Chaplin Review

My wife recently began working on a presentation for grad school and she had to pick a subject to do it on, a breakdown of how a psychological theory would apply to a specific person. She picked Charlie Chaplin, a sublime choice because while the world giggled at the comedic follies of The Tramp, there was a darkness and lack of morality in play behind the scenes. Chaplin was one of the most gifted entertainers in the history of film and yet many of the laughs were derived because of pain.

Many of the stories Chaplin told were autobiographical in some ways, and learning about him on a deeper level was a welcome experience to allow me to appreciate his work even more as an artist. Thus it felt like a good time to finally see the 1992 film Chaplin by Richard Attenborough, a movie that at times soars thanks to the inspired performance from Robert Downey Jr. as Charlie Chaplin, but it still manages to fall victim to those pesky biopic tropes that bother me so.

A certainly fascinating journey, to see some of the experiences that haunted Chaplin's personal life acted out but I actually found that Chaplin as a whole played it pretty safe. Sure, it painted a picture of a very flawed man, but the strokes of Attenborough's brush still could have went bolder and portrayed more of the depth of his issues. I also didn't really care for the storytelling choice to have it be told during an interview with an elder Chaplin recounting the stories of his young and rise to fame. I actually would have preferred if it would have been played straight and traditional, just tell the story without utilization any narration.

I would use the word nice to describe Chaplin, which is both a compliment and a complaint. I would recommend this film to anyone curious to learn the basics about what made the man so complicated and Downey Jr. is excellent in the lead role, but at the end of the day Attenborough used a whole lot of words and still didn't come close to the nuance and power crafted by the real Chaplin in silence.

3/5

Iron Man 3 Review

After the misguided handling of Iron Man 2, not to mention coming off of the high of the nearly perfect execution of a superhero film with The Avengers a year earlier, I was excited that the reigns of the franchise were handed off to a new voice in Shane Black. I can't say for sure whether Jon Favreau was really to blame at all for the failings of the second installment but regardless, a new voice and vision was appreciated. I still recall the first time I saw the trailer for Iron Man 3 and a shockingly dark tone seemed to hang over every frame. I was so damn excited that the character was going to shy away from some of the ridiculous comedy and instead focus on the serious side of the saga of Tony Stark.

Well...almost. Things do indeed get serious with the exploration of what troubles a superhero could face when dealing with PTSD, and some breathtaking dramatic set pieces absolutely thrill in ways the franchise never had before. Damn it though, those villains. Both the strange twist involving the Mandarin and the Extremis folk. I just can't comprehend some of the villain choices in these Marvel films.

First let me clarify my issue with the Mandarin twist. It isn't the concept of the twist itself that bothers me, because I am all for keeping an audience on their toes and doing something unexpected. What troubles me is the sudden, jarring tonal shift that takes place, going for completely bad ass terrorist to...well, that. Jokes land with a thud instead of a laugh and I couldn't help but scratch my head at not so much the idea but the execution of it. After coasting with joy for much of the movie up until that point, the way the Mandarin character was handled was unfortunate and revisits haven't changed my opinion of this. I still don't get it.

What might be even worse than the way they handled that one specific character is what it meant for the big picture of the story. By pushing aside what was by far the best villain Iron Man had faced thus far in a solo effort, we are left with Guy Pierce and his glowing band of misfits, and frankly nothing about this crew is compelling in any way. From the opening scene that takes place in 1999 to the modern day handsome version, the character of Aldrich Killian did absolutely nothing for me throughout. Yet still the streak continued, as no solo film from the MCU had gotten the villain right yet. Someday though, right Captain America?

Still though, the overall completed picture is a massive upgrade from the previous film, with a far more likable and believable turn from Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man. In fact his performance in Iron Man 3 is the best of his work thus far in the universe, and with the assistance of flat out amazing sequences like the attack on his home and, of course, the Air Force One rescue, I can easily recommend Iron Man 3 as a pretty joyous blast of a picture.

I just wish it had a damn good villain like the trailer indicated. Without that misstep, this would have been up there competing for the best entry into the MCU to date.

3.5/5

The Avengers Review

The first phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe was solid, but nothing that occurred prior to the moment when the Avengers would assemble had me believing that the result of their team up would be stellar. Even as a fan of the work of Joss Whedon, I had trouble buying into the idea that you could include so many characters that required their own share of the spotlight into one coherent film.

Obviously Joss proved me wrong with his sublime, measured screenplay that not only found a way to balance all of their personalities, it exceeded anything that came before it from the universe. The Avengers was their first truly great film, a picture that demanded to be seen on the biggest screen in town and was worth every penny of the inflated ticket price.

You know what crucial aspect this one got right that the five films before it failed at? A major reason why I love The Avengers on a whole other level than the solo films leading up to it? It finally, FINALLY got the villain right. Tom Hiddleston as Loki is a home run, as he steals scenes with his menacing smile and delightfully perfect dialogue, and it didn't take long for me to realize we were in for something special in this regard. Literally the opening sequence of the film, the exchange between Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Loki put a giant grin on my face that stuck around until the very end.

I walked into the theater to see The Avengers expecting to have a bit of fun, not much more, and I walked out feeling euphoric about the scale of the spectacle and the suddenly bright future of the MCU. Prior to this, I didn't see a single of the releases in the theater, choosing to wait patiently for their Blu-ray release instead. This was the moment the game changed for me, and I knew going forward I would be eagerly waiting for each new entry to dazzle me as soon as I could possibly see it.

4.5/5

Iron Man 2 Review

Right off the bat in this review I am going to stir the shit, and I apologize for this, but I really mean what I am about to say. Ready? Okay, here it goes...

Iron Man 2 is the Jar Jar Binks of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I know, the whole bitch about Jar Jar thing is so damn played out and I agree. You can't turn a corner in a discussion regarding Star Wars: Episode VII online without someone making a "Maybe Abrams will bring Jar Jar back! LOL!" joke being made, and I need to be perfectly clear here, that isn't what I am trying to do. I am not laughing out loud as I write this, and that is precisely my point. Iron Man 2 cranks up the silly factor to 11 and is practically begging the audience to chuckle so hard it makes us slap our knee, but there is a problem. It isn't funny. At all.

It is a bit unfair to equate this entire film to an annoying, pointless, terrible character from another franchise because not everything in Iron Man 2 is misguided. When it actually attempts to portray a serious narrative, it succeeds and I am locked in during these moments, but unfortunately it spends so much time trying to be wacky and "fun" that it mostly fails as a complete movie. The reason I couldn't help but think of good ol' Jar Jar during this revisit was because I ask myself the same question here as I did back when The Phantom Menace was released 16 years ago: Why?

Why so silly? Why so over-the-top? I completely understand and appreciate that the source material these films are based on are comic books featuring men in costumes fighting super villains, so expecting total realism is obviously not in the cards. Why did it have to go that far in the other direction though?

Robert Downey Jr. is just as charming and perfectly suited to play the role of Tony Stark as ever, but that is another prime example of why the screenplay fails in Iron Man 2. Even his wit and clever banter is often times falling on my deaf ears because I had to tune out the terrible villain performance from Sam Rockwell the scene prior. I love Sam Rockwell and when I hear his name, I immediately think of his masterful turn in the science fiction film Moon. I will choose to pretend this nonsense isn't even actually on his résumé. On the other hand, a welcome bright piece of the Iron Man 2 puzzle is the introduction of Natasha Romanoff, a.k.a. Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson). Her role in this film is refreshing and interesting, a nice break from the cringe inducing comedic dialogue that is otherwise so prevalent here, and we now know just how important to the entire universe of movies her character proves to be. 

Iron Man 2 has always been my least favorite effort from the MCU and that has not changed a bit. I have no hatred in my heart for anything relating to this franchise as I have had some fun with even the lesser efforts like this, but the tone of this film is something I have never been able to understand.

2/5