Summer has officially begun—at least as far as movies are concerned, and I saw two of the biggest releases so far this past weekend—“Robin Hood” and “Iron Man 2.”
Both movies were better than I expected—which is not to say either is great—just that they exceeded my relative low expectations.
Neither film fulfills its respective potential, neither delivers on the promise it makes, but both are entertaining and not without merit.
“Iron Man 2”
With the world now aware of his dual life as the armored superhero Iron Man, billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) faces pressure from the government, the press, and the public to share his technology with the military. Unwilling to let go of his invention, Stark, along with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James "Rhodey" Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, must forge new alliances—and confront powerful enemies.
“Iron Man 2” is neither as good as “Robin Hood” or the movie it is sequel to. Still, Robert Downey, Jr. is perfect for the part and plays Tony Stark with credible snarkiness and charm.
Ultimately, Tony Stark is a shallow man—limited, juvenile, vain, his bad playboy attitude and brilliance the only things to recommend him. Because of this, there’s very little exploration, soul-searching—even the few self-discoveries he does make are unearned and unsatisfying.
It occurs to me that both Batman and Iron Man are rich kids with superhero suits, but unlike Batman, who’s dark, tortured soul and the journey it drives him to is inspiring and instructive, there’s a big gaping hole in Iron Man’s chest—leaving only a little room for heart and soul. Take away the suit, and batman remains a fascinating, eccentric, engaging man, but Iron Man is just a man—and not even—rather a spoiled man child with egomania and expensive toys.
Christopher Nolan (with help from his brother, Jonathan, and others) has set the standard for comic book and superhero movies with “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight,” and watching a movie like “Iron Man 2” only serves to remind us how good they really are.
“Robin Hood”
Far more primitive, but every bit as heroic, the flawed archer and freedom fighter, Robin Hood makes Iron Man look cartoonish.
Following King Richard's death in France archer Robin Longstride, along with Will Scarlett, Alan-a-Dale and Little John, decides to return to England. They encounter the dying Robert of Locksley, whose party was ambushed by the treacherous Godfrey, who hopes to facilitate a French invasion of England, and Robin promises the dying knight he will return his sword to his father Walter in Nottingham. Here, Walter encourages him to impersonate the dead man to prevent his land from being confiscated by the crown, and he finds himself with Marian, a ready-made wife. Hoping to stir baronial opposition to weak King John and allow an easy French take-over, Godfrey worms his way into the king's service as Earl Marshal of England and brutally invades towns under the pretext of collecting royal taxes. Robin rallies the barons and the king in an attempt to thwart the invasion, but do they have what it takes?
“Robin Hood” has the gloss of historicity about it, but it is as truth and not as fact that the film excels. A story is true not because it is factual, but because it is credible, because the humans experiencing it can identify with the humans in it and the situations and circumstances they find themselves in. Thus the oft quoted intro to a tale, “The following story is true though none of it really happened.”
“Robin Hood” had far more character development than I expected, far less frenetic action and endless battle sequences. This has led some moviegoers to complain that the film is sluggish and slow-paced, but there’s plenty of action—and it’s made all the more thrilling because we know and care about the people involved.
Ridley Scott, like his brother, Tony, is one of the best big-budget Hollywood directors working today, and he does an outstanding job here, showing far more restraint than I expected, remaining largely invisible in service of the story.
As you would expect, “Robin Hood” is about tyranny and corruption, the need for lambs to become lions when the rich and powerful abuse their position even more than usual, and the heroic individual who leads them for “cometh the hour, cometh the man.” But it’s also about love, a romance between two adults neither looking nor particularly open to romance discovering its irresistibility when attraction, character, and circumstance offer opportunity.
Though I enjoyed both movies, I can really only recommend “Robin Hood”—and not even it highly, which is far more troubling for what it portends about the prospects for this summer at the local Cineplex than the relative disappointment of these two movies. And, sadly, that’s not all that surprising—or, frankly, surprising at all, but what’s wrong with state of motion pictures in America, particularly ones released in the summer, deserves a column all its own, which gives me an idea.
Stay tuned . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment