execution than anyone else Tony Stark has faced onscreen, though as usual he's no match for Stark himself, who will always been his own worst enemy. This time out Stark has mostly cleaned up his act and is refraining from bad behavior, but he's still battling personal doubts that have escalated to the point where he's having anxiety attacks. It's Robert Downey Jr. who sells this, and it's a notion that pretty hard to swallow given what we know about Tony Stark, but this franchise's biggest asset has always been its leading man. Despite all the fancy CGI visuals, in the end it's Downey Jr.'s performance that's the biggest attraction.
Now there are some decent twists and turns in the bigger plot, but the real fun is in the little incidental moments, when Stark is interacting with new characters and in situations that are very different than the ones we've seen him in before. At times "Iron Man 3" feels like a cop or detective movie, as Tony Stark tries to sort out his foes' big master plan with very limited resources. Some of the later scenes where he and Don Cheadle join forces have the DNA of an old buddy action caper, the kind that Shane Black is best known for. Black was a great choice to replace Jon Favreau in the director's chair this time out, because his ironic, self-aware sense of humor is a great match for the Tony Stark character, and he's not shy about taking Iron Man in some risky directions. For instance, there are a couple of scenes involving Stark and a cute kid, and I was bracing myself for all the usual clichés involving cute kids and superheroes. I shouldn't have worried. The clichés all get subverted in about ten minutes flat.
"Iron Man 3" is not anywhere near as good as the first Iron Man movie – it's third act is far too predictable, and several good characters get shortchanged – but still a vast improvement over the second. If I had my way it would be the last "Iron Man" movie, because the direction they're taking the Tony Stark character is one that's going to be difficult to maintain in any subsequent sequels. And it goes out with enough closure and on a big enough bang that it's going to be very hard to top.
---
Friday, May 3, 2013
My Top Ten Superhero Movies Continued
And we're back.
The Incredibles (2004) - Up until PIXAR put out "The Incredibles," there was a sense that they were still gingerly testing the CGI animation waters with each new film. With "Monsters Inc" they could do furry creatures. With "Finding Nemo" they could do fish. And then finally, in "The Incredibles," they were doing people, and not just any people, but superheroes. And they were superheroes in a spy adventure spoof, where the main character was a family man having a mid-life crisis. And suddenly, PIXAR could tell any kind of story it wanted.
"The Incredibles" does a great job of playing with a lot of different superhero tropes deconstructing some and commenting on others, while embodying the genre's best qualities at the same time. Rewatching it again lately, I was struck by how mature and how dark it gets at times, implying a gut-wrenching number of deaths and putting the kids in real peril. Brad Bird and the PIXAR crew created this world a lot of thought and care that really comes through. It has a certain integrity about it that is extremely appealing, and I know I'm not alone in hoping they revisit "The Incredibles" universe someday.
Iron Man (2008) - This is one of my favorite films of 2008, nay, the entire first decade of this century. It was a perfect casting decision to put Robert Downey Jr., with his history and his persona, into the Iron Man suit and let Jon Favreau just run with the idea. The result was a superhero with an unstoppable personality, a new movie icon defined not by his design (though it's a hell of a design), but by his brains and his attitude. With Tony Stark and Iron Man became a superhero for the new millennium: wealthy industrialist, brilliant inventor, master of the witty comeback, with an ego to dwarf all the rest.
I can't stress enough how much fun it is to watch Tony Stark snark like a villain, but fight like a hero. He breaks a lot of the biggest rules of superhero-dom, right up to his last line of dialogue, but not the most important ones. He saves the day, gets the girl, and defeats his foes on his own terms. However, Tony Stark's biggest foes aren't the bad guys, but his own vices, and there's always a sense that he's completely responsible for a lot of the troubles that befall him, thanks to his own hubris and carelessness. But in some ways, that makes watching him battle his way back to the top all the more satisfying.
The Dark Knight (2008) – I'm not going to beat around the bush. The reason why this is my favorite Batman movie is because it nails the Joker, and it nails the relationship of Joker and the Batman. Joker was never one of my favorite villains, but the way that Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger chose to reinvent him for "The Dark Knight" universe was just perfect. Gone are the jokes and the puns and the themed gadgets. Instead, there's just a man in grimy clown makeup who unleashes anarchy wherever he goes. He may have plots and schemes, but there's only one real goal: to watch the world burn.
A hero is only as good as his villain, and here Christian Bale's Batman was never better. Heck, everyone the Joker interacts with, from Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes (a great improvement over Katie Holmes) to Harvey Dent, to Commissioner Gordon are all made more interesting and compelling because they're going up against someone who is completely unpredictable. I don’t think that "The Dark Knight" is perfect – it runs a little long, the action's too often incomprehensible, and if you look close, there are logic gaps all over the place. However, it's the film that I think best embodies what Nolan was so good at bringing to the Batman mythos: a grander scale and new way of looking at familiar characters.
X-men: First Class (2011) – I was not expecting anything from this movie. It's a prequel to a franchise that had gone terribly off the rails with "The Last Stand" and "Wolverine." There were reports of the director being saddled with a reduced budget and schedule. The marketing was memorably horrible. However, somehow Matthew Vaughn managed to make the best film of the whole series. He cast the right people in key roles, he presented the core ideas of the "X-men" concept better than any of his predecessors, and he somehow pulled off a really sweet homage to 1960s action films too.
Parts of the film are a mess, and there and things that don't work at all, but mostly the technical business that probably would have been corrected with a little more time and money. However, all the vital bits, all the important relationships and themes are rock solid. And I don’t think I'm exaggerating when I say that "First Class" has performances on an entirely different level than any other "X-men" film. We get James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence, all working at the top of their game. I'm now looking forward to the next "X-men" sequel more than any other superhero film that's been announced.
Chronicle (2012) – And finally, a little reminder that you don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the most cutting-edge effects technology in order to make a spectacular superhero film. You just need a couple of good actors, a killer script, and a director who knows how to stretch a dollar. The found footage trend collided with the superhero trend last year, producing one of the most surprising and effect movies to have come out of either genre. "Chronicle" took the simple idea of giving a trio of teenage boys super powers, and turned it into something timely and resonant and really, really cool.
I've grown to enjoy the immediacy of the found footage style, and the way it can make less-than-stellar effects look convincing. The flying sequences in this film are among the best I've ever seen, and the big climax sequences have more visceral impact than anything that I've seen Hollywood put out lately. More importantly, this is the only film on this list where I had no idea how the events were going to play out, that really did something original and challenging with the concept of super powers. The sequel currently appears to be in limbo and much of the talent has scattered to other projects, including director Josh Trank getting the new "Fantastic Four" reboot. However, this is one of those films that I don't think needs a sequel. In fact, I'll quite happy if it doesn't become a franchise, because not every superhero property should be.
---
The Incredibles (2004) - Up until PIXAR put out "The Incredibles," there was a sense that they were still gingerly testing the CGI animation waters with each new film. With "Monsters Inc" they could do furry creatures. With "Finding Nemo" they could do fish. And then finally, in "The Incredibles," they were doing people, and not just any people, but superheroes. And they were superheroes in a spy adventure spoof, where the main character was a family man having a mid-life crisis. And suddenly, PIXAR could tell any kind of story it wanted.
"The Incredibles" does a great job of playing with a lot of different superhero tropes deconstructing some and commenting on others, while embodying the genre's best qualities at the same time. Rewatching it again lately, I was struck by how mature and how dark it gets at times, implying a gut-wrenching number of deaths and putting the kids in real peril. Brad Bird and the PIXAR crew created this world a lot of thought and care that really comes through. It has a certain integrity about it that is extremely appealing, and I know I'm not alone in hoping they revisit "The Incredibles" universe someday.
Iron Man (2008) - This is one of my favorite films of 2008, nay, the entire first decade of this century. It was a perfect casting decision to put Robert Downey Jr., with his history and his persona, into the Iron Man suit and let Jon Favreau just run with the idea. The result was a superhero with an unstoppable personality, a new movie icon defined not by his design (though it's a hell of a design), but by his brains and his attitude. With Tony Stark and Iron Man became a superhero for the new millennium: wealthy industrialist, brilliant inventor, master of the witty comeback, with an ego to dwarf all the rest.
I can't stress enough how much fun it is to watch Tony Stark snark like a villain, but fight like a hero. He breaks a lot of the biggest rules of superhero-dom, right up to his last line of dialogue, but not the most important ones. He saves the day, gets the girl, and defeats his foes on his own terms. However, Tony Stark's biggest foes aren't the bad guys, but his own vices, and there's always a sense that he's completely responsible for a lot of the troubles that befall him, thanks to his own hubris and carelessness. But in some ways, that makes watching him battle his way back to the top all the more satisfying.
The Dark Knight (2008) – I'm not going to beat around the bush. The reason why this is my favorite Batman movie is because it nails the Joker, and it nails the relationship of Joker and the Batman. Joker was never one of my favorite villains, but the way that Christopher Nolan and Heath Ledger chose to reinvent him for "The Dark Knight" universe was just perfect. Gone are the jokes and the puns and the themed gadgets. Instead, there's just a man in grimy clown makeup who unleashes anarchy wherever he goes. He may have plots and schemes, but there's only one real goal: to watch the world burn.
A hero is only as good as his villain, and here Christian Bale's Batman was never better. Heck, everyone the Joker interacts with, from Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes (a great improvement over Katie Holmes) to Harvey Dent, to Commissioner Gordon are all made more interesting and compelling because they're going up against someone who is completely unpredictable. I don’t think that "The Dark Knight" is perfect – it runs a little long, the action's too often incomprehensible, and if you look close, there are logic gaps all over the place. However, it's the film that I think best embodies what Nolan was so good at bringing to the Batman mythos: a grander scale and new way of looking at familiar characters.
X-men: First Class (2011) – I was not expecting anything from this movie. It's a prequel to a franchise that had gone terribly off the rails with "The Last Stand" and "Wolverine." There were reports of the director being saddled with a reduced budget and schedule. The marketing was memorably horrible. However, somehow Matthew Vaughn managed to make the best film of the whole series. He cast the right people in key roles, he presented the core ideas of the "X-men" concept better than any of his predecessors, and he somehow pulled off a really sweet homage to 1960s action films too.
Parts of the film are a mess, and there and things that don't work at all, but mostly the technical business that probably would have been corrected with a little more time and money. However, all the vital bits, all the important relationships and themes are rock solid. And I don’t think I'm exaggerating when I say that "First Class" has performances on an entirely different level than any other "X-men" film. We get James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence, all working at the top of their game. I'm now looking forward to the next "X-men" sequel more than any other superhero film that's been announced.
Chronicle (2012) – And finally, a little reminder that you don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the most cutting-edge effects technology in order to make a spectacular superhero film. You just need a couple of good actors, a killer script, and a director who knows how to stretch a dollar. The found footage trend collided with the superhero trend last year, producing one of the most surprising and effect movies to have come out of either genre. "Chronicle" took the simple idea of giving a trio of teenage boys super powers, and turned it into something timely and resonant and really, really cool.
I've grown to enjoy the immediacy of the found footage style, and the way it can make less-than-stellar effects look convincing. The flying sequences in this film are among the best I've ever seen, and the big climax sequences have more visceral impact than anything that I've seen Hollywood put out lately. More importantly, this is the only film on this list where I had no idea how the events were going to play out, that really did something original and challenging with the concept of super powers. The sequel currently appears to be in limbo and much of the talent has scattered to other projects, including director Josh Trank getting the new "Fantastic Four" reboot. However, this is one of those films that I don't think needs a sequel. In fact, I'll quite happy if it doesn't become a franchise, because not every superhero property should be.
---
Thursday, May 2, 2013
My Top Ten Superhero Movies
We've got quite a few new entries to the superhero genre headed our way this summer, so I thought it was time to take stock of where I stand and compose my own list of favorites. Picks are arranged by date and unranked. I previously devoted a list to non-superhero comic book movies over here.
Superman (1978) - Richard Donner's "Superman" was famous for making a star of Christopher Reeves, but I always remember Clark Kent as Jeff East, who plays the teenage version of him in all the early scenes. My mother only liked the movie up to the point where Clark fully becomes Superman, and had a habit of turning it off after that. So it wasn't until well into my teenage years that I got to see the whole story unfold as intended. It remains my favorite Superman film by a wide margin.
This was the template for many superhero films that followed. You can see the origins of so many colorful villains in Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, and so many plucky heroines in Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Superman himself, of course, was embodied wonderfully by Christopher Reeves as a larger than life ideal, the kind of inspirational classic hero figure that we've mostly moved away from. When I was a kid, even if I didn't know the particulars of his story very well, Superman was the greatest guy who ever put on a cape and tights, and "Superman" was the only superhero movie that mattered. And yes, I believed a man could fly.
Batman Returns (1992) - The superhero genre took a long time to get going, not for want of good material, but because the genre was treated as kids' stuff. Superheroes were synonymous with comic books, cartoons, and action figures. "Batman Returns," one of the first superhero films to really stretch that PG-13 rating and tackle some mature themes, raised a lot of eyebrows when it was first released. Sure, it had all the Tim Burton funhouse visuals, but the Penguin played by Danny DeVito was more gruesome than funny, and the violence was much more intense than anything in the first "Batman."
And then there was Michelle Pfeiffer in that latex cat suit. Prurient scolds focused on her sexuality, but I adored Catwoman for her angry feminist vibes and really twisted voyage of self-discovery. "Batman Returns" was the first take on the Batman character to point out exactly how screwed up its characters were, though obliquely enough that it could still pass as summer blockbuster fare. It had a lot of fun with Freudian symbolism, double entendres, and one of the most fascinating romances to ever appear in a superhero movie. When people scoff at Tim Burton's talents, I always remind myself he was responsible for this one.
The Crow (1994) - My fondness for "The Crow" probably stems from seeing the film so often during my angsty teenage years. It's a lot cheesier than you remember, but the gloomy visuals are still gorgeous, thanks to work of director Alex Proyas. The film is best known for the accident on set that cost us emerging star Brandon Lee, and there were significant debates at the time about whether it was appropriate to even release the film. I'm glad that audiences got to see it, not just because of Proyas and Lee's excellent work, but because it felt like a truly fitting goodbye.
The plot is a fairly typical revenge story, about a man who is brought back from the dead in order to find his killers. There is a lot of violence, but there are just as many quiet, elegiac moments about love and loss. Okay, the pop-psychology and the rocker clichés are laid on pretty thick, but it dos a great job of capturing a certain mood and outlook on life that few have matched. Understandably, "The Crow" is often seen as a Goth film or as part of the alternative rock culture, because of its influential soundtrack, but I think its appeal is far wider than that.
Unbreakable (2000) - Oh yes, this one definitely counts. "The Sixth Sense" may have been the most successful M. Night Shyamalan film, but I think this is the movie that cemented for many people that he was a director to keep an eye on. Superheroes by definition are people with special powers or abilities who decide to use these gifts to fight evil and do good - though not always for entirely altruistic reasons. There have been many origin stories that have dramatized the big decision, but none quite like "Unbreakable."
I love the way the plot unfolds, as a character study of an ordinary man in the present day, played by Bruce Willis, who survives a terrible train crash and simply wants to put it behind him and get on with his life. However, he gradually comes to understand that he survived for a reason, because he is someone extraordinary. It's a father son bonding story and a slow burning thriller and yet it's still a superhero movie. It even has its own supervillain, the memorable Mr. Glass, played by Nick Fury himself, Samuel L. Jackson. "Unbreakable" is in many ways even more surprising than "The Sixth Sense," and probably Shyamalan's best film.
Hellboy (2004) - Guillermo Del Toro is known for being a fan of creature features, and his "Hellboy" movies have some of the best monsters. Our good guy looks like a giant red devil, but talks like the average joe down the street. He hangs out with a man with gills who needs a reverse-scuba suit to walk around on land, and is head over heels for a troubled young woman who can summon fire with her mind, but can't always control it. And then they fight evil Nazis who are trying to unleash an ultimate evil that looks like it came out of an H.P. Lovecraft story.
The prosthetics and make-up used to transform Ron Perlman and Doug Jones into Hellboy and Abe Sapien got all the press, and of course they did. They look fantastic, and go a long way towards selling the outlandish premise. However, what I appreciate the movie for is its sense of humor and its total commitment to this fantastic universe. The whole movie has this air of richness and history about it, and the characters are old-fashioned romantic types under their colorful exteriors. My favorite part of the movie is actually Hellboy's complicated relationship with Liz Sherman, and how that plays out. And also, the bit with the Russian corpse.
Hmmm, this turned into a much longer post than I anticipated. I'll be back with the other half of the list tomorrow.
---
Superman (1978) - Richard Donner's "Superman" was famous for making a star of Christopher Reeves, but I always remember Clark Kent as Jeff East, who plays the teenage version of him in all the early scenes. My mother only liked the movie up to the point where Clark fully becomes Superman, and had a habit of turning it off after that. So it wasn't until well into my teenage years that I got to see the whole story unfold as intended. It remains my favorite Superman film by a wide margin.
This was the template for many superhero films that followed. You can see the origins of so many colorful villains in Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor, and so many plucky heroines in Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Superman himself, of course, was embodied wonderfully by Christopher Reeves as a larger than life ideal, the kind of inspirational classic hero figure that we've mostly moved away from. When I was a kid, even if I didn't know the particulars of his story very well, Superman was the greatest guy who ever put on a cape and tights, and "Superman" was the only superhero movie that mattered. And yes, I believed a man could fly.
Batman Returns (1992) - The superhero genre took a long time to get going, not for want of good material, but because the genre was treated as kids' stuff. Superheroes were synonymous with comic books, cartoons, and action figures. "Batman Returns," one of the first superhero films to really stretch that PG-13 rating and tackle some mature themes, raised a lot of eyebrows when it was first released. Sure, it had all the Tim Burton funhouse visuals, but the Penguin played by Danny DeVito was more gruesome than funny, and the violence was much more intense than anything in the first "Batman."
And then there was Michelle Pfeiffer in that latex cat suit. Prurient scolds focused on her sexuality, but I adored Catwoman for her angry feminist vibes and really twisted voyage of self-discovery. "Batman Returns" was the first take on the Batman character to point out exactly how screwed up its characters were, though obliquely enough that it could still pass as summer blockbuster fare. It had a lot of fun with Freudian symbolism, double entendres, and one of the most fascinating romances to ever appear in a superhero movie. When people scoff at Tim Burton's talents, I always remind myself he was responsible for this one.
The Crow (1994) - My fondness for "The Crow" probably stems from seeing the film so often during my angsty teenage years. It's a lot cheesier than you remember, but the gloomy visuals are still gorgeous, thanks to work of director Alex Proyas. The film is best known for the accident on set that cost us emerging star Brandon Lee, and there were significant debates at the time about whether it was appropriate to even release the film. I'm glad that audiences got to see it, not just because of Proyas and Lee's excellent work, but because it felt like a truly fitting goodbye.
The plot is a fairly typical revenge story, about a man who is brought back from the dead in order to find his killers. There is a lot of violence, but there are just as many quiet, elegiac moments about love and loss. Okay, the pop-psychology and the rocker clichés are laid on pretty thick, but it dos a great job of capturing a certain mood and outlook on life that few have matched. Understandably, "The Crow" is often seen as a Goth film or as part of the alternative rock culture, because of its influential soundtrack, but I think its appeal is far wider than that.
Unbreakable (2000) - Oh yes, this one definitely counts. "The Sixth Sense" may have been the most successful M. Night Shyamalan film, but I think this is the movie that cemented for many people that he was a director to keep an eye on. Superheroes by definition are people with special powers or abilities who decide to use these gifts to fight evil and do good - though not always for entirely altruistic reasons. There have been many origin stories that have dramatized the big decision, but none quite like "Unbreakable."
I love the way the plot unfolds, as a character study of an ordinary man in the present day, played by Bruce Willis, who survives a terrible train crash and simply wants to put it behind him and get on with his life. However, he gradually comes to understand that he survived for a reason, because he is someone extraordinary. It's a father son bonding story and a slow burning thriller and yet it's still a superhero movie. It even has its own supervillain, the memorable Mr. Glass, played by Nick Fury himself, Samuel L. Jackson. "Unbreakable" is in many ways even more surprising than "The Sixth Sense," and probably Shyamalan's best film.
Hellboy (2004) - Guillermo Del Toro is known for being a fan of creature features, and his "Hellboy" movies have some of the best monsters. Our good guy looks like a giant red devil, but talks like the average joe down the street. He hangs out with a man with gills who needs a reverse-scuba suit to walk around on land, and is head over heels for a troubled young woman who can summon fire with her mind, but can't always control it. And then they fight evil Nazis who are trying to unleash an ultimate evil that looks like it came out of an H.P. Lovecraft story.
The prosthetics and make-up used to transform Ron Perlman and Doug Jones into Hellboy and Abe Sapien got all the press, and of course they did. They look fantastic, and go a long way towards selling the outlandish premise. However, what I appreciate the movie for is its sense of humor and its total commitment to this fantastic universe. The whole movie has this air of richness and history about it, and the characters are old-fashioned romantic types under their colorful exteriors. My favorite part of the movie is actually Hellboy's complicated relationship with Liz Sherman, and how that plays out. And also, the bit with the Russian corpse.
Hmmm, this turned into a much longer post than I anticipated. I'll be back with the other half of the list tomorrow.
---
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
"Veronica Mars" Year One
Spoilers for the first season of "Veronica Mars."
I wonder how much of the Lily Kane murder story was plotted out from the beginning. I can certainly see parts of it being very carefully set up from the start, particularly all the misdirection having to do with Lianne Mars and the Kane family. However, who the actual killer turned out to be worked particularly well, because it was the culmination of what looked like just another side story at the start of the season. I wouldn't be surprised if the powers that be noticed that Jason Dohring was acting circles around Teddy Dunn, and beefed up his role in the show to give him more screentime. And after bringing Harry Hamlin in as Logan's dad, and watching him at work, they picked their killer.
I knew the Veronica-Logan-Duncan love triangle was coming. That was pretty much all I knew about "Veronica Mars" from the outset. To the show's credit, they handled it a lot better than I've seen other shows handle romantic relationships involving teenagers. Logan never stopped having a huge chip on his shoulder and a always having lot to apologize for. The sexual content was consistently been handled maturely, with a remarkable lack of handwringing. However, as Logan and Veronica got cuddlier, it felt like I was watching a different, soapier show. Thank goodness the writers figured out how to tie the state of the romantic relationships to the rape and murder cases, and the big climax re-emphasized that the most important guy in Veronica's life is her father.
And what a finale! This is one of the best season enders that I've ever seen. All three of Veronica's big ongoing mysteries appear to be fully resolved, though there's clearly still a lot of fallout to be sorted through. The one development that caught me off guard was Veronica kicking her mother out in order to preserve Keith's happiness, a nice flip of Keith's decision to give up his relationship with the school counselor earlier in the season. And the show went all out on the action scenes, with Veronica being targeted by a psycho Aaron Echolls, a car crash, a lengthy and bloody brawl between Keith and Aaron, and finally Keith getting himself set on fire to rescue Veronica. I'm so glad the murderer wasn't Jake Kane, because Kyle Secor freaking out at the end there was an unintentionally funny moment in a great hour. "Veronica Mars" could have ended with this finale and I'd have been happy.
But I don't just want to talk about the ending of the season. "Veronica Mars" kept up a great level of quality throughout the year. Okay, some of the cases were a little more iffy than others, and Veronica's moral compass often seemed severely off-kilter, but the writers were very self-aware about it. Veronica always learned the truth, but didn't always get justice for the wronged, and Neptune remains controlled by the elites and rife with corruption. And some of Veronica's less savory tactics, like planting bugs in sensitive places, backfired on her. When she grew too reliant on Wallace's access to student files and other favors, he called her out on it. And I loved that the status quo kept changing throughout the season - Veronica still has a bad reputation, but she became the go-to girl for solving mysteries, and even Principal Clemmons (Duane Daniels) went to her for help eventually.
My hopes for more good female regulars didn't really pan out, though we got some good recurring ones. There was Meg (Alona Tal), the good girl from the purity test episode who becomes Duncan's girlfriend, and Mac (Tina Majorino), the computer geek with an interesting family history. Sydney Poitier disappeared from the opening credits pretty quickly though. The show is not doing too well with the minority characters, but they're certainly trying. You can tell that the writers were having a hard time keeping Wallace and Weevil in the picture, which is probably why Weevil ended up on the suspects list for the Lily Kane murder, and Wallace's mother Alicia (Erica Gimpel) got paired up with Keith. And the attempt to shoehorn a black girlfriend into Veronica and Lily's past for all of one episode, who is never mentioned again, was pretty painful.
Still, I'm really enjoying the show. I think what I appreciate about it ultimately is its smarts and its humor. I like that there are minor characters named Dick and Beaver. I like that the pop culture references skew a little bit older - "Grease," "Single White Female," and even "National Velvet." I like that it not only acknowledges the divide between the haves and the have-nots, but has made it a central feature of the "Veronica Mars" universe. I like that Veronica has no qualms about using gossip, blackmail, and the darker forces of the internet, because Neptune is not a nice place, and playing by the rules won't get you very far. This isn't exactly Rian Johnson's "Brick," but as high school film noir, it gets refreshingly dark and cynical when it needs to.
And most of all, I like Veronica Mars, the kind of know-it-all, non-conformist, cute-as-a-button badass who won't take things lying down, and maybe still has a chance with a cute guy in the end. I like Kristen Bell as Veronica, and how she carries the show so easily. I like how she can be smug, vindictive, selfish, self-righteous, and completely wrong, and we still want to root for her.
Onward to Year Two.
---
I wonder how much of the Lily Kane murder story was plotted out from the beginning. I can certainly see parts of it being very carefully set up from the start, particularly all the misdirection having to do with Lianne Mars and the Kane family. However, who the actual killer turned out to be worked particularly well, because it was the culmination of what looked like just another side story at the start of the season. I wouldn't be surprised if the powers that be noticed that Jason Dohring was acting circles around Teddy Dunn, and beefed up his role in the show to give him more screentime. And after bringing Harry Hamlin in as Logan's dad, and watching him at work, they picked their killer.
I knew the Veronica-Logan-Duncan love triangle was coming. That was pretty much all I knew about "Veronica Mars" from the outset. To the show's credit, they handled it a lot better than I've seen other shows handle romantic relationships involving teenagers. Logan never stopped having a huge chip on his shoulder and a always having lot to apologize for. The sexual content was consistently been handled maturely, with a remarkable lack of handwringing. However, as Logan and Veronica got cuddlier, it felt like I was watching a different, soapier show. Thank goodness the writers figured out how to tie the state of the romantic relationships to the rape and murder cases, and the big climax re-emphasized that the most important guy in Veronica's life is her father.
And what a finale! This is one of the best season enders that I've ever seen. All three of Veronica's big ongoing mysteries appear to be fully resolved, though there's clearly still a lot of fallout to be sorted through. The one development that caught me off guard was Veronica kicking her mother out in order to preserve Keith's happiness, a nice flip of Keith's decision to give up his relationship with the school counselor earlier in the season. And the show went all out on the action scenes, with Veronica being targeted by a psycho Aaron Echolls, a car crash, a lengthy and bloody brawl between Keith and Aaron, and finally Keith getting himself set on fire to rescue Veronica. I'm so glad the murderer wasn't Jake Kane, because Kyle Secor freaking out at the end there was an unintentionally funny moment in a great hour. "Veronica Mars" could have ended with this finale and I'd have been happy.
But I don't just want to talk about the ending of the season. "Veronica Mars" kept up a great level of quality throughout the year. Okay, some of the cases were a little more iffy than others, and Veronica's moral compass often seemed severely off-kilter, but the writers were very self-aware about it. Veronica always learned the truth, but didn't always get justice for the wronged, and Neptune remains controlled by the elites and rife with corruption. And some of Veronica's less savory tactics, like planting bugs in sensitive places, backfired on her. When she grew too reliant on Wallace's access to student files and other favors, he called her out on it. And I loved that the status quo kept changing throughout the season - Veronica still has a bad reputation, but she became the go-to girl for solving mysteries, and even Principal Clemmons (Duane Daniels) went to her for help eventually.
My hopes for more good female regulars didn't really pan out, though we got some good recurring ones. There was Meg (Alona Tal), the good girl from the purity test episode who becomes Duncan's girlfriend, and Mac (Tina Majorino), the computer geek with an interesting family history. Sydney Poitier disappeared from the opening credits pretty quickly though. The show is not doing too well with the minority characters, but they're certainly trying. You can tell that the writers were having a hard time keeping Wallace and Weevil in the picture, which is probably why Weevil ended up on the suspects list for the Lily Kane murder, and Wallace's mother Alicia (Erica Gimpel) got paired up with Keith. And the attempt to shoehorn a black girlfriend into Veronica and Lily's past for all of one episode, who is never mentioned again, was pretty painful.
Still, I'm really enjoying the show. I think what I appreciate about it ultimately is its smarts and its humor. I like that there are minor characters named Dick and Beaver. I like that the pop culture references skew a little bit older - "Grease," "Single White Female," and even "National Velvet." I like that it not only acknowledges the divide between the haves and the have-nots, but has made it a central feature of the "Veronica Mars" universe. I like that Veronica has no qualms about using gossip, blackmail, and the darker forces of the internet, because Neptune is not a nice place, and playing by the rules won't get you very far. This isn't exactly Rian Johnson's "Brick," but as high school film noir, it gets refreshingly dark and cynical when it needs to.
And most of all, I like Veronica Mars, the kind of know-it-all, non-conformist, cute-as-a-button badass who won't take things lying down, and maybe still has a chance with a cute guy in the end. I like Kristen Bell as Veronica, and how she carries the show so easily. I like how she can be smug, vindictive, selfish, self-righteous, and completely wrong, and we still want to root for her.
Onward to Year Two.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
