Movie Review: The Karate Kid

So, without any pretenses and pre-review ramblings, here is my assessment of the Karate Kid reboot: it was actually pretty damn good.

Plot: This was a remake; No further comment.

Acting: Good stuff, mangaloid. Jackie Chan’s handle on English from years of being a Hollywood icon and Jaden Smith being the son of two of TinselTown’s finest, you’d expect the acting to be up to snuff ESPECIALLY since remaking one of mankind’s most favorite films. If you act like a bitch or cry when you’re not supposed to*COUGHtoberymaguireCOUGHspiderman* then you’re not only doing a disservice to yourself for sucking it up, but you’re insulting a classic. Honestly, the worst acting was from the antagonist because for as awesome as he was at kicking ass, he had a really high-pitched voice which made his badassery fall. I know, I know, I shouldn’t hate because the original bad-boy had a higher pitched voice AND the little Chinese kid is, well, a kid but I feel they should have doctored his voice with Michael Clarke Duncan. Outside of that, I was pretty impressed with how well the actors, all of them [mostly the younger Chinese students] performed in the film. Smith Jr. actually surprised me with his chops. He rocked it out in Pursuit of Happyness, but in Pursuit, he had to act like himself, a little boy; Karate Kid, he got the shit kicked out of him repeatedly and STILL maintain is chi. I was half surprised at how much of Big Willie’s swagger stays strong in this little Smith, but at the same time- he’s the heir to the Fresh Prince and his kingdom in Bel-Air, so in truth I was probably more relieved that he’s keeping it in the family. I mean alive. Yeah, you know what’s up.

Action: Damn. Damn. I did not…Damn! I didn’t think little kids could do those kind of things. I have a strong sense that Jaden Smith didn’t do all of his own stunts, but I have a STRONG sense that the little Chinese kid who plays his archnemesis Cheng did. The kid’s acting supports my theory. He was weak at anything but being a complete asshole, but that asshole literally kicked ass and kicked it hard. But more seriously, the action and the storyline, helmed by Harald Zwart took a much more serious tone than the original. It could have been the lack of 80’s pop music (replaced by modern pop music---fack..) or the fact that Ralph Macchio is a goofy bastard to begin with, but the tone of the film was more heavy than the original. The hits, the fear little Smith has of those kids, and the training- oh myGAWD the training! It was intense! Little Smith, something like 12 years old, began looking like that Russian weightlifting buckaroo [click it!]- but with cornrows. The heavier tone is felt more so in this film because of the montage. Granted, in the original, the montage was Ralph Macchio’s best friend, but with the original you felt him get better and gain more confidence. The remake, however, you feel the Little Smith get stronger, better, and still scared shitless- That’s the difference.

Overall: It won’t ever touch the level that the original because the bond between Daniel-son and Miyagi was something that the world had never seen and they became addicted to it, for one. And for another, they remade it before the “most-of-the-original-cast-has-died-and-their-family-doesn’t-mind-a-remake” mark, which weighs heavily on me, personally. But honestly- don’t push this movie aside. Coming from someone who never thought they’d voluntarily sit down and check it out, I actually really enjoyed this film. In fact, I watched it twice before I had to return it, and I normally don’t do that. It’s a good flick that I would say does the original justice by not sucking ass. They use subtle similarities from the old film and you get excited about how the new film will use it [Russian Scotsman, you’d better pick up on what I’m talking about] and you really are not disappointed. Go rent the film and check it out. You’ll see what I’m talking about- all of you.

The [next, Next] Karate Kid [3.4 High Fives]

starring Jaden Smith, Jackin Chan, Taraji P. Hensen, Zhenwei Wang

Movie Review: Iron-Man 2

Image from blog.al.com, courtesy of Sega

This is something I’ve been meaning to do for a while but finally got the push to do it. Dear MacRussianScot, this is for you:

***MINOR SPOILERS. READ ON YOUR OWN ACCORD***

(i.e. don’t get pissed at me if I ruin a plot twist for you)

The biggest question on everyone’s mind when Iron-Man 2 started pre-production was “…how will IM2 weigh up to the first one?” I hope to give you the insight to go find out for yourself (I’ll give my opinion at the end). I don’t know a lot about Iron-Man’s history outside of his alter-ego’s alcoholic past with his up-and-coming self-induced paralysis (oops- I hope I didn’t just unintentially spoil IM3 or a possible plot-twist in The Avengers…), so my first-thought was that I couldn’t think of any immediate fantastic villains outside of Justin Hammer (IM2 villain) or the Hulk, but I doubt Favreau would go that route just yet. And while I’m being honest, I really didn’t know what to expect from the second installment because I felt from all of the TV spots I’d seen through the weeks and months leading up to my own experience, I felt I had already seen it; but I was wrong. I’ll get to that later and you’ll see what I mean. SO here’s how I will be critiquing Iron-Man 2: comic interpretation, antagonists/villains, character development. Normally I would use the same ole’ “plot, action, acting, etc”, but I want to try something new. Plus, the only real bad acting was from Gwyneth Paltrow- I don’t like her.; I think her acting stinks, her facial expressions suck, and she hasn’t landed anything worth paying attention to (except Iron Man 1 and Shallow Hal)—but I digress—on to the review!

Comic Interpretation

As I said, there isn’t a whole lot I know about Iron Man/Tony Stark but from what I do know is that Tony Stark is the anti-hero of heroes. It sounds complex, but it really isn’t. Essentially, he’s the most human out of many of the superheroes because is the most frail at the same time he’s supposed to be the so strong, almost made of…iron..? (tell me you giggled too) But as it turns out, he’s an alcoholic playboy with a lot of personal issues, of which, Favreau illustrates just the playboy side in both of the Iron Man films. In Iron Man 2, Favreau does a good job at interpreting this problem by incorporating it into the plot line, using the alcohol as a way to stave of death for that much longer, but ironically killing him at the same time—just like alcoholism. In both Iron Man films, Stark’s playboy-side is shown incredibly well. Anyone not familiar at all with the character, Downey Jr. simply seems like the misdirected fool that needed a push, but to anyone whose read at least one Iron Man, they’ll see it’s very well played out by Favreau’s team; his alcoholism is portrayed also very well by Favreau’s team in an interesting twist, a really good twist that shows more of Stark’s ingenuity and massive mental awesomeness and because of the awesomeness that is Favreau’s interpretation I say this—mui bueno, senior.

Antagonists/Villains

Sam Rockwell i.e. Justin Hammer was a good and logical choice. Most of Iron Man’s biggest, baddest, and most hard to fall come from Stark’s days in both the Avengers and the West Cost Avengers, and since that movie hasn’t come out yet, then the best choice was the easiest and most logical- and that was to create two enemies; Justin Hammer is Stark’s opponent in the business world, and Whiplash [played very well by Mickey Rourke] as Iron Man’s nemesis. I don’t really know how Hammer was in the comics, but I really enjoyed Rockwell’s take on it. He made Hammer seem like an incompetent and lucky-to-be-where-he-is kind of dude and it worked, it really did. He played it off right and his character was perfect for the semi-villain. You could tell he was never the main bad guy because he wasn’t of any true influence on what Stark did or how he operated. Hammer is a nuisance and Rockwell acted well on the part. Rourke, well, Rourke was incredible as the main bad-dude Whiplash. The part I found most negative about his character was the back story that IM2 provided: nuclear physicist. I’m not sure how that correlates to the comics, but I cringed when they gave it because I don’t think it was fitting for the character and Rourke’s physique. It’s like saying Tara Reid fits the profile of a ‘brilliant anthropologist’ (ref: Alone in the Dark). Outside of the ill-fitted back story, the only other downer I saw to Rourke’s character was his obsession with whips. I know, I know- his name is Whiplash, whiplash, but obviously, as you’ll see, the whips don’t quite work and with all the crazy explosive action, you wish Whiplash would have done something a little more—elaborate with his weaponry. There is also a third villain- Stark himself. His attitude and stubbornness is nearly destructive to himself and his friends, but this is more of a constant villain, as seen through the entire film. I just wanted to note that it’s there. And it’s good.

Character Development [primarily dealing with Downey Jr./ Stark/ Iron-Man]

There are two things I noticed of the film. First, between Iron-Man 1 and 2, Downey’s portrayal of Tony Stark remains relatively the same, if not more narcissist than before. To be honest, a self-made hero that has the badass intellect and swagger to pull it off and “privatize world-peace” deserves the mondo-dose of ego. With that said, it seems like with the work he’d completed between the two films, you think he would have changed somewhat for the better- but he didn’t. His big change came at the end of the film when he realizes that he has the ability, knowledge, and the know-how to create a new element. This wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, but with any kind of superhero, you always want them to learn the error of their ways in the from their super-debut. Iron-Man 2 doesn’t fulfill that sort of viewer desire but it does, however, fulfill the other thing I noticed: Tony Stark’s genius. In the first movie, it showed his ingenuity to create weapons; IM2 shows Stark’s ability to create a NEW ELEMENT and create advanced weaponry/scientific innovations, something extremely prevalent to the comic character. Tony Stark is a genius and IM2 shows this very well.

Overall

Great movie. To get to my earlier notes (1) I felt I had already seen it and (2) Was it better, with the TV spots, it showed so much of the conflict between Iron-Man and the overarching villain, Justin Hammer, that you thought you knew what the movie was about. But, as it will show, the movie has more to do with the battle between Iron-Man and Tony Stark. The whole Hammer and Whiplash is just for action since the story lies with Stark and that, my friends, is the plot that Iron Man 2 needed. We got action and a wicked bad-dude last movie and this film was more on the development of who Tony Stark/Iron Man is and will become. Yeah, there were some pretty sweet scenes, but for the most part, the movie needed to deal with the character, not the explosions. With that said, I don’t think it was necessarily better than the first one. I won’t say it was bad or much worse than the first, but there is something about an origin flick that always sticks out. I really liked Iron-Man 2 and will think it was well done, except the whole creating a new element thing wasn’t explained all that well, but I digress- good film.

IRON-MAN 2 [4.2 high-Fives]

(starring Robert Downey Jr., Don Cheadle, Sam Rockwell, and ugh…Gwyneth Paltrow)

Check it out fool!