Iron Man 2

Second films are usually either a bridge film between films one and three (“The Two Towers”) or, in rare cases, better than the original (“The Godfather II”). The biggest question this month is how does the biggest “middle film” of the summer – “Iron Man II” - fit between those two extremes?

The short answer is: in the middle.

The plot continues where the last one ended. Tony Stark informed the world he’s Iron Man, but he seems to be overstretched. His mental and physical health are failing, and he’s coping in true Stark fashion – not well. Iron Man is one of my favorite superheroes is that he is admittedly flawed and chased by demons. Not to get too bogged down, but one of the reasons that the film works is because it’s multi-leveled. It’s a battle of good vs evil, externally and internally.

The cast is great. The chemistry carries over for the first one and the new additions fold into the mix well. The replacing of Terrance Howard with Don Cheadle works to a certain extent, but doesn’t completely gel. I think had they not made Rhodey a much more stoic character it wouldn’t have worked at all. Mickey Rourke is a creepy catalyst, used as a combination of a walking talking special effect and a plot device. Scarlett is there primarily as eye candy, and of course succeeds.

One of the best highlights for me is the chemistry and dialogue between Downey and Paltrow. The dialogue is structured so that they often talk over each other and talk at the same time – just like the supercouples of the 40s (my favorite). Both actors have a great sense of comedic timing and the screenwriter (who also penned “Tropic Thunder”) knows how to bring it out.

There are a few minute things that were annoying, but those were only idiosyncrasies. For example, the door to Tony’s workshop is passcode accessible only, but apparently EVERY CHARACTER has the passcode. But even more frustrating was what I’ll call “Marvel product placement”, such as the lead ins to the other upcoming films in the Marvel Universe. I know that not only is this film part of a trilogy, but it’s also one in a bigger set of films, but some of this is just stupid. (If you’ve seen it, you know what I mean.) The filmmakers are also adding a teaser after the credits isn’t necessary. Everyone knows what the next films are – either come up with something better, or don’t bother to try.

All in all though, it was great to lose myself in something for over two hours. I
saw it NOT in IMAX, and not in my usual theater. I saw this film in a theater that I haven’t been in for about 15 years, and the film was still fantastic. That is the best testament to the film – I forgot the theatrical experience and just watched and enjoyed the film. Can’t wait for the next one.

Casting...When it Works...And When it Doesn't

For this week’s cinematic adventure, I went somewhere new and then visited an old friend.

First stop was Rob Marshall’s “Nine”. Two obvious reasons I didn’t see this in a theater – Daniel Day Lewis and Katie Hudson. One is enough to make me hide; two is beyond a bad sign. (Nic Cage completes my Cinematic Apocalyptic Trifecta) Other than the aforementioned abominations, the rest of the cast looked stellar: Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz and even Stacy Ferguson (aka Fergie).

“Nine” is loosely based on Fellini’s “8 ½”, which I admit I have not seen. I watched ten minutes and found it boring and pretentious. I felt similarly about “Nine”. I just didn’t see any direction. DDL plays a director about to shoot a movie, with no script and a severe case of writer’s block. He turns to his muses (some real, some not) for inspiration, only to acquire more anxiety and pressure. Each muse gets her own musical number.

I won’t go so far as to say that it was “Mama Mia”-esque bad, because all the actors actually can semi-sing. I felt that Cruz’s number was the best, as she worked the hardest. The best tune was Hudson’s, a dead ringer for her mom in her white go-go boots. Acting-wise, the award goes to Marion Cotillard – the long-suffering, tolerant wife. The weakest link was probably Nicole Kidman as the ex-wive. If you blink or don’t pause when you go to the rest room, you’ll miss her.

Marshall also did one of my favorite films – “Chicago”. I thought it was brilliant, and it’s the only film I’ve seen repeatedly in a theater. (I think I saw it seven times. I can still repeat dialogue and sing every lyric.) “Chicago” still had relevance, as it deals with the idea of celebrity and notoriety. I just didn’t feel that “Nine” had the same kind of hook – or perhaps I just don’t understand “Cinema Italiano”.

The other film this week was a classic – Frank Darabont’s “The Shawshank Redemption”. (#79 on the all-time classic list and # 21 on the modern classic list) This is a case where just about everything about a film works. Unlike the other Darabont-driven Stephen King adaptation “The Green Mile”, this film doesn’t need an all-star cast (or Tom Hanks, thank God). It showcases two of today’s most brilliant actors - Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman.

I’m sure you’ve seen this film, as most people have. It’s clear that the filmmakers tried to get every detail just right – and succeeded on all levels. Most importantly, it’s a faithful Stephen King adaptation. And trust me, I know my King. It’s my favorite adaptation of all his works, and it still can move me to tears. Plus, on the week of my birthday, it’s kinda nice to see that I’m not the only one who’s gotten older.

Film 142: Eve's Bayou

One of the things that people complain about is that there aren’t enough films that have an almost exclusively African-American cast. Really, the only dramas like that today are those made by Tyler Perry, and they are now far too repetitive for their own good. A film made almost fifteen years ago that met this criteria was “Eve’s Bayou”.

When I originally saw this film in 1997, I thought it was impressive. Boasting an all-star cast, this film promised to be a drama/mystery and I enjoyed it. I watched it again thirteen years later and I’ve decided that it’s as hot a mess as the Louisiana bayou for which it is named.

I can’t even tell the direction the filmmakers were taking. At times this film could have been shot in the 1950s (it’s actually set in the 60s), a true Douglas Sirk original, complete with swelling music. Other times it’s got a “Cotton Club” feel to it, an almost seductive quality. But unfortunately, there’s also another part that I can’t really identify that just doesn’t mesh with anything else.

I’m not even sure of the main plot. Is it about a family and its ultimate ruination? Is it about a steamy affair gone wrong? Is it the story of one little girl and the tragic consequences that she believes she caused? Or is it a total mishmash of everything? I’m afraid that it’s the latter.

But there are upsides to the film. The scenery is awesome, just seedy enough to make the main points. The cast is still impressive; it’s a venerable who’s who of Hollywood at that time. Even if the writing isn’t that strong, the cast can overcome those shortcomings. There really isn’t a role that Sam Jackson can’t play, and the philandering scoundrel of a doctor suits him well. Lynn Whitfield nails the part of the indulgent wife and mother.

Debbi Morgan is an odd mix of sister and witchdoctor; it is perhaps her performance that is the weakest of the adults. But the worst casting has to be that of the lead Jurnee Smollett as Eve. She has since grown into a wealth of TV roles, which is good because film just wasn’t her strong suit.

The director, Kasi Lemmons, has since gone on to make another movie with Jackson, “The Caveman’s Valentine”, which I haven’t seen. But I’m really jazzed to see it, either.

As far as one of the “100 Modern Films to See Before You Die” goes – trust me, you can skip this one.

London May Be Dreary, but the Film Surely Isn't!

I decided to skip this week’s previously scheduled film “Eve’s Bayou” for two very important reasons: First, I needed to get out of my head for a bit. Secondly, I needed an RDJ (that’s Robert Downey Junior for anyone not familiar with my ubiquitous acronyms) fix before “Iron Man 2”, this year’s birthday film. (You didn’t really think I was going to spend my Special Day cinematically with Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe’s “Robin Hood” aka the English Gladiator, did you?)

I sat down yesterday and ordered “Sherlock Holmes” from Comcast on Demand. For two hours, I had intelligent dialogue, my lovely dreary London, lots of action, one of two laughs, and of course RDJ. I also wanted to use British colloquialisms for the rest of the day, but that’s not really new.

I admit to being skeptical before the film’s release. Not about teaming Downey with Jude Law as Dr. Watson – that’s a stroke of genius. Giving Holmes a love interest (Rachel McAdams) didn’t quite seem right. But I hadn’t read the books so perhaps I was uninformed.

My biggest question was around the director – Guy Ritchie. It was obvious from the trailer that this film would make a mint, and the release right around Christmas would certainly add to the box office. But I’d only seen one of Ritchie’s films – “Rock N Rolla”, and to be honest, I bloody hated it.

I’m very glad that I gave this film a try. It’s an opening franchise film without being an origin film. Holmes is already established as a depraved, brilliant detective who almost runs Scotland Yard exuding confidence in his mind but has the emotional maturity of a gnat. Downey nails it all, in a Golden Globe nominated performance. Law is capital as the straight guy who often bears the brunt of Holmes’ shenanigans, and simply cannot leave him for the respectability of a wife and home of his own.

The main criticisms I offer of the film are that many of the externals shots are quite dark, although I also submit that my tele is not the cleanest in the world. My second criticism involves the fact that the inevitable sequel isn’t set up in the last ten minutes, but the last thirty. Personally, that’s a bit too long of a tease for my liking. But I’m more than willing to wait as Mr. Downey continues to juggle not one but two franchises (or perhaps three, if you consider “The Avengers” another, directed by Joss Whedon).

Here’s a side note to all the detractors skeptical about the “Iron Man 2” hype. I don’t often say this, but if you read the comics or at least research them, you know where this is all going. And for God’s sake, just sit back and watch the film without critiquing it along the way. Trust me you’ll enjoy it all the more. I sure did. And I will again. Must go now – “Eastenders” is calling. :)

Film 138: Sling Blade

Miramax Studios (the studio Tarentino built) used to be an Oscar powerhouse. They were usually good for at least one Best Picture nominee or win – from “Pulp Fiction”to “Shakesepeare in Love” to “The Cider House Rules” to 1996’s entry “Sling Blade”.

“Sling Blade” tells the story of Karl Childers, played by Billy Bob Thornton. Karl has recently been released from a mental hospital after several years’ incarceration for the death of his mother and her young lover.

Thorton wrote, directed and starred in the film. He’s never been as good since, and I don’t think he ever could. The film earned an Oscar for its screenplay, but unfortunately Thornton lost the Best Actor race to Geoffrey Rush for “Shine”.

“Sling Blade” is, in its own way, a comfort film for me. It’s a solid drama (my favorite) and a reminder of how good films can be. It layers itself slowly, event by event, giving the viewer hope and a sense that all will be well. When tragedy asserts itself again, it’s acceptable and even understandable.

The other great thing about “Sling Blade” is the supporting cast, some of whom are no longer with us. John Ritter does a great turn as Vaughan, the gay store manager who lives in the closet with a door that’s wide open. The other supporting role is JT Walsh as a fellow inmate in the hospital, who is the only person speaking for the first 10 minutes. Jim Jarmusch also does a cameo, which I didn’t realize until I saw the credits. And the young boy playing Frank, Lucas Black, is a force to behold. Since “Sling Blade” he has continued his career on the big and small screens.

I know that people have made fun of Thornton – people who don’t understand. Certainly Thornton himself is an odd person, and he’s had his tabloid appearances. But for someone to make this brilliant of a film, chiefly of his own design is nothing short of remarkable.

The other thing that stays with me about this film is its solidity. This story could have been made into a Lifetime movie, where society beats down the killer to force him to go back to the only mode of conduct that he knows. But the idea is respected and the material never panders down to that level.

It’s yet another example of the prevalent trend of making characters we should abhor understandable and likable. This continues through Tony Soprano, Dexter Morgan and now Walter White. We don’t love their actions, but we know they only want to do the right thing – even if that’s illegal or immoral. And we love them for it the whole way.

Has my opinion of “Sling Blade” changed? Nope. I reckon it was a great film the first time, and almost 15 years later, it still is. It’s just unfortunate that Miramax isn’t around anymore to showcase great films such as these.

Bad Lieutenant and How to Date a Film

Twenty plus years ago, David Lynch came up with a TV show called “Twin Peaks”. Ahead of its time, its run was short. It was one of the first big “mythology” shows that I watched faithfully. Unfortunately, I tried to re-watch the show about a year ago and found it to be dated and nonsensical. As a college student, I was proud of myself for figuring out the mystery and was extremely sad when it was cancelled. But as an adult, what was genius is now just moronic.

I thought the same thing while watching “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans”. Despite my Nicolas Cage hatred, I had an open mind. The film has an 80s grittiness to it, although it’s set in the recent past (I think). Cage is a police lieutenant who tried to do the right thing by saving a subject from drowning in the floods, and ends up being rewarded with permanent back pain. He naturally turns to drugs to deaden the pain – first starting with prescriptions and building it all up from there. He eventually spends more of his time high than straight. In the midst of this there is a murder investigation that he’s leading. But the murder is insignificant.

This is essentially a character study. And although the director shows you the underbelly of the society and tries to give you a stark contrast, he instead inserts random, nonsensical images in order to throw the viewer off, and to show the distortion of Cage’s perception. Eventually you aren’t really sure what’s happening when. Again, what could be genius to one person was just idiocy to me. I’ve already seen one film where Cage goes down a long and winding road into oblivion. I spent that one waiting for him to die so the movie would end. I guess you could say I was apathetic – primarily because this was a pathetic excuse for a crime drama. (*)

But the idea of something being dated stayed with me this week. What if the movies I’ve spent years ranting about really aren’t that bad? What if my perceptions have changed as I’ve gotten older? What if the ones that I think are great really aren’t? I know I’ll always have a soft spot in my heart for “The Fabulous Baker Boys” and “Xanadu”, but what about “The Matrix” and “Jurassic Park” and even “Forrest Gump”?

Yesterday as I pondered all this I clicked onto Yahoo and found two lists – one of classics from since 1999 and another full of classics of all time. These aren’t just award winning films – these are the “100 Films to See Before You Die”. So I’ve decided to give it a whirl. I make no commitments on how many to get through or when, but I’m going to work toward re-evaluating some films. If you’d like to come along, check in once in a while. I’ll be posting everything here.

Wish me luck!

PS - If you're interested in the lists themselves, you can find them here:
http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/100-movies-to-see-before-you-die-modern-classics.html

What to Watch when there's Nothing to Watch

April’s slate is pretty dead – both theatrically and on video. There’s simply not much there. I may see “Date Night”, but not at full theatrical prices and I can always rent an omitted Oscar nominee, but for right now I’m in a stalled pattern.
That makes me restless and hard to satisfy.

On Saturday, I went to see “Chloe” at my local Cineplex. After bemoaning increased ticket prices last week, I found out first showings have an “early bird” rate of 6.00. This won’t work at 10:00 AM, but isn’t bad at 1:30 PM. Upon arrival, I noticed their concession renovations are semi-completed. It’s now done cafeteria-style. Why anyone would pay 4.00 for a 20 oz coke eludes me, unless it’s to avoid the line amassing at the single fountain soda line. People mill about randomly, and I finally pay for my 3.50 soda, dodge the “Dragon” crowd and find my showing, hiding in the back.

How was the movie? Not great, but I should have known better. I went for the cast – Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson and the increasing interesting Amanda Seyfried. I knew the basic premise – infidelity or imagination? For the first third, I was entertained. I should have remembered the director, Atom Egoyan, specializes in films that “push the sexual envelope”. About one-third of the film is something from Cinemax, not Cineplex. Afterwards I felt like I had seen far too much of Julianne, and wanted a shower. The film was tired, and so was I.

A few days later, I tried to clean out my Netflix, which were gathering dust due to my increased work schedule. I watched “North by Northwest” – an undisputed masterpiece. Unfortunately, I felt disillusioned. Although it held my interest, and Cary Grant and Hitch can do no wrong, the dialogue is erratic and I already knew all the big surprises. The dialogue in the train is fantastic (I wish they would have had that blatant sublety in “Chloe”), but the political diatribe is just too dated. The framing is spectacular, the effects are dazzling for their time, but it just didn’t gel completely for me. Sorry.

So what do you watch if there’s nothing to see? I turn my attention to the one forum consistently delivering –television. My favorite show right now is “Breaking Bad”. If you are not currently watching this show, (you probably aren’t), you OWE it to yourself to get the first two seasons and then hurriedly catch up. Bryan Cranston’s back-to-back Emmy wins aren’t a fluke. The writing never ever disappoints, the cast is spectacular and for 40+ minutes, I am riveted.

There’s also “Damages” and the upcoming “Top Chef Masters” to watch. And there’s always my Nook. I’ve been reading “The Help” for far too long, savoring it until Spielberg kills the story by making the film. I can even treat myself to reading on my porch.

So even if there isn’t anything to see, there’s still EVERYTHING to do, if you know where to look - or Nook.