The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel: Mouthful not Eyeful

You've never heard of the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel?? GASP! Well, that's because it wasn't marketed to a wide audience, it's for people like me who see movies just because it has at least two Harry Potter actors in it: namely Bill Nighy, and Maggie Smith. I tell you what, if nothing else, it was great to see Professor McGonagall as a racist bigot.

This is a quaint British flick about exploring life over the hill, and across the world. Unsatisfied with their golden years being spent in England, seven aging retirees independently decide to move to a newly restored cheap hotel in India. Despite the beautiful pictures in the brochure, the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is in shambles, and this is only the first in a series of disappointments for some of the guests.

The truth is I very much dislike when someone tells me they thought a movie was, "OK." Come on, did you like it or not? Make up your mind! But, I've found that I must use that boring description for this particular movie. It was ok.

I enjoyed how all of the characters were introduced, particularly Maggie Smith. Maggie is a racist jerk-off, offensive and belligerent, and is forced by cost and time to get a hip replacement in India. Her development is interesting and feels organic enough till the end, when suddenly she's accepting and world-wise. I wouldn't say the other characters were bland, but they were definitely underplayed, and realistic in terms of how a real person would react to real world situations. That being said, there was only a few humorous moments, and only one or two really emotionally charged scenes. For instance, there was a very raw moment between Bill Nighy and Penelope Wilton that portrayed a side of marital dysfunction that you rarely see in films.

So if you usually enjoy understated British thingies, and aren't in the mood to be razzle-dazzled, I recommend this film to you. Also, you must have an interest in stories about getting old, otherwise you wont get past the first 10 minutes.

Dark Shadows: As Opposed to Light Shadows

There's nothing like a disappointing movie based on a silly outmoded soap opera.

But Tim Burton has done his darndest over the past decade to turn what could have been a cool movie into something that you wish you had waited to watch on Netflix. I remember when I saw Alice in Wonderland in theaters, and thought to myself something along the lines of... Guh. Over the top, except where it counts. Sure, Jonny Depp was interesting to watch. But ultimately it was a disappointing movie.

And now cometh Dark Shadows. The movie looked unique back when the previews came out, and I remember liking the mix of old world charm with 70's quirk. However, all those funny parts they shoved down your throat over and over, (like, "A woman doctor? What an age this is!") were all the parts in the movie that I might have enjoyed, had I not memorized them already.

Johnny Depp plays a vampire who is trying to pick up the pieces of the life he knew back 200 years ago. And yet, the very witch that put him in the ground continues to plague him with her unrequited and bitter love. To make the most of it, Johnny re-vamps (ah ha.. ah ha... hah...) the family business. Can he take care of his wacky descendants, fight off the witch's advances and come to terms with his evil curse?

Probably not. I've seen the movie, and I'm not even sure.

But there was some greatness, too. Michelle Pfeiffer with a shot gun, for instance, was quite awesome. Johnny Depp himself was very interesting to watch every time he came on the screen and purrrrred out his lines. I loved the Collinwood Mansion, it had a creepy, nautical old world feel to it that made me want to rent a room. And I also liked the ghost of Barnabus' long dead lover, she looked cool, even if the actress was horrible and easily dismissible.

All in all, I thought the movie was either too much, or not enough. For being based on a soap opera, they could have at least given someone a brain tumor or an evil twin.

Avengers: Thor and Lonely

Chaos! That's the word that comes to mind when I see this picture. Chaos, and awesome.

There's no other way to describe this hodgepodge of different super heroes, many of whom have already starred in their own features. In the case of the Hulk, he's had two films with different story lines, actors, directors, approaches, etc. There's Jon Favreau of Iron Man, versus Shakespearean master Kenneth Branagh who directed Thor. All these mixtures could have blended together poorly, leaving dregs of mush at the bottom of the glass and a bitter aftertaste in your mouth.

But it came out beautifully! The feel of each separate super hero movie was present, while not stamping out the importance of any of the other super heroes.

Another aspect that intrigued me was the lone wolf-ish quality to each of the individual heroes. Iron Man has daddy issues that keeps him from bonding with people, along with his intelligence and bank account that probably keeps him from feeling relatable. Captain America is lost in time, and doesn't recognize the world or people around him. The link between these two men stands in Tony Stark's father. At first I think Tony Stark despises Captain America for having been a friend of his father, whereas Tony never felt appreciated in his father's eyes. Captain America finds Tony Stark to be just as brazen and unlikable as his father was. But they can't ignore that link, and when they call each other out and start to work together, they are more similar then they originally thought. It seems like they need each other, just as the group needs the different approaches to leadership that each man takes.

Of course, Bruce Banner is lonely. What else is new.

And Thor? Well he's "thor" (Sore. Get it? Aha... haha... ha) about what went down in his first movie, between Loki and himself. Although he admits that Loki and him were never similar, and that his brother is a psychopath and adopted, Thor wants to help his brother by bringing him to justice. In so doing, he must ignore the woman that he knew for three days, kissed once, and apparently has been pining for, all evidence to the contrary. (Thor seems a little flat in this movie to me, like a walking plot device to keep things moving along.)

Black Widow and Hawk Eye have their own issues to sort out, I assume. But I don't care enough about them to wonder as to what those could be. Probably their dealings with espionage and killings have estranged them from the world as well as from themselves. Whatever, they were kind of boring.

I commend Joss Whedon! He did a great job in making an interesting and heartfelt movie. I was clutching my heart the entire time, both thrilled and nervous for what the scene laid out before me.

Iron Man 2: Villainous



Which villain is the hero?

This is what I like about Iron Man 2, especially for it being a sequel. Depending on how you watch the movie, you can argue the roles of the villain versus the hero. In many movies, to my great disapointment, you start out with a clear cut defenition as to who you must root for. Sure, you've got your anti-heroes who try so hard to be dark and selfish until unforseen circumstance #1 forces them to action. But they end up saving a cat, or getting sweet on the wayward female lead, so you HAVE to like them, according to marketing research.

But what about Tony Stark? He's a genius billionare who likes the ladies, and isn't afraid of a little self promotion. Possible alcoholic. Sarcastic and rude to his friends and co-workers. Really, he's just not the guy you want to root for, because he isn't the underdog. Not at first, in any case.

I'll tell you who does start out as the underdog, a certain Whiplash we all know and love. In most movies, if a character is introduced by way of weeping over his father's death, he is being set up to recieve your sympathy, and thence your trust. Poor Whiplash looks like he'd been caring for his ill father for some time, living in a rundown apartment, with a bottle of vodka and broken dreams. He should have been rich, he should be using his smarts for the betterment of mankind, but all that oppurtunity was taken away from him via Papa Stark. If it weren't for the Stark famliy, Whiplash would have been living the good life, and his father probably wouldn't have died from too much cheap vodka. (Because dying of good quality vodka is a much better alternative.)

Well, can you blame a guy for wanting revenge? Maybe, but other movies celebrate a good revenge driven rampage, and even root for the one doing it. Kill Bill, The Punisher, and Rocky 5, just to name a few.

The end of the movie shows us that Tony Stark could change for the better and appreciate those around him once he got a taste of death. This transformation is what makes a traditional hero, whereas Whiplash died still a bitter and stubborn crazy Russian man. And yet, I maintain that Whiplash is arguably a good candidate for a tragic hero type. Tragic because he died without fullfilling his quest, and hero because he tried his best to honor himself and his father, even if it meant becoming a bad guy.