Friday, May 02, 2008
Proven Metal
Iron Man is easily in the Top Five of the recent superhero film explosion -- up there with the first Spider-Man, Batman Begins and either of the first two X-Men features.
Robert Downey Jr. was meant to play Tony Stark, in the same way Hugh Jackman was meant to be Wolverine and Patrick Stewart was meant to be Professor X. The casting is perfect. And that's not even referencing the substance problems the real-life Downey and the fictional Stark have experienced.
The origin is appropriately updated, but remarkably faithful to the original. Stark is wounded in Afghanistan instead of Vietnam.
Some conservatives will undoubtedly dislike the bias against weapons-makers, but overall this movie is more pro-business than most films. Stark is almost as arrogant and intense at the end of the movie as he is at the beginning.
Jeff Bridges makes for a great mentor/foil in Obadiah Stane (fans of the comic book will realize the implications of Stane's role early on). Gwyneth Paltrow is a nice Pepper Potts, but doesn't exactly stand out in any significant way.
This movie is more like Batman Begins in that Downey (like Christian Bale in BB) really drives the movie. Unlike any of the other movies, when the major foe appears, he doesn't take over the film in the way Magneto, the Joker and the Green Goblin have done in other comic book flicks. Tony Stark is front-and-center for almos the entire picture.
The other thing I liked about this movie is that, while the special effects were excellent, director Jon Favreau (who also plays chaffeur Happy Hogan) never let the CGI overwhelm the film and turn it into a Playstation game.
Best line: "I had to do a piece for Vanity Fair." (You'll realize why the line is so good when you hear it.)
This summer may set a record for comic-book related films (The Incredible Hulk, The Dark Knight, Hellboy, The Spirit, etc.). Iron Man has set the bar high from the start.
Oh, and for the fanboys out there -- stick around through the (very) lengthy credits. You'll be glad you did (particularly those who are readers of contemporary Marvel Comics).
|
Robert Downey Jr. was meant to play Tony Stark, in the same way Hugh Jackman was meant to be Wolverine and Patrick Stewart was meant to be Professor X. The casting is perfect. And that's not even referencing the substance problems the real-life Downey and the fictional Stark have experienced.
The origin is appropriately updated, but remarkably faithful to the original. Stark is wounded in Afghanistan instead of Vietnam.
Some conservatives will undoubtedly dislike the bias against weapons-makers, but overall this movie is more pro-business than most films. Stark is almost as arrogant and intense at the end of the movie as he is at the beginning.
Jeff Bridges makes for a great mentor/foil in Obadiah Stane (fans of the comic book will realize the implications of Stane's role early on). Gwyneth Paltrow is a nice Pepper Potts, but doesn't exactly stand out in any significant way.
This movie is more like Batman Begins in that Downey (like Christian Bale in BB) really drives the movie. Unlike any of the other movies, when the major foe appears, he doesn't take over the film in the way Magneto, the Joker and the Green Goblin have done in other comic book flicks. Tony Stark is front-and-center for almos the entire picture.
The other thing I liked about this movie is that, while the special effects were excellent, director Jon Favreau (who also plays chaffeur Happy Hogan) never let the CGI overwhelm the film and turn it into a Playstation game.
Best line: "I had to do a piece for Vanity Fair." (You'll realize why the line is so good when you hear it.)
This summer may set a record for comic-book related films (The Incredible Hulk, The Dark Knight, Hellboy, The Spirit, etc.). Iron Man has set the bar high from the start.
Oh, and for the fanboys out there -- stick around through the (very) lengthy credits. You'll be glad you did (particularly those who are readers of contemporary Marvel Comics).
Labels: Comic Books, Iron Man, movies
Friday, May 04, 2007
Oh What A Tangled Web
Spider-Man 3: Fanboy dream -- or nightmare?
On the surface, it should be the former as its packed with far more action than the first film. Given all the soldout midnight performance around New York Thursday night/Friday morning, the flick should easily hit the $120 mil Spidey 1 took in in its first weekend.
On the other hand, a young man exiting the theatre where I saw it may have delivered what could be an early epitaph. Responding to his buddy's, "So whadidya think?" the guy said, "I saw Love, Actually over the weekend. I didn't need to see it again." Ouch!
Another viewer was overheard saying, "I really wanted to like it. I guess I still do, but I'm afraid I'm gonna wake up tomorrow ticked off that I didn't get to bed until 4:30. " Ouch again.
I sympathize with these reactions: Three was the both the magic number and the unlucky number for this movie: Three super-villains (including an alien symbiote), three overlapping romantic triangles, major psycho-drama including fatherhood and parenting issues (one of the supervillians turns out to be a bad father -- don't you just hate that?) plus enough plot to fill three comic-book movies may just simply be too much. At 140 mins., it becomes something of an endurance test (consider yourself lucky -- the third Pirates of the Caribbean is supposedly nearly three hours).
Creatively, I have the same criticism here that I've had in other Marvel-related films: There's this annoying trend of grafting the origin of the villain onto that of the hero. That was the biggest flaw in the first Fantastic Four movie -- putting Doctor Doom on the rocketship w/the would-be FF.
That happens here with the revised origin of The Sandman -- he's now the actual triggerman who killed Peter's Uncle Ben. The resolution to his story is beyond unsatisfying; it is infuriating and borderline offensive in its moral equivalence. I'll discuss more of that after the weekend when more people have had a chance to see the film. I don't want to give too many spoilers here.
James Franco as Harry (Goblin II) Osborne is the real standout in this edition. There's a real arc to his character and you're truly made to care about him -- even when he's at his most evil -- which interestingly, occurs in a scene when he's not in his Goblin outfit. Franco also manages to carry himself in such a way that he physically looks like he is related to WilliamHurt DaFoe (who played Norman "Green Goblin" Osborne).
The movie could have been tighter and better without pushing Venom (played here by Topher Grace) into it. It was just too much. Indeed, without Venom, the writers might have come up with a more plausible conclusion to The Sandman arc. And, yes, it would have been possible to have introduced the black suit/symbiote without going all-Venom. Heck, they've managed to mention/use Doctor Connors in all three movies without turning him into what he becomes in the comics, The Lizard, right? Sometimes less actually is more.
Tobey Maguire looks like he's having fun when he gets to show off his dark, symbiote-influenced side. The extended scene where he is under the symbiote suit's influence is quite disturbing even as it is initially played for laughs. Kirsten Dunst is good as usual as Mary Jane Watson though she gets to offer only two emotional extremes: depressed/angry (at Peter) and threatened/endangered by the villain of the moment. The tender and sweet Mary Jane we saw in the first two films is hardly seen here. And that may reflect the main problem of the movie. The first two parts of the Spider franchise (especially the very first) had a good balance between action/adventure and emotional content that avoided being maudlin. This time around, the emotional content became unconvincing soap opera (thus the Love, Actually comment).
Bryce Dallas Howard is completely unbelievable and irrelevant as Gwen Stacy, a likely rival for Peter's attentions. The Gwen of the comics was vivacious in a completely different way from Mary Jane -- and one could see how Peter could be attracted to both. Not with this Gwen. She could just as easily been Miss Blonde X.
On the other hand, James Cromwell was born to play Stacy police chief dad (but, then again, is there a cop who James Cromwell was not born to play -- when he's not playing creepy turncoats on 24 and L.A. Confidential?).
Anyway, that's it. Alas, Spider-Man 3 comes to me as a disappointment -- too long and too convoluted, though with a couple of good performances and plentiful special effects. It should make well over $200 milliion in the first 10 days or so. Will it make back its reported $350 million? Now, that's an interesting question.
On Monday, I'll address the Sandman arc conclusion that I found so appalling.
UPDATE: Corrected to reflect the proper name of the actor William who played the Green Goblin. This will teach me not to write reviews at 4 a.m.
|
On the surface, it should be the former as its packed with far more action than the first film. Given all the soldout midnight performance around New York Thursday night/Friday morning, the flick should easily hit the $120 mil Spidey 1 took in in its first weekend.
On the other hand, a young man exiting the theatre where I saw it may have delivered what could be an early epitaph. Responding to his buddy's, "So whadidya think?" the guy said, "I saw Love, Actually over the weekend. I didn't need to see it again." Ouch!
Another viewer was overheard saying, "I really wanted to like it. I guess I still do, but I'm afraid I'm gonna wake up tomorrow ticked off that I didn't get to bed until 4:30. " Ouch again.
I sympathize with these reactions: Three was the both the magic number and the unlucky number for this movie: Three super-villains (including an alien symbiote), three overlapping romantic triangles, major psycho-drama including fatherhood and parenting issues (one of the supervillians turns out to be a bad father -- don't you just hate that?) plus enough plot to fill three comic-book movies may just simply be too much. At 140 mins., it becomes something of an endurance test (consider yourself lucky -- the third Pirates of the Caribbean is supposedly nearly three hours).
Creatively, I have the same criticism here that I've had in other Marvel-related films: There's this annoying trend of grafting the origin of the villain onto that of the hero. That was the biggest flaw in the first Fantastic Four movie -- putting Doctor Doom on the rocketship w/the would-be FF.
That happens here with the revised origin of The Sandman -- he's now the actual triggerman who killed Peter's Uncle Ben. The resolution to his story is beyond unsatisfying; it is infuriating and borderline offensive in its moral equivalence. I'll discuss more of that after the weekend when more people have had a chance to see the film. I don't want to give too many spoilers here.
James Franco as Harry (Goblin II) Osborne is the real standout in this edition. There's a real arc to his character and you're truly made to care about him -- even when he's at his most evil -- which interestingly, occurs in a scene when he's not in his Goblin outfit. Franco also manages to carry himself in such a way that he physically looks like he is related to William
The movie could have been tighter and better without pushing Venom (played here by Topher Grace) into it. It was just too much. Indeed, without Venom, the writers might have come up with a more plausible conclusion to The Sandman arc. And, yes, it would have been possible to have introduced the black suit/symbiote without going all-Venom. Heck, they've managed to mention/use Doctor Connors in all three movies without turning him into what he becomes in the comics, The Lizard, right? Sometimes less actually is more.
Tobey Maguire looks like he's having fun when he gets to show off his dark, symbiote-influenced side. The extended scene where he is under the symbiote suit's influence is quite disturbing even as it is initially played for laughs. Kirsten Dunst is good as usual as Mary Jane Watson though she gets to offer only two emotional extremes: depressed/angry (at Peter) and threatened/endangered by the villain of the moment. The tender and sweet Mary Jane we saw in the first two films is hardly seen here. And that may reflect the main problem of the movie. The first two parts of the Spider franchise (especially the very first) had a good balance between action/adventure and emotional content that avoided being maudlin. This time around, the emotional content became unconvincing soap opera (thus the Love, Actually comment).
Bryce Dallas Howard is completely unbelievable and irrelevant as Gwen Stacy, a likely rival for Peter's attentions. The Gwen of the comics was vivacious in a completely different way from Mary Jane -- and one could see how Peter could be attracted to both. Not with this Gwen. She could just as easily been Miss Blonde X.
On the other hand, James Cromwell was born to play Stacy police chief dad (but, then again, is there a cop who James Cromwell was not born to play -- when he's not playing creepy turncoats on 24 and L.A. Confidential?).
Anyway, that's it. Alas, Spider-Man 3 comes to me as a disappointment -- too long and too convoluted, though with a couple of good performances and plentiful special effects. It should make well over $200 milliion in the first 10 days or so. Will it make back its reported $350 million? Now, that's an interesting question.
On Monday, I'll address the Sandman arc conclusion that I found so appalling.
UPDATE: Corrected to reflect the proper name of the actor William who played the Green Goblin. This will teach me not to write reviews at 4 a.m.
Labels: Comic Books, movies, Spider-Man 3, Superheroes
Monday, March 19, 2007
Getting A Spartan Chance
On the basis of a late-evening Friday show, I helped keep 300 at the top of the box-office this weekend.
I generally liked it -- though it seems more akin in spirit to, say, The Lord of the Rings, than a true adaptation of an actual historical event. The various CGI-enhanced creatures that the Persians bring out to battle the Spartan fighter seem more cast from mythology and creator Frank Miller's comic-book roots than from reality. And, like great comics and classic films, there is a a black and white depiction of who the good guys are and who are the bad guys.
Still, the strong total embrace of the movie by conservatives, is mildly surprising.
Actually, in a sense it is not: Conservatives who are embracing the "values" of 300, are those who would rather elevate the "defense" and non-PC aspect of conservatism -- arguably, to the detriment of other parts of a contemporary conservative message:
The narrator casually explains that Spartan baby boys are examined to see if they are healthy. Those that are not -- or are deemed weak or too sickly -- are, well, discarded. As in, tossed and left to die.
Call it complete post-birth abortion.
Furthermore, the film, arguably justifies this by -- another SPOILER COMING UP -- a plot point that turns one of the few survivors of this quaint cultural practice, ugly hunchback, into a traitor. Ephialtes betrays the Spartans by throwing in with Xerxes (after being told by Spartan King Leonidas that he is of too low a stature to be of help his fellow Greeks on the battlefield). So, there's a lesson for a "proper" military culture: Kill the weak and sickly -- lest they help destroy the best in your society.
That may be (in certain circumstances) an important message to be heard -- but it is by no means a conventionally "conservative", which is to say, a "pro-life" one.
|
I generally liked it -- though it seems more akin in spirit to, say, The Lord of the Rings, than a true adaptation of an actual historical event. The various CGI-enhanced creatures that the Persians bring out to battle the Spartan fighter seem more cast from mythology and creator Frank Miller's comic-book roots than from reality. And, like great comics and classic films, there is a a black and white depiction of who the good guys are and who are the bad guys.
Still, the strong total embrace of the movie by conservatives, is mildly surprising.
Actually, in a sense it is not: Conservatives who are embracing the "values" of 300, are those who would rather elevate the "defense" and non-PC aspect of conservatism -- arguably, to the detriment of other parts of a contemporary conservative message:
Help me out here, because I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around a few things: When, early in the film, a sneering Persian emissary insults King Leonidas’s hot wife, threatens the kingdom, and rages about “blasphemy,” the king kicks him down a bottomless well. And yet nobody in Sparta asks, “Why do they hate us?” and seeks to find common ground with the Persians on their doorstep. Why not?However, the very first statement heard in 300 are words that should disturb other more conventional conservatives. Forgive the SPOILERS that will come with this making this observation.
The Spartans mock the god-king Xerxes (whose traveling throne resembles a particularly louche Brazilian gay-pride carnival float), mow down his armored “immortal” holy warriors clad is nothing but red cloaks, loincloths, and sandals, and generally give their last full measure to defend Greek civilization against superstition and tyranny. Where are the liberal Spartan voices raised in protest against this blatant homophobia, xenophobia, and racism?
The only way this bunch of refugees from a Village People show can whup our heroes is by dangling some dubious hookers in front of a horny hunchback who makes Quasimodo look like Tom Cruise, and by bribing a corrupt legislator to tie up reinforcements with various legalistic maneuvers. When the queen finally kills the councilor, the others call him a “traitor.” Isn’t that both blaming the victim and questioning his patriotism?
You’d think 300 was a metaphor for something…
I heard the other day that one of the creators of this film is… yes, a closet conservative. And now he, whoever he is, is a rich closet conservative.
The narrator casually explains that Spartan baby boys are examined to see if they are healthy. Those that are not -- or are deemed weak or too sickly -- are, well, discarded. As in, tossed and left to die.
Call it complete post-birth abortion.
Furthermore, the film, arguably justifies this by -- another SPOILER COMING UP -- a plot point that turns one of the few survivors of this quaint cultural practice, ugly hunchback, into a traitor. Ephialtes betrays the Spartans by throwing in with Xerxes (after being told by Spartan King Leonidas that he is of too low a stature to be of help his fellow Greeks on the battlefield). So, there's a lesson for a "proper" military culture: Kill the weak and sickly -- lest they help destroy the best in your society.
That may be (in certain circumstances) an important message to be heard -- but it is by no means a conventionally "conservative", which is to say, a "pro-life" one.
Labels: Comic Books, conservatives, movies
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Miller Millions
The fanboy-approved comics/celluloid/CGC marriage continues in a huge way.
This is the second comic-related movie in three weeks to survive so-so reviews to rule the box-office. Previously, Marvel's Ghost Rider with Nicholas Cage opened with $44.5 million.
And we're less than two months away from Spider-Man 3 -- and a little more than three from The Rise of The Silver Surfer. This looks to be a good year.
300 creator Frank Miller talks about his craft and the difference between working in comics and working in Hollywood. Good interview (thanks to ERA for the heads-up).
|
This is the second comic-related movie in three weeks to survive so-so reviews to rule the box-office. Previously, Marvel's Ghost Rider with Nicholas Cage opened with $44.5 million.
And we're less than two months away from Spider-Man 3 -- and a little more than three from The Rise of The Silver Surfer. This looks to be a good year.
300 creator Frank Miller talks about his craft and the difference between working in comics and working in Hollywood. Good interview (thanks to ERA for the heads-up).
Labels: comics, Frank Miller, movies
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Oscar Blogging
UPDATE IV: Okay, so, it wasn't the mini-sweep for Pan's Labryinth that it seemed early on. Pan was upset for Best Foreign Film by the German entry, The Lives of Others. Meanwhile, the Academy's continued dissing of Dreamgirls (excepting Best Supporting Actress, Jennifer Hudson -- who did right by giving a shout to predecessor Jennifer Holliday who originated her role in the Broadway version) continued: Melissa Etheridge beat out three different entries from the faux Motown musical to win with her An Inconvenient Truth theme, "I Need To Wake Up." As an aside, I will admit to having a soft spot for Etheridge for some time, back to when she was just an all-out rock and roller. Given that she recovered from cancer over the last year (her showing up with a shaved head from chemotherapy at last year's Grammy Awards was a highlight) and that she had a song -- and person (Al Gore) -- that it was only too obvious that the Academy wanted to reward, her win shouldn't be considered that much of a surprise.
Speaking of Gore, the schtick between the former VP and Leonardo DiCaprio was saved from being completely interminable by the gag at the end where going-on-too-long music played just as Gore was began to make a "major announcement."
Forest Whitaker gave a splendid acceptance speech for The Last King Of Scotland that was equal parts spiritual, philosophical and genuine -- very classy. Exactly how did a movie like Fast Times At Ridgemont High manage to "graduate" both Sean Penn and Whitaker?
And, a little under four hours, Martin Scorsese finally won his elusive Best Director Oscar -- delivered by Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola (with an all-star group like that presenting, how could they not give it to Scorsese?). So what if The Departed was his least-deserving picture? The Academy has a history of these "make-up" awards. Denzel Washington should probably have won for either Malcolm X or The Hurricane; instead he got the Best Actor for Training Day. And, the year Washington was beaten out for Malcolm X, it was because the Academy had to give it to Al Pacino for Scent Of A Woman -- when he should have gotten it for, say, The Godfather, Pt II.
Finally, a word about Ellen DeGeneres: As mentioned before, her monologue wasn't hilarious, but her "crowd work" was great. Trying to get Scorsese to "read" a script she was pushing was funny. Even better was her "directing" Spielberg to take a digital camera picture of her and Clint Eastwood. DeGeneres clearly enjoyed being there and had a great interaction with everyone in the audience.
UPDATE III: Alan Arkin wins first big award of night -- Best Supporting Actor for Little Miss Sunshine. Pre-Oscar favorite Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls) probably can thank Norbit for costing him the Oscar. The comedy brought in a lot of money in its opening week, but it was so poorly received critically, such a gross throwback to "old" Eddie Murphy and so damn ubiquitously advertised during the voting period, that there was no way the Academy could give him an award this year.
UPDATE II: Pan's Labyrinth, an avante-garde fantasy flick from Mexico wins both technical categories in which it was nominated. Expect it to win Best Foreign Film.
Best line in Ellen DeGeneres monologue (political content aside): "Jennifer Hudson -- on American Idol, America didn't vote for you, but you're nominated for an Oscar. Al Gore -- America DID vote for you, and you're also nominated for..."
Very funny (though the rest of her monologue was "cute", there were no knee-slapping lines).
|
Speaking of Gore, the schtick between the former VP and Leonardo DiCaprio was saved from being completely interminable by the gag at the end where going-on-too-long music played just as Gore was began to make a "major announcement."
Forest Whitaker gave a splendid acceptance speech for The Last King Of Scotland that was equal parts spiritual, philosophical and genuine -- very classy. Exactly how did a movie like Fast Times At Ridgemont High manage to "graduate" both Sean Penn and Whitaker?
And, a little under four hours, Martin Scorsese finally won his elusive Best Director Oscar -- delivered by Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola (with an all-star group like that presenting, how could they not give it to Scorsese?). So what if The Departed was his least-deserving picture? The Academy has a history of these "make-up" awards. Denzel Washington should probably have won for either Malcolm X or The Hurricane; instead he got the Best Actor for Training Day. And, the year Washington was beaten out for Malcolm X, it was because the Academy had to give it to Al Pacino for Scent Of A Woman -- when he should have gotten it for, say, The Godfather, Pt II.
Finally, a word about Ellen DeGeneres: As mentioned before, her monologue wasn't hilarious, but her "crowd work" was great. Trying to get Scorsese to "read" a script she was pushing was funny. Even better was her "directing" Spielberg to take a digital camera picture of her and Clint Eastwood. DeGeneres clearly enjoyed being there and had a great interaction with everyone in the audience.
UPDATE III: Alan Arkin wins first big award of night -- Best Supporting Actor for Little Miss Sunshine. Pre-Oscar favorite Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls) probably can thank Norbit for costing him the Oscar. The comedy brought in a lot of money in its opening week, but it was so poorly received critically, such a gross throwback to "old" Eddie Murphy and so damn ubiquitously advertised during the voting period, that there was no way the Academy could give him an award this year.
UPDATE II: Pan's Labyrinth, an avante-garde fantasy flick from Mexico wins both technical categories in which it was nominated. Expect it to win Best Foreign Film.
Best line in Ellen DeGeneres monologue (political content aside): "Jennifer Hudson -- on American Idol, America didn't vote for you, but you're nominated for an Oscar. Al Gore -- America DID vote for you, and you're also nominated for..."
Very funny (though the rest of her monologue was "cute", there were no knee-slapping lines).
Labels: Academy Awards, Al Gore, Ellen DeGeneres, Forest Whitaker, Jennifer Hudson, movies, Oscars
Friday, February 23, 2007
And The Oscar Goes To...
Who knows?
But, once again, before Sunday's big night, check out The Felixes to put the Academy Awards in their proper perspective!
Don't be surprised if Little Miss Sunshine pulls off a few surprises.
|
But, once again, before Sunday's big night, check out The Felixes to put the Academy Awards in their proper perspective!
Don't be surprised if Little Miss Sunshine pulls off a few surprises.
Labels: movies, Oscars, The Felixes
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Walking On "Sunshine"
OK, watched Little Miss Sunshine tonight. It's nominated for Best Picture. Given the perversities of Hollywood, it could win. It's a weird cross-genre movie -- part family flick, part road trip, with a twist at the end that had me roaring with laughter for five minutes.
It's not for everyone, but it is a well-made, crazy film with some fine performances. Abigail Breslin is deserving of her Supporting Actress nomination.
|
It's not for everyone, but it is a well-made, crazy film with some fine performances. Abigail Breslin is deserving of her Supporting Actress nomination.
Labels: Little Miss Sunshine, movies, Oscars
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Everything You Really Need To Know About The Oscars...
...can be found at The Felixes!!
Any occasional stylistic similarities to the humor of a certain blogger are, um, purely coincidental!
|
Any occasional stylistic similarities to the humor of a certain blogger are, um, purely coincidental!
Labels: Academy Awards, movies, Oscars, The Felixes
