Sometimes It's Okay to Make Exceptions . . . Avengers, Stargate, and Person of Interest

To start with, three plot approaches that I deem completely stupid:

1. Death
2. It's just a dream.
3. The lady or the tiger

However, now and again, a writer/director/actor uses these approaches to good purpose.

*WARNING: Spoilers appear in each section below.*

DEATH

In general, I think death is the ultimate writing cop-out. It's High School Writing 101: I don't know how to end my story, so I'll kill someone! When in fact, it is far more difficult to "solve" the plot problem by keeping characters alive, kicking, and intrusive than by making them disappear.

It's also easy profundity. Kill off a character: get a pass for life. If anyone dares to criticize, well, that person is a pollyanna who can't accept harsh realities, blah, blah, blah.

Face it: lazy writers kill characters out of sheer laziness.

And yup, I am including Joss Whedon. In fact, I hold him more responsible than I do your average HS Freshman because (1) he should know better; (2) he's a good enough writer not to fall back on death as a solution.

The exception: Coulson's death in Avengers (which Whedon actually claims he didn't plan!).

I was a fan of Coulson from the beginning. I got such a kick out of that guy in Iron Man who kept bothering Pepper Potts. I liked his cool laid-back attitude and the easy way he marshaled reinforcements at the end of the movie.

So I was sad about his death in Avengers (I do realize that technically, he is still alive). But it was such a remarkable pay-off for a total bit part, a small character who grew throughout the films, got his own short, and then got us to giggle over his Captain America obsession. He may have been Avengers' red shirt, but for fans of the franchise, he was the one consistent character who could make us feel a need to avenge. He was beloved, so the death actually mattered--it wasn't just a throw-away.

IT'S JUST A DREAM

Nope, I'm not going to talk about Inception.

Usually, the "it was just a dream" approach makes nonsense of the viewer/reader's investment. Oooh, we got you to care, but guess again!

Exception: "Changeling," Stargate SG-1, Season 6. Teal'c dreams that he is a member of SG-1, then that he is a member of a firehouse. The viewer knows--or thinks she knows--that SG-1 is the reality even though Teal'c as a fireman makes a good deal more sense in the "oh, I don't have to suspend my beliefs or disbeliefs" sense.

Except it turns out that both are dreams. The reality is that Teal'c is dying as he shares his symbiote (or, in the fireman sequence, his kidney) with his mentor. The dreams are a coping mechanism.

What makes the dreams even cooler is that Daniel Jackson--as an ascended being--plays a role in helping Teal'c cope. The Stargate writers did an excellent job not closing themselves off to the possibility of Daniel's return. It is sometimes hard to remember which season he was technically not in--his name and guest appearances are used so effectively in Season 6, he is as omnipresent as a regular.

By showing up in the dream sequences, Daniel makes the dreams real; they may be Teal'c's imaginings, but they occur while Daniel is present--and although he is present as a "psychologist," his last line to Teal'c ("I haven't left your side") clarifies that he has been present the entire time as his ascended self. It makes the dreams much more than "oops, we never really meant that to happen" events. They matter.

THE LADY OR THE TIGER

The Lady or the Tiger refers to a short story by Frank Stockton. Like many people, I read it in high school.

I hated it! The story basically revolves around a choice: will the princess provide her ex-lover with a beautiful lady or condemn him to death by tiger?

At that precise point in my life, I decided that I would never, ever, ever end a story in such a way. (Since then, I've learned the wicked truth: as the writer, I know what my character chose, but that doesn't mean I have to tell the audience: hee, hee hee.)

Still, I dislike open endings in general. "Oh, do your job and just tell us. Why leave us wondering?"

Exception: And then I saw the end of "Cura Te Ipsum," the fourth episode of Person of Interest, Season 1.

Here's the final exchange between Reese and a serial yuppie rapist:

Andrew Benton: Please, you y-y-you don't want to do something that you're going to regret.
John Reese: Which do you think I'll regret more - letting you live or letting you die? [Insistently] Andrew, help me make a good decision.

Actually, the entire dialog is well-worth reading as Benton and Reese discuss the possibility of change, the use of fear to control behavior, and the meaning of "good."

The episode ends on Reese's line. We are never told what he decided (I'm assuming; I haven't seen beyond Season 1 yet: the first disc of Season 2 will arrive from Netflix soon!). Reese leaves the viewer with a true philosophical problem, not some simple-minded "either/or" issue. What does one do with evil? What can be prevented or helped when an evil person (Benton isn't merely bad) is eliminated? On the other hand, what unintended consequences might be thrown into motion? What about the good guy? What might this action do to him? Reese has taken charge of Benton to protect the innocence of the good doctor who intended to kill him herself. Reese didn't want her to taint herself:

John Reese: I lost that part of myself a long time ago... not sure if I can find it... not sure it matters anymore. Maybe it's better this way, maybe it's up to me to do what the good people can't. Or maybe there are no good people, maybe there are only good decisions.

Not every rule may be made to be broken. But literary rules certain can be. Stargate, Avengers, and Person of Interest broke the rules right. 

Armageddon: What a Hoot!

Thornton and Willis

Lately, I've been watching disaster movies. It interests me whether they are accurate or not; I also enjoy a good story (disaster movies have automatic classic plots: alarm, destruction, the end).

Lately, I watched Deep Impact and then, somewhat by mistake, Armageddon.

Deep Impact was better than I'd remembered and according to the on-line astrophysicists, fairly accurate (to a point; it is also glaringly inaccurate in other ways). I still think the ending is rather daffy--when the reporter goes home to stand with her father under a crashing tsunami. So maybe, she couldn't get away from the evil tidal wave in time, but I'm a big advocate of trying. (If one of these ever aims for Maine, I'm heading for the top of the highest mountain and taking my cats with me; yes, okay, Maine doesn't really have mountains, just enormous hills, but still . . . )

All the on-line astrophysicists agree that Armageddon is just dreadful (and I'm not a huge fan of Ben Affleck although I adore Will Patton), so I decided to give it a miss. However, I forgot that it was still in my inter-library loan request queue.

When it came in, I decided, "Eh, why not?"

First of all, this is not a movie that is taking the science of asteroids even a little seriously. And it knows it. (Deep Impact takes itself very seriously.) And it really doesn't care. The asteroid is an excuse to take a bunch of "roughnecks" (redneck oil rig drillers) and put them somewhere in space. End of reasoning. Dead stop.

Jason Isaacs without long, blond hair.

Second, it's hilarious. Honestly funny. I was sort of worried that it would be a lot of so-called funny humor that is really just an excuse for people to make dirty jokes or talk about farts. But Bruce Willis--who is a gifted straight man--and Will Patton--also a gifted straight man--are backed up by a fairly gifted assortment of actors with strong comedic timing. I thought Billy Bob Thornton was splendid as the no-nonsense but willing to take a chance NASA director. I always get a kick out of William Fichtner (who was born into the world as guy-who-would-have-played-Nazis-if-he'd-been-alive-and-working-in-1940s-Hollywood). And Lucius Malfoy's Dad shows up! (Although I didn't know that until I went through the credits; I honestly don't recognize Jason Isaacs without long, blond hair.)

The action is way, way, way over-the-top. I reached a point, where I just had to wait for an action sequence to end to figure out what it was all about. And there are TONS of them; the movie starts BANG with scenes that usually end a movie.

The consequence of all these action scenes is a somewhat slow middle where they just pile on each other with no real purpose. Still, the movie is completely and totally and utterly what you expect it to be: girlfriend left to cry (Liv Tyler does this with such grace, you don't feel that she is pathetic); boyfriend left to try to make the final sacrifice; father left to save the world (and really, you should have seen that coming). It's a hoot because the movie knows exactly what it is doing and doesn't care that people might say, "Oh, I saw that coming!" "Oh, that's such a cliche!"

So [shrug] it's a cliche: so what? Who doesn't want to see a bunch of good guys show up at the last minute to help another bunch of good guys? And who doesn't want to see Bruce Willis convince someone to do something for the world (i.e. America) at the last minute? And why not watch the world get saved again?

In any case, this movie falls less into disaster territory and more into sci-fi/Die Hard territory.

It's just fun.

Thoughts on The Return of the King, Extended Version

So I recently saw The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey and really enjoyed it. I will probably see it again before it leaves the theater and multiple times after it comes out on DVD. However, it will be another year before the second movie comes out, and I was feeling Middle Earth-deprived.

Faramir-Eowyn scenes that are thankfully

included in the extended version

So I rewatched Lord of the Rings for the millionth time!

Here, finally, is my review of The Return of the King, the extended version. I have reviewed the extended versions of both The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers (I actually started these reviews in 2007--hence, the "finally".)

I put off watching the extended version of The Return of the King because I remembered the movie as fight scenes, more fight scenes, even more fight scenes, fight fight fight fight scenes. Some dialog.

And although I am a devotee of action movies from The Fugitive to The Avengers, I get bored after a couple of fight scenes, especially if a single scene doesn't end after about 2 minutes. (I really don't care how many people an Oliphant tramples--my reaction isn't disgust; just lack of interest.) 

There is a lot of fighting in the extended version of The Return of the King. However, the extended version fills in a number of gaps, especially regarding Faramir and Eowyn. Unlike the extended version of Fellowship, which simply provides more information, and the extended version of The Two Towers, which gets downright confusing, the extended version of The Return of the King flows quite nicely between character interactions/dialog and battle sequences. 

The one major hiccup in this flow is, surprisingly, Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. In the release-to-theater version, their scenes balance very neatly with all the other scenes. In the extended version, however, Sam, Frodo, and Gollum practically disappear from the first half of the movie (while taking over the second half; yes, I know, Jackson is following the actual chronology of the book--which just proves that he cut the release-to-theater version very well).

Although this unevenness surprised me, it did help explain The Hobbit!

Richard Armitage as Thorin

As stated above, I enjoyed The Hobbit (Part 1); however, it is NOT for purists. Rather than a tale of lovable Bilbo, Jackson is using other Tolkien material to provide us with pre-LOTR events; it IS Tolkien material, but it is not always specific to The Hobbit. Consequently, the character who moves to the forefront is the Aragorn-type character: the king figure, Thorin.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo

Considering that Thorin is played by Richard Armitage, I have no complaints. And Martin Freeman (Bilbo) is in the movie enough to make me happy. But it does indicate that in his heart, Jackson seems to find returning monarchs slightly more interesting than good-natured hobbits.

This is comparative, of course. It isn't that Jackson doesn't do the hobbits justice--in LOTR, every scene with Sam, Frodo, and Gollum is lovingly and skillfully done; it's just that the king matters slightly more.

And, of course, The Return of the King really is Aragorn's movie: the return of this particular king and what that means to Middle-Earth and to Minis Tirith specifically.

At this point, I have to comment on a common criticism of Tolkien's work--that his evil is too blatantly evil: all the orcs are ugly; Sauron is just a big evil eye, etc. This criticism is sort of true, but I think Tolkien deserves major kudos for his profoundly ambiguous, disturbed, multi-layered, and difficult to categorize characters, such as Denethor (steward of Gondor). Denethor's mixture of despair, pride, vainglory, pain, plus corrupted courage and love makes him one of Tolkien's most memorable creations.

There are also characters like Theoden, Faramir, and Eowyn. These characters are lightly sketched (Tolkien was more interested in his world and its history/languages than even in his action sequences) yet still uniquely motivated and personalized. Not many world fantasy writers can say the same of their characters.

Frodo at Grey Havens

In other words, sticking an elf, a dwarf, a king-to-be, and an everyman into a book does not automatically a great series make.

I was glad I watched the movie again even though it is quite sad. Here's the thing about Jackson: he knows how to deliver high heroic moments that clutch at your heart. I sobbed like a baby during, oh, the last twenty minutes (here's the other thing about Jackson: he gives you about five endings). But--and I say this as someone who hates, um, particular kinds of endings--it is the perfect ending. By keeping it, Jackson's respect for Tolkien's vision comes through.

In the end, it's that respect I appreciate most.

Grey Havens

Thoughts on The Two Towers, Extended Version

I consider the extended version of Fellowship better than the cut version. Not so with Two Towers. I consider the cut version (with one exception) to be far superior to the extended version.

I've seen the cut version of Two Towers several times, and I've always considered it pretty straightforward and streamlined. After seeing the extended version, I must congratulate Peter Jackson on making such intelligent cuts. The extended version is downright convoluted. Talk about confusing! And I'm reasonably well-versed in Tolkien lore.

The extended scenes do carry some interest. There's an entire section between Boromir and Faramir which gives you insight into the brothers and their father, Denethor. A line is spoken which is echoed in the cut version: "Now is a chance for Faramir, Captain of Gondor, to show his quality"; when you realize that the line was originally spoken by Faramir's father, it lends the line (spoken the second time by Faramir) some pathos.

Faramir and Boromir

And it's nice to see Sean Bean again. But, still, the scene is very confusing. It's a back-flash, coming at a point in the narrative when we have cut away from the main action (Rohan) to Frodo. It's too many balls in the air and consequently, gives the extended version a clunky feel.

Likewise, there are a number of scenes in the extended version that underscore Aragorn's identity as Isildur's heir. In the books, this is terrifically important. One reason Sauron gets so freaked out--if one can use that phrase about a big, evil eye--regarding the resistance of Gondor is that he believes that Aragorn is coming to reclaim his throne and that Aragorn has the ring.

But in order to make this clear in the movies, Jackson would have had to make the whole Isildur/Gondor/Aragorn-as-Boromir's-boss thing just a tad clearer in the first movie than he did. So I think cutting it in the second made a lot of sense.


Because, really, the Two Towers is about Rohan and the battle with Saruman's forces. Some of the best performances of the movie come out of this storyline. Bernard Hill as Theoden is nuanced far beyond what the role calls for, and he has some of best lines in the movie (hey, I have a yen for weighty dialog). Miranda Otto is marvelous. Karl Urban is totally underused but at least he shows up. And Brad Dourif as Grima is just about as good an ambiguous bad guy as a character can get.

The amazing Brad Dourif

There's a point near the end of Two Towers when Saruman sends the orcs out to trash Helm's Deep. Grima, standing behind him, begins to cry; it is so poignant, it rips at your heart. Here is a self-serving, nasty-minded fellow who believed that his self-serving nasty-mindedness was limited--he wanted a girl, he wanted a little bit of power. And then he discovers that the little bit of power he wanted to wield never mattered to Saruman; Saruman isn't interested in playing power politics with Grima; Saruman is interested in destroying every human being on the planet. It's a huge miscalculation based on evil intent. It's one of Tolkien's subtler moments (the crying isn't in the book but Grima's ambiguity is).*

Back to the extended version: The only scene I regret Jackson cutting between the extended version and the release-to-theater version is a scene where Faramir eulogizes a dead soldier of Sauron's. In both the book and the movie, some rather generalized soldiers from the South stomp up north to help Sauron. Tolkien doesn't say much about them although he gives them "Oliphants." Both Lewis and Tolkien have been accused of insularity in their use of bad guys from the south who bear about them hints of the Arab world. From today's perspective, it is hard not to assume both Lewis and Tolkien are responding to modern terrorism. In fact, however, their insularity is a tad older. They are responding to medieval attitudes towards Arabs which extended back to Hannibal's elephants climbing the Alps to attack Rome.

Which doesn't make it any less insular, of course.

In any case, in the extended version, Faramir gives this nice little speech in which he pities one of the dead soldiers and says, in effect, "Why is his honor any less than mine?"

Lewis would have approved.

It's nice because first of all, it makes clear that Faramir is the more introspective of the two brothers and therefore, prepares the viewer for Faramir's rejection of the ring. It's also nice because second of all, I get tired of orcs (BAD GUYS, BAD GUYS, BAD GUYS) and their residences (BAD PLACES, BAD PLACES, BAD PLACES). I mean, really, what kind of civilization is Mordor? It is one big desolation; what do its occupants eat? I assume even orcs eat meat and carbohydrates. At least, I assume they don't just eat each other and rocks.

I don't have a problem with this most of the time because Tolkien was writing world fantasy with mythic good pitted against mythic evil, and the bad guys aren't automatically supposed to be Grimas (ambiguous and undecided villains). They are supposed to just be bad. But I thought it was a nice touch to point out that badness has its own agendas and its own ways of garnering support. No way those guys from the South are stomping north because of some big eye. They're thinking, "What will we get out of this?" and Faramir's speech pointed that out.

However, Jackson may have thought he was cutting it close to the PC line with the "Oliphants" anyway, so the speech got cut.

He left in, however, one of the best lines of the movie given by Bernard Hill:

"What can men do," Theoden says to Aragorn, "against such reckless hate?" What indeed?

My second favorite line comes at the end of the speech Theoden gives right before the battle starts:

Where is the horse and the rider? Where is the horn that was blowing? They have passed like rain on the mountain, like wind in the meadow. The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow. How did it come to this?

Give Tolkien credit--Two Towers is one of the few pro-war/warrior movies I've seen where people spend a large percentage of the time feeling hopeless and wondering how things got so bad. Which is how good people usually respond to terror and war and reckless hate.

To end: in terms of weighty speeches, I don't even mind Sam's speech, but I confess that what I really like is the beginning portion--from Tolkien's point of view, there is no return, no going back to Exactly The Way Things Were. It's a principle fantasy writers should never forget:

It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?

And Frodo's end is foreshadowed.

*For Voyager fans, Brad Dourif plays Suder, the sociopath who tries to control his sociopathy with Tuvok's help. There's a 2-parter where Suder--who has laid off the killing due to Tuvok's influence--must help save Voyager by killing intruders. The despair with which he agrees to this course of action is wrenching; he knows that once he starts killing again, there is no going back. The Voyager series was lucky to get Dourif!

Thoughts on Fellowship of the Ring, Extended Version

The masterly Sean Bean quoting one of my

favorite lines: It is a strange fate that we should

suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing.

Such a little thing.

I have moved this review forward since I am FINALLY, after 5 years, going to be reviewing Return of the King, the Extended Version.

Following are my thoughts on Fellowship of the Ring, Extended Version:

1. Extended scenes--The extended scenes do add a lot. However, the one editing choice I have never understood--in both the theatrical and extended versions--involves Moria. There's an extra scene in there (that's not in the book) with a collapsing bridge. It goes on for about five minutes, and it is completely unnecessary. Jackson left it in the release-to-theater version and cut out almost all of the extra Lothlorien scenes.

I think this was a huge mistake. Most of the women I've talked to, both those who like Tolkien and those who got dragged to the theater, wish there had been more Lothlorien stuff in the release-to-theater version. It would have been very easy for Jackson to cut the completely unnecessary bridge scene and add a little more of Lothlorien.

Yes, I know the movie was probably aimed at young men, but studies show that most successful movies attract both sexes, and it would have been such an easy substitution to make.

2. Lighting--Jackson's lighting is the weirdest thing in the world. I actually like it; it has a staged/picture quality to it. But it is strange. One minute everything is dark with cool, glowing lights all over the place. The next minute everything is in full sunlight with everything glinting. The whole thing is like watching CSI episodes over and over and over. Cool. But startling.

3. Casting--I consider The Lord of the Rings movies the best cast trilogy of, oh, the last 100 years or so. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but there are few book-to-movie films I've seen that completely and totally and without misstep cast the characters exactly the way I picture them. Except for Elrond, and I like Hugo Weaving so much, I don't care.

Interesting note about Hugo Weaving. Pre-Jackson, Tolkien's elves are portrayed much the way the Vulcans used to be portrayed before Enterprise came along: good and pure and wise and wonderful. And then Hugo Weaving showed up, and suddenly the elves (like the Vulcans) got edgy and a little annoyed and somewhat sarcastic. Which is frankly more interesting.

The glasses were added by a blogger!

About the hobbits: I know people confuse Merry and Pippin. I never did although that could partly be because I ran across Dominic Monaghan before Fellowship came out (Hetty Wainthrop mysteries). He isn't portrayed exactly as Merry is in the book, but he is given enough lines to clarify that he is the more perceptive and mature of the Merry and Pippin duo.

Sean Astin and Elijah Wood are perfect. I happen to think Elijah Wood's range of emotion was greater than Jackson pulled out of him. By the end of the first film, Frodo has been reduced to (1) scared and (2) more scared. If you watch the beginning of Fellowship, Wood displayed a much broader range. Frankly, I don't think Frodo interested Jackson much OR Frodo represented a type to Jackson. He gave all the ambiguity to Aragorn and Boromir.

I quite like Viggo Mortenson as Aragorn. The book makes clear that Aragorn is supposed to be completely unattractive at first glance--a rangy Ranger with absolutely no appeal to civilized folk like Butterbur, the Prancing Pony owner. I think Viggo pulled this off. He isn't as fine an actor as either McClellan (hard competition) or Sean Bean, but like Keanu Reeves, he knows how to act physically (which is pretty important). The scene at the end of Fellowship where Mortensen walks down the hill towards the cast of thousand-De Mille crowd of orcs is very, very cool.

McClellan of course occupies his own class of perfection. And Sean Bean is so phenomenal that I hold him personally responsible for the cohesiveness of the latter half of the movie.

Which brings us to subplots.

5. Subplots--This is the third or fourth time I've seen the movie, the second time I've watched the extended version. The subplot with Aragorn is a lot clearer after that many viewings, but I don't think it was as clear as it could have been. The tension between him and Boromir, the (real) issue of Aragorn's allegiance, Boromir's (legitimate) concern for his people, and Aragorn's reluctance to test his rights to leadership are great themes and could have been emphasized. Not expanded because, okay, the movie is really long, but pointed to more clearly. There's lots and lots of implied dialog on these issues, delivered mostly by the masterly McClellan and Weaving, and the last scenes between Aragorn and Boromir are very effective, but the release-to-movie version really fell down here. (The extended version makes these themes much clearer. Even with the extended version, though, I think they could have been emphasized. I think Jackson, who I like, is rather like Shyamalan, who I also like: throw enough stuff at the screen, and you get a good movie. Which is sort of true. But sort of not.)

6. Speaking of the final scene--First of all, I never thought the Boromir being shot full of arrows scene funny. I can see why some people rolled their eyes, but I've got a C.S. Lewis-medieval knights-Beowulf fan inside me, and I've always thought it utterly chivalrous and honorable and gosh darn heroic! I also don't find it improbable. The human body can take an amazing amount of damage before it shuts down, as one realizes when one watches Civil War documentaries.

In fact, that whole last scene is one of my absolute favorite battle scenes in all the trilogy. It's exactly like a Civil War documentary, only with the added bonus of really old statues and much cooler armor.

And I love the chivalrous, heroic stuff. I don't think anyone but Sean Bean could have pulled off that last scene, but he is Sean Bean, and he did. His confession to Aragorn and his plea for his people, Aragorn's promise and his kiss on Boromir's forehead all hit a note of high medieval romance. It's better than King Arthur because stupid Launcelot isn't there to drip excuses all over the place.

Tangent-time: Questions have been posed (many by my brother) about why teenage girls get into stuff like yaoi and vampire gangs and such--that is, why do teenage girls and women like me get into male to male dedication/loyalty/devotion? And I think the reason is that these types of relationships don't imply subordination in the sense of weakness (Boromir is not weak for, finally, professing loyalty to Aragorn) and also because the relationship allows for objectivity. It isn't oh-now-I'm-in-love-I-must-immediately-lose-my-ability-to reason (and therefore get together with a guy who will beat me because I luuuuuv him so much). Both parties are allowed to retain their dignity. I think this is possible for female/male relationships, by the way, there just isn't a whole set of classical literature out there that deals with it. (Dorothy Sayers and Jane Austen all by themselves do not constitute a class; George Eliot wrote about the desire of women for this type of relationship, but she didn't actually try to create one on paper: Dorothea marries a gasbag and then a self-promoting politician--a nice self-promoting politician but still--)

Thor

So it isn't often that you put in a superhero/action movie and get Shakespeare!

At least, not lately. Actually, Shakespeare explored all the classic action plots! However, superhero/action movies these days tend to involve more bad guys v. good guys story-lines than father-son show-downs. So when I put Thor into the DVD player, the last thing I expected was King Lear with Thor taking the Edgar role and Loki taking the Edmund role.

It's a family drama!

That wasn't the first surprise. The immense Chris Hemsworth (at 6'3," he qualifies as immense) as Thor also surprised me. After all, what is Thor called upon to do or be other than immense-guy-who-smashes-things?

Okay, so the script demands that he undergo a change. At the beginning of the film he is arrogant and lordly and at the end of the film, he is sweet and down-to-earth (ha ha).

What makes Chris Hemsworth (directed by Kenneth Branagh) remarkable is that he is both arrogant/lordly and sweet/down-to-earth right from the beginning. In the beginning, he is arrogant but also guileless and charming (that smile!). At the end, he has been humbled, but he still carries himself like a king. As a result, his growth as a character is believable; as an acting feat, it is more than a little impressive.

I was also impressed by the use of Loki. At first, my reaction was "well, duh, of course Loki is the betrayer," and I was even a little miffed that the scriptwriters were being so obvious. But within thirty minutes or so, I realized that I wasn't sure what Loki would do next. Which is exactly how Loki ought to come across! He's the ultimate ambiguous character, and the writers (and Tom Hiddleston) nailed his attitudes/perspective (by the way, Branagh tends to use his own people in movies when he can; Hiddleston starred with Branagh in Wallander).

I was glad to see more of Agent Coulson whom I really like and who is in Iron Man 2 far less than I'd anticipated. Thor makes up for that lack. My favorite scene with him is when he tells Barton to wait; he wants to see what happens when Thor grips the hammer. (Marvel fans: Is Barton supposed to be the Green Arrow? Or am I getting my franchises confused?)

This brings me to the excellence of Branagh as a director. I wasn't sure if I would see any of Branagh in this movie. Although he does direct epics, they tend to be non-supernatural-elements epics, and I wasn't sure if anything of Branagh could show up in a Marvel movie.

I'm glad to say, his touch is there. Branagh's strength is his ability to pull ordinary human elements out of heroic, Shakespearean moments. Although I knew that Thor wouldn't be able to pick up the hammer (on earth) the first time, I was moved by Barton's caustic but sympathetic remarks, Coulson's willingness to wait (in the rain) for Thor to try, and ultimately, by Thor's weary disbelief at his failure to reclaim his own weapon. Likewise, Odin is fully believable in his defensiveness over Loki's pain while Thor's guilt, confusion, and love towards Loki are heart-wrenchingly authentic.

The music helps! By the way, that's Patrick Doyle whom Branagh almost always uses as his composer.

Oddly enough, the only false note is Natalie Portman. The interactions between her, Darcy, and Selvig are  natural and amusing (and Thor being tasered is one of the funniest parts of the movie), but there simply isn't enough of Thor and Jane together to merit the ending. This is actually a problem in these Marvel movies. So far, no one has really lived up to the "cool girl next door who dates the superhero" persona except Kirsten Dunst (Spiderman) who did it so effortlessly, I keep expecting her to show up again.

I'm really hoping Joss Whedon doesn't spoil the run by killing off a major character in his usual Whedon style. Take a lesson from Branagh, Joss! It is possible (and far more interesting) to create heroic moments without ending a life. (Yes, I'm glad Loki isn't dead.)

The DVD had a preview for Captain America which looks interesting. How does it compare to Iron Man and Thor?

Iron Man 2 and Character Studies

I finally saw Iron Man 2, and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It was not at all what I expected.

Series action movies appear to follow a pattern. The first is the background movie, the movie that establishes the hero or heroine's context. Batman Begins, Iron Man, Spiderman, Die Hard, The Matrix, Pirates of the C, Fellowship of the Rings, Star Wars IV, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Terminator, and Bourne Identity all establish how the main character came to be.

These first movies tend to be tighter than any of the others with strong set-ups and pay-offs. In general, not always, they tend to be the best made (though not always the most interesting).

The second movie falls into one of two categories, being either a movie with bigger guns, bigger suits, bigger action where lots and lots of stuff happens. Or a character study.

In general, I prefer character studies. And a surprising number of sequels to movies in the above list fall into that category.  Spiderman 2 is an exploration of how being a superhero affects Peter Parker's life. Empire Strikes Back is a study of Luke's fears and need to grow in the force. Bourne Supremacy is an exploration of Bourne's desire to understand, and forgive, himself. (I'm skipping The Dark Knight because I just don't know what to make of it.)

And Iron-Man 2 is an unexpected study of Tony Stark's personality. There isn't really a character arc in the sense that Tony changes, but he does come to terms with how much people in his life have tried to help him. The scene with his father (on film) is supremely touching, and Robert Downey, Jr.--like always with Stark--does an excellent job keeping the character consistent (no hugs and tears for this guy) while indicating that he has expanded in self-knowledge (there's a kind of House quality about Stark).

I was very surprised! I had expected big guns, big suits, blah, blah, blah.

Now, there are sequels which fall into the bigger guns, bigger suits, etc. category which do work. The Two Towers (non-extended) is quite a tight little film. Terminator 2 (non-extended) more than adequately continues the story (with a soupcon of character study).

However, despite Hollywood's belief that less doesn't equal more, big guns/big suits/lots of stuff happening sequels tend to be duds. Pirates II is one of the few movies in my entire life that I turned off because I was bored out of my skull. It takes a lot to bore me television/movie-wise (I can always do something else while I'm watching!). The first 45 minutes of Pirates II is shaggy dog story world, only more pointless. Stuff happens to happen. It's tedious.

Likewise, the sequel to Raiders is just a bunch of stuff happening for less than believable reasons.

I would love to say that series which use character studies as their second movie have the best shelf-life, but unfortunately, this isn't true. Star Wars plummeted into abysmality after Empire. Spiderman 3 was a terrible disappointment. On the other hand, Terminator 3, while not one of my favorite films, did hold its own, and the Die Hard series was surprisingly rejuvenated with Live Free or Die Harder. 

All I can say is, I sure hope Avengers doesn't muck up Iron Man's winning streak. (You hear me, Joss Whedon!)

Kate's Criteria for Action Movies

Although I don't much enjoy pure action books or television series, I rather like a good action movie. Here are my criteria for what makes a good action movie:

1. The hero or heroine is a thinker as well as a fighter. 

For example, both Jason Bourne and Tony Stark, although physically adept and more than willing to utilize weapons when necessary, are primarily thinking-men. They problem-solve rather than just react. In fact, in some of my favorites, such The Fugitive, the hero doesn't even fight: Dr. Richard Kimble is entirely a thinking-man (but then, of course, Deputy Marshal Gerard does all the shooting).

2. There is one main character arc.

Sarah Connor accepts her destiny. The Terminator learns to sacrifice. Matt learns to be a hero the John McClane way.

These aren't romance movies. Or family dramas. One emotional change is enough.

3. The action sequences make sense within the world that they occur (mostly). That is, the action sequences don't rely on deux ex machinas (the hand of God).

In the first Terminator movie, Reese can't bring future weaponry back with him from the future. He and Sarah have to rely on conventional means/weaponry to destroy The Terminator. Achieving this is plausible: exploding gasoline and a crushing device can be found in more than one location.

On the other hand, in the second movie (which I quite like) it seems rather too convenient that the nearest factory just happens to contain an open vat of molten steel.

However, even the latter example is not as egregious as human bodies which just magically deflect machine gun fire. In The Matrix, Neo can lift the helicopter because his mind can encompass the possibility. The audience is prepared for just such an occurrence. But that shouldn't happen in any other action film. 

4. Set-ups are paid off. 

I have written about why I think Die Hard is such a great film. To recap, every single issue/question/character is paid off at the end of the film. There is nothing superfluous, nothing unanswered.

Drama viewers can have their "but real life doesn't have any solutions, life isn't that tidy . . . " blah-de-blahs. Action movies are all about pay-off: the stronger the pay-offs, the better the film.

5. However, the pay-offs should not just be things blowing up.

Things just blowing up is boring. Plinkett has more than adequately explained why the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Star Wars movies suffer so remarkably in comparison to the 4th, 5th, and 6th (the original 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) despite the advancements in digital special effects They have flash and glam but no heart.

As I mention in my Matrix review, the one thing everyone seems to remember from that movie is the cascading machine-gun shells from the helicopter. Simple awesome images last longer than a million kung fu moves.

Which doesn't mean the director should get too arty. Action movies tell a story; that should always be the focus.

6. There is an intimate relationship underlying the film's action.

This can be a romance a la Kimble's memories of his wife in The Fugitive. Or Neo's destined relationship with Trinity in The Matrix.

Or it can be good old-fashioned "guy gets gal"; Reese's quiet enthrallment with Sarah Connor in The Terminator is a great example.

However, the relationship doesn't have to be romantic.  McClane's discussions with Gruber in the first Die Hard are like a strong cable line underscoring the movie's action sequences (and were never reproduced to the same effect, no matter how hard the producers tried). Bourne's relationship with Pamela Landy (also by phone) in the second Bourne movie is another great example. McClane's relationship with Matt in Die Hard 4 is a great non-phone example.

7. There's no message or, if there is, it stays in the background. 

If you want a MESSAGE, read an editorial. Good fiction delivers its messages through story. Good action, especially, never allows the message to dictate its conclusions or overwhelm its narrative.

One reason I like Iron Man is that although Tony Stark gains a "soul" (or a "heart" as Pepper puts it) when he sees his weapons being misused, his reaction is not to retire to the country, foreswear technology, and start a farm. His solution is to build better technology and take sole responsibility for his misused weapons. This may not satisfy War is Bad advocates, but it sure makes a lot of sense in terms of Tony Stark's personality.

8. There's an adequate villain.

The villain doesn't have to be the most interesting character that ever leered his/her way on film, but a strong villain does give umph to the protagonist's journey. Part of this is the role; part is the actor. I consider Robert Patrick a great (even witty) villainous robot; I found Kristanna Loken (T3) a big bore (Schwarzenegger's Terminator in the first movie is less a villain and more an introduction to a concept). From the Die Hard films, Alan Rickman stands out a mile.

I will settle for one-dimensional heroes (Stane in Iron Man) as long as they don't demand too much screen time. However, in general, I do find the hero's alter-ego or protagonist (Landry, Gerard) more interesting than the straight villain. Pirates owes a great deal of its fun to the noble antagonist (played by the very funny Jack Davenport) on the one hand and the ruffian antagonist (Geoffrey Rush) on the other.

Hugo Weaving as Agent Smith gets his own category. 

Kate's List of Good and Great Action Films

Not all my preferred action films meet all my criteria, but most meet most of them. 

Die Hard
Die Hard 4: Live Free or Die Hard
Bourne Identity
Bourne Supremacy
The Hunt for Red October (in general, I don't much enjoy spy movies á la Clancy and James Bond, but I like this one)
The Fugitive
Independence Day (no, it doesn't meet most of my criteria, but it's so much gosh darn fun; likewise . . .)
Pirates of the Caribbean (first movie only)
Men in Black*
The Matrix*
Iron Man*
The Terminator*
The Terminator 2*(the theatrical version FIRST)

*I place the last five in action rather than sci-fi/fantasy/superhero genres. Batman Begins is a superhero movie; Ironman is an action movie. The difference, I would say, is the focus on character development. Batman Begins is about Bruce Wayne; Ironman is about Ironman (who happens to be Tony Stark). Likewise, Men in Black is about J (Will Smith), but it is about J as J (more than J as a police officer or individual).

While going through possible action films, I realized that my definition is fairly specific. Witness is suspense/drama; Raiders of the Lost Ark is action. I also realized that I'm far more choosy with action films than I am with any other genre! Go figure!!

Rewatching LTR

I recently rewatched the Lord of the Rings, all three DVDs. It holds up surprisingly well. Just as with the books, Fellowship is still my favorite (but really two movies in its own right). I also think the war scenes in Return of the King go on forever and ever and ever and--did I mention?--ever. It would have been a better movie if the Faramir/Eowyn scenes (in the extended version) were put in instead of the excessive elephants, excessive stone throwing and so on.

I agree with my brother Joe that the lighting is wacky. I once read a review of a Jerry Bruckheimer movie that stated that Bruckheimer isn't interested in character development or working out a story, he's interested in setting up moments. So in Return of the Titans, he sets up the scene at the graveyard and the "dance" scene before the game, and the scenes in the hospital. There are heroic moments and tear-jerking moments. Bruckheimer is on to something (he is the producer of CSI and Pirates of the Caribbean); people, including me, like moments.

Lord of the Rings reminds me of the comment about Bruckheimer: there's no sense of continuity, in a lighting sense, between scenes: each scene is set up for its own sake; for instance in Two Towers, the scene where the king quotes a poem before the big battle (the poem that ends, "How did it come to this."), I can never figure out where the bright light is coming from. It looks great, but it always confuses me.

In a way, the movies are rather like comic books: a frame by frame montage. I happen to like Return of the Titans ,and I like Lord of the Rings, but it is a rather different experience from watching a movie where each scene blends into the one before.

I still think the casting is stellar, the best casting I've ever seen in a movie. The movie characters and the book characters match up extraordinarily well. They don't always utilize the range of emotions that I wish they would, but they look so perfect, it hardly matters. (Which fits into Jackson's scene by scene montage idea.)