With this online art community, we have a unique opportunity to connect with our kindred. We must avail ourselves of this experience, for it may never come again.

All righty, then...

I don't see a lotta movies in a given year, at least not in the theaters. I tend to yearn for the event films, the ones that remind me of the best cinematic spectacles of my youth. And so, I prefer to wait for the big escapist fare. But I also find that I'm a "tough crowd," and a skepti-cynic. I'm jaded by the endless parade of digitally-overdependent McMovies that are hopelessly deficient in the story department. I'm not one to switch my brain off for the sake of entertainment. I can't see myself shuffling through a long queue of theater-goers, leaving my name-labeled brain in a communal water tank outside so I can cheer, clap, and salivate at the screen images like a George Luca$ ZombieGeek.

Not me, pal. As pricey as the experience has become, they gotta come strong to get my love. Tighten up that storyline, nail down those performances, polish up those special effects, and make that music SING! LOL! And never, ever pander. Only then might we have a classic on our hands.... maybe.

So! First up, without any spoilers...

- SPEED RACER

Well... Adapting cartoons is just as tricky as anything else, really. But added to this is finding a point for adapting it in the first place. Why make a live-action film out of an animated property??? Animation inherently has the advantage over live-action, allowing a storyteller to do things with characters and situations that real people can never do. Additionally, audiences are more receptive to suspending their disbelief with animation, and there's an innate charm in this connection. Nevertheless, the dubious trend to translate cartoons to live-action continues (The Flintstones. Sccoby-Doo. UnderDog. ...UnderDog???!!!)

The challenge for the filmmaker is whether to properly filter the animated property, taking full advantage of whatever the live-action format affords, or to remain slavishly faithful. So far, in my opinion, being slavishly faithful has yielded very mixed results. Robin Williams as POPEYE was an ambitious failure that chiefly succeeded in re-asking the question-- Why?
But you run the risk of alienating the target audience, kids, as well as the built-in audience, the loyal fanbase, if you deviate too much from the familiar material. Darned if ya do, and darned if ya don't.

Personally, I think it's a pointless exercise, other than pure commercialism. True, a filmmaker may be a fan, too, and the cartoon translation may be a love letter to a fond childhood friend. The cross-pollination of the various formats certainly makes for an interesting footnote in the annals of pop culture history.

I'll just say that SPEED RACER is a fine flick for younger kids with A.D.D., saturated with candy-colors and zippy action that adheres to a physical logic all its own. And the nostalgia buffs that dearly loved the old cartoon show will find something here to embrace as well, just as the Wachowski Brothers apparently did.
Go, Speed Racer, go.

Next...

- IRON MAN

BIG hype for this one.
Meh.

It was okay. I give it a mild "thumbs up," mainly on the strength of Downey's performance, which was as exceptional as expected. But there weren't really any overwhelming "geek-out" goosebump moments for me. I wasn't injured or insulted by it. But I also didn't feel as if I could fly out of the theater, as I have with other films of this superhero genre.

A single screening, and wait for DVD. But, of course, your mileage may vary.

***ADDENDUM***

SEMI-SPOILER! Only close one eye. LOL!

-- Umm... I WILL say that I find it a bit irksome that a cliché has developed with these big-budget superhero-fests from Hollywood. Invariably, the derring do-gooder has some climactic scene whereby his mask/cowl/helmet is ripped off, shredded, or jettisoned, revealing his "secret" identity, if only to the ill-fated baddie, the loyal buddy, or the fawning lovey. It's now a habitual convention.

Do you think this is the filmmaker's way of upping the tension, having our hero exposed and vulnerable? A cool story point?

Or is it merely a clever device that sacrifices the mystique of the super-dude, but extends the illusion that the over-priced actor is indeed inside the costume? Obviously, we don't buy for an instant that this is always true, with the utilization of stuntmen, body doubles, and still-flimsy digital trickery. But is this an effort to justify a bloated salary with more face-time? I can see how this may be necessitated with characters that have their mugs totally obscured, like Spidey and Iron Man. And an actor acts best with his/her peepers properly peeled. But even Batman and Zorro have done this.

Thoughts?

- To Be Continued...