Stark shortcomings

** Iron Man 2 (2010)

I hate it when "not enough action" gets thrown into a discussion about movies. Hate it. It's probably the worst line of criticism and something a ten-year-old might say after watching The Godfather. And yet...

I really don't want to say it. Remember that sketch from Chappelle's Show that made Dave Chappelle quit the show? The one about resisting the urge to fall into your own stereotypes, even though you can't help it? That's how I'd feel if I said Iron Man 2 didn't have enough action. I'd feel like I'm falling prey to the studio execs' assessment of the general population's taste. Just another dumb American who wants his thrills for a 120 minutes, thereby adding his Hamilton to the 120 million dollar box-office weekend.

But I do want my thrills, as long as they come with the promise of quality (good story, writing - the fundamentals). And it's not to say that Iron Man 2 didn't come with quality, it's just that...well, I just didn't care. I didn't care whether Tony Stark was going through a personal crisis, or that he was being stalked by a psychotic Russian physicist (Mickey Rourke, the scariest looking physicist if I ever met one), or that he was being ousted by another weapons mogul (Sam Rockwell), or that he was still in ambiguous terms with his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Why didn't I care? I almost did, in the scene where Tony comes across an old reel that showed his late father, but moments like those were too few and far in between. The rest of the film had a little too much Rat Pack smarminess that didn't sit well like it did in the first Iron Man.

And all this affects the action. A great story will make the audience care about the action (i.e. Spider-Man 2, the gold standard for comic book movies) because they're emotionally invested. Iron Man 2 doesn't have a great story like it's predecessor and even though it's fun to watch, the action feels flat and there just isn't enough. Damn it all, I said it. If anyone needs me, I'll be at the test screening for Transformers 3...

More than just bowling...or is it?

**** The Big Lebowski (1998)

It's probably best not to read too much into The Big Lebowski. The biggest pleasure in this film (or at least for me, anyway) was watching the manic energy/chemistry/wackiness between the Dude (Jeff Bridges) and Walter (John Goodman) that left me wondering how they got through each take without cracking up every time. Never mind the craft (pitch perfect in terms of delivery and timing) and let me be honest for a minute - by the end of the movie, I was laughing my ass off. Alone. In the middle of the night.

I wish I had more thoughtful things to write about the movie but because it's such an acid trip of a film (and partly because my brain is so fried from watching it) I feel it's best, at least for now, to prevent myself from dissecting it so as to not egregiously offend anyone who belongs to the church of Lebowski. Is it a satirical statement about the not-so-perceptive warmonger/pacifist debates in post-Gulf War society? A subtle send-up of noir and Westerns in Ken Kesey-esque fashion? Maybe. Probably. I don't know and, to some degree, I don't care to know. I know The Big Lebowski was written by smart people (the Coens brothers, for Hay-Zeus' sake), acted in by smart people and, in it's own inane way, it's a very smart film. But I'm not going to be pretentious and say that I enjoyed it for all the smart reasons. I enjoyed the goofy parts dammit, especially the part with a Folger's can taking the place of a cremation urn (hence the laughing alone in the middle of the night).

I'm not even going to bother writing a synopsis of the labyrinthine plot and just say that it involves mistaken identity, kidnapping, nihilists, postmodern pseudo-artists, seedy pornographers and bowling. Lots and lots of bowling. If you don't like The Big Lebowski, it's because it's either too above or beneath you, but it definitely can't be anywhere in between.