Marvel Studios started as a novel concept. Headed by Kevin Feige, the group was asked to take control of Marvel’s own comic-to-big-screen incarnations and make them more faithful to their source material, as well as develop continuity between their projects.

It’s the kind of criss-cross universe comparable to that of their comics that made geeks salivate at the mouth. They even started off pretty well. “Iron Man” had an inspired bit of casting in Robert Downey Jr. and ended up making $318.4 million domestically. They even threw in a cameo of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury! Genius, I say.

Next came the more mediocre “The Incredible Hulk” which barely managed to top its Eric Bana-starring previous incarnation at the box office. But the films successfully began Marvel’s path to the upcoming “Avengers.” There were even rumors that “Hulk” star Edward Norton was so passionate about the character that he took on uncredited roles as both a producer and a screenwriter. He certainly wanted in on “Avengers.”

The company looked like it was different from the ignorant studios that seem to own Hollywood. They were giving fans what they wanted by hiring quality filmmakers and showing a dedication to the quality of their own projects–a live-action Pixar, if you will.

But the studio truly hadn’t been put to the test yet. Their next film was “Iron Man 2,” and it was a clunker if there ever was one. I mean, how do you mess up a film when you have Downey Jr., Jackson, Sam Rockwell and Mickey frickin’ Rourke!? Well, they managed to do it, alright. Audiences expecting the same smarts and energy as the first installment experienced shoddy storytelling, a plot that was not clearly fleshed out, and montages such as Tony Stark shooting lasers around a room and suddenly discovering a new atom… seriously?

What about the dark, alcoholic Tony Stark fans love from the comics? Why were actors like Rockwell and Rourke literally wasted, only performing in scenes necessary to move the plot forward but not to flesh out character? I mean, no one’s going to disagree that they are both excellent character actors.

(more…)

Director Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” is aging as badly as the Aussie-fied mullet Robert Downey Jr. sports in the 1994 media satire.

Loud, brash and in your face, this collage of film stocks, styles and sensibilities made some critics squeal with delight during its 1994 release. Call that a chance to hop on the hip bandwagon, but looking back it’s clear “Killers” marked the start of Stone’s slow slide toward mediocrity.

“Killers” follows the infamous Mickey and Mallory (Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis) as they morph from amoral killers to media darlings. The two start out as lovebirds eager to taunt and terrorize the innocent, always leaving one person alive to spread their legend. They aren’t the most well thought out criminals, and before long they’re behind bars for their atrocities.

Even violent criminals can pick up celebrity cache if they play the media just right.

(more…)

“The Social Network’s” David Fincher is as plugged into our technological times as any director working today.

Who else could turn the dawn of Facebook into a crackling drama worth a second and third look?

But with the 2007 film “Zodiac,” based on the non-fiction book of the same name by Robert Graysmith, Fincher dials down the technology to tell the kind of murder mystery too often ignored by today’s storytellers.

Fincher’s trio of tonally disparate leads transform a potentially leaden narrative into one of 2007’s finest efforts. What a shame the film’s box office haul didn’t measure up to its excellence.

(more…)

Never mind the tweed jackets, bowler hats and turn of the century accouterments. The “Sherlock Holmes” franchise is all about the bromance between Sherlock Holmes and his faithful sidekick, Watson.

In “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” said bromance blooms in new directions. Holmes dresses up like a lady to stay in disguise while the two pals even share a dance late in the film.

But what makes “Shadows” more than merely a “count the receipts” sequel is the addition of Moriarity, Holmes’ cerebral arch-enemy. Holmes demands an enemy equal to his intellectual gifts, and actor Jared Harris makes sure the new cinematic Moriarity more than fits that bill.

(more…)

In 1893, having wearied of his most famous creation, Arthur Conan Doyle sent Sherlock Holmes tumbling off a Swiss mountain ledge to his death in the foaming Reichenbach Falls, still locked in battle with his nemesis, Professor James Moriarty, “the Napoleon of crime.” Holmes stayed dead for eight years. But then …

Well, I don’t want to suggest the non-possibility that director Guy Ritchie has no sequel up his sleeve to follow “A Game of Shadows,” his second neo-Holmes movie. This new one retains some of the virtues of the first—mainly the irrepressible Robert Downey Jr. in the title role; amiable Jude Law as his prickly colleague, Dr. Watson; and Sarah Greenwood’s plush Victorian production design.

But it also continues, and compounds, the shortcomings of that earlier film, chiefly the edited-to-death incoherence of Ritchie’s action scenes, with their tedious slo-mo trappings and kung-fu anachronisms, and his complete indifference to the elegant charm of Conan Doyle’s famous “consulting detective.” I mean, Sherlock Holmes in drag? Please.

While Conan Doyle did bring Moriarty out of the shadows in “The Final Problem” — the Holmes story to which this movie is largely irrelevant—Ritchie drags the evil brainiac onto center stage, which is a predictable mistake. Any character so malign must shrivel in the light; and Jared Harris (of “Mad Men”), who plays the nefarious professor, is too genial a presence to pass for sinister.

Read the full review at Reason.com

Did you hear the news? Chuck Woolery came out of the closet! No, not that closet. Coming out of that closet in Hollywood gets you applause for your bravery. Instead, Woolery came out recently to admit that he is a … wait for it … conservative!

If you have not read “Primetime Propaganda” by Ben Shapiro or Andrew Breitbart’s “Righteous Indignation,” I suggest adding both of them to your fall reading list. Both books do a great job of explaining how we got to this point in, supposedly, the most tolerant and accepting nation in the history of the planet, where the one thing that will not be tolerated in Hollywood is admitting you are a conservative. As someone hoping to one day make a living as a working actor, I know I have a difficult road in front of me due to my political views.

So why is it newsworthy when someone in Hollywood admits they are, indeed, a conservative? Everyone knows that Kelsey Grammer is a conservative, yet he still works regularly. His former co-star, Patricia Heaton, also has another hit series despite her apparent drawback. It is news because, at least until now, they have been the exception. It is news because the Hollywood power brokers have set up a system that, until now, has kept conservatives too afraid to admit their true political views for fear of being ostracized from any future work in “the business.”

There’s also the fact that conservatives do not feel the need to spout their political views at every opportunity the way liberals in Hollywood do. I’ve never understood why someone who relies on reaching the largest audience possible to view their work would alienate half of their potential fan base. Granted, not every Hollywood liberal has called Tea Partiers racists, but enough of them have to affect their box office numbers. According to Box Office Mojo, the 2011 box office take is down 4.2 percent compared to the same point last year. That is hundreds of millions of dollars. Sure, the down economy is having some effect on movie going, but it is not the only reason people aren’t going. I, for one, have stopped going because I don’t want to give my hard earned money to someone who thinks so little of me.

(more…)

The new Showtime series ‘Homeland’ is a CIA thriller based on the Israeli television series ‘Hatufim’ (Prisoners of War). The Israeli version follows two IDF reservists after they are released from 17 years of captivity in Syria and how their lives are different after returning home.

The American version, which airs Sundays at 10 p.m., centers on Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes), a strong but flawed CIA officer trying not to repeat mistakes that led to the 9/11 attacks. She learns from a condemned Iraqi informant that “an American prisoner of war has been turned.”

—–

As far as she knows, there are no American prisoners of war. Ten months later, U.S. Marine Sergeant Nicholas Brody, presumed dead for the past eight years, is recovered from Baghdad during a raid on a militant compound. Despite all of the pride flowing through the CIA and military circles regarding his recovery, Carrie immediately suspects Sgt. Brody is the “turned” American she had been warned about and begins an illegal surveillance of his home. The viewer is left to wonder who the villain really is.

Growing up in the 1980s, Hollywood never left you wondering who the bad guys were going to be. It was the Russians. The Americans were always the good guys, fighting against Communists to preserve the American way of life. In the years after 9/11 this is not the case.

(more…)

Come July 3, 2012, Andrew Garfield will be forever known as either the Amazing Spider-Man or the sap who ruined a perfectly good reboot.

Can the British actor, who previously appeared in ‘The Social Network’ and ‘Never Let Me Go,’ spin a web, any size, that catches thieves, just like flies? And what about Henry Cavill, another relative unknown tapped to play the lead in ‘Man of Steel’ hitting theaters in 2013?

Sometimes looking into an actor’s past can reveal plenty about their future prospects. And, in the case of those cast in superhero franchises, there’s a lot riding on just how heroic they can appear on screen.

So let’s recall how other actors prepared for their super close-ups and what happened once they tugged on those unforgiving tights — or, in the case of George Clooney, poured themselves into an uncomfortable cod piece.

(more…)

Watch monologue below…

Reuters:

Gervais’s jokes were so incendiary that when he went missing during the second half of the show, the Twitterverse lit up with suggestions that he’d been fired backstage. Clearly, Gervais had done so much damage entertaining the viewers at home (or appalling them, depending on their belief in decorum), that he became the story of the night. …

—–

Returning Golden Globes host Ricky Gervais did indeed let it be known that he wasn’t going to hold back in skewering Hollywood’s most famous celebrities. And, in what will undoubtedly be his last hosting gig for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (and, who knows, maybe any Stateside awards) he didn’t disappoint.

But in the process of making searingly funny jokes at more than just the obvious targets (Charlie Sheen, Mel Gibson, the HFPA itself), the heat he put into the punch lines might have made him more of the story than the actual winners.

And yet, it made for compelling — if sometimes wince-inducing — television. Given the staid lameness of most awards shows — hello, Emmys — at least he kept those who are not in the industry laughing uproariously. (His “I warned them” line came after a particularly funny joke about Hugh Hefner’s new fiancee, complete with physical comedy and facial expressions). (more…)

“Due Date” begins with a bad dream and eventually feels like one. Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) wakes up after having a nightmare about his wife going into labor. He knows it’s just a dream but he’s still nervous about the upcoming birth of his first child. Soon enough, he has more to be nervous about when he is forced to drive across the country with a quirky stranger. “Due Date” has a solid premise and plenty of opportunities for laughs but it fails to take advantage of them.

Todd Phillips directed this new comedy that reunites him with Zach Galifianakis. Galifianakis had a breakout role in Phillips’ 2009 smash hit “The Hangover” and the two try to replicate the same success in “Due Date.” Like “The Hangover,” “Due Date” has a fairly conventional premise: two incompatible strangers are forced to spend a lot of time together and comedy ensues.

—– 

The two men are Peter Highman and Ethan Tremblay (Galifianakis), who meet at an Atlanta airport. Peter is anxiously awaiting his trip back to California for the birth of his child. Outside the airport, Peter and Ethan have a brief encounter. On the plane, they see each other again and the two get into a heated discussion. An incident occurs and both men are eventually kicked off of the plane. Peter later learns that he has been added to the no-fly list and can’t travel home by plane.

He then decides to rent a car but he left his identification on the plane. Ethan drives by in his rented car and offers Peter a ride, which he begrudgingly accepts. Ethan seems like a personable fellow but he is a little strange. He brags about the ninety friends he has on Facebook with twelve pending but Peter needs a ride home.  The two are soon off on their adventure with Ethan’s little dog in the backseat.

The road trip takes several detours as the two travel together. Ethan stops at a drug house to pick up his “medication.” Later on, Peter gets into a fight with a man in a wheelchair as he awaits a money transfer from his wife. The trip eventually leads them to a friend of Peter’s (who may or may not be the father of the child that Ethan is expecting in California) and the Mexican border. (more…)

We’ve all watched well-known, highly regarded actors for the umpteenth time on screen — perhaps even raucously enjoying both their performance and the movie — and thought about how painfully derivative and self-referential they’ve become. Somewhere along the way, over a period of many years, these talented thespians stopped surprising us. They ceased bringing to life fleshed out individuals and  began using and reusing tired sets of predictable quirks and tics.

Mind you, they’re still charismatic and entertaining to watch, but in an almost clownish way. We now go to see them not to be wowed by their acting, but to be entertained by their chewing the scenery and hamming it up. Whereas in the past they lost themselves in a part, now their well-known, theatrically overblown personalities overwhelm everything else on screen.

Who are the worst offenders? My own Top 5 list was compiled with two ground rules: each candidate had to be alive (so James Dean and Marlon Brando each get a reprieve), and they have to have won at least one Academy Award for acting (which spares modern, less-laurelled hams such as Robert Downey Jr., Johnny Depp, Woody Allen, Jeff Goldblum and Mel Gibson.) Again, the following actors are not necessarily unpleasant to watch — raw charisma goes a long way — but they have become predictably one-note parodies of themselves. (more…)

One of the most enjoyable parts of both “Iron Man” and “Iron Man 2” is the hero at the core of the two films. Played by a charismatic Robert Downey Jr., Tony Stark (aka Iron Man) is both egotistical and immensely likable. Although he has some personal flaws, he is a hero worth believing in. However, in a review of “Iron Man 2,” one Washington Post critic recently denounced Tony Stark comparing him to a well-known criminal: Jack Abramoff.

Tony Stark, left; Jack Abramoff, right

In the second “Iron Man,” Tony Stark is the same cocky hero that we know from the first film. Towards the beginning of the film, Stark is asked by an elected official to give up his Iron Man suit. Not only does Stark refuse to give it up, he openly cracks jokes with the official and makes him look like a fool. Even when his life is threatened, Stark does not lose his self-assuredness. However, despite his overt cockiness, Stark remains a strong hero that people can relate to. He may be arrogant but he is still a hero who fights against the villains in this movie and he uses his suit for the good of man. (more…)

In light of the recently released  “Iron Man” sequel, I recently re-watched the first “Iron Man” movie starring Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow. Although many superhero movies are goofy and clichéd, “Iron Man” stands out as a solid example of what a smart superhero film looks like.

If you have not seen it, “Iron Man” tells the story of Tony Stark, a man largely known because his company is a massively successful weapons manufacturer. Stark is a talented builder, a charismatic leader and an egotistical playboy, and he is brought to life by the talented Robert Downey Jr.  He is an icon to many (including members of the military who use his weapons) but loathed by others who detest his success at building and selling weapons.

In the beginning of the film, Stark is taken hostage by a group of terrorists in Afghanistan and is forced to build a weapon for them. Instead he decides to build a metal suit built with weapons inside of it in order to break out of the cave where he’s imprisoned. He makes his escape and when he returns to the United States, he starts to build a better, stronger “Iron Man” suit. The movie chronicles him building the protective suit and using it to fight against thea man who has betrayed him. (more…)

Imagine the pressure of pulling off the perfect film — then immediately being expected to top yourself. That was pretty much the situation faced by Robert Downey Jr. and director Jon Favreau with “Iron Man.”

When that superhero flew into theaters in 2008, he brought the thrill of discovery back to moviegoers who had been hit throughout the decade with a wave of Spiderman, X-Men and Superman movies. With Downey Jr. taking on the lead role of super-industrialist and weapons maker Tony Stark, that film’s producers took a big chance on giving one of Hollywood’s most legendary bad boys another shot at stardom after he had wasted years of great reviews on a personal ride through a drug-addicted hell complete with time in a hard-core prison and repeated attempts at rehab.

Audiences went wild for him, as Downey brought genuine emotion, sass and swagger to his role at the heart of the expertly mounted film, which featured Terence Howard, Jeff Bridges and Gwyneth Paltrow in key supporting roles. (more…)

Though the highly anticipated “Iron Man 2” qualifies as a hilarious, entertaining, irreverent, and openly patriotic summer blockbuster well worth the price of admission (and then some), like most sequels, the continuing story of Tony Stark and company does falls short of its predecessor, especially in what I call the “lift department.” Superhero films that transcend their genre contain an unforgettable moment or two that lifts the hair on the back of your neck, pulls you out of your chair, and urges you to stand and cheer. The original “Iron Man” had a number of those moments. And while the follow-up has a whole lot going for it, this is where it most lacks.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has privatized world peace. Yes, all on his own as Iron Man, Stark has whipped the world into behaving itself and it’s completely gone to his already bloated head. Obviously this wasn’t accomplished through the changing of our enemies’ hearts, but rather through the superior firepower that comes with being Iron Man. This is the reason/excuse our government, led by the oily Senator Stern (a very funny Gary Shandling) uses to demand Stark turn over the suit to the Pentagon. During a hearing televised on CSPAN, Stark can’t bring himself to politely decline. With his ego red-lining, (he has saved the world, after all), he both insults the Senator and dares him to try and take the suit away from him.

Game on.

In this vacuum steps a rival arms dealer, Justin Hammer (a delightfully twitchy Sam Rockwell), who’s desperate to replicate the Iron Man technology and scoop up all that Pentagon money while at the same time fulfilling a desire to humiliate Stark by elbowing Iron Man into irrelevancy. Hope arrives in the form of Ivan Vanko (a quietly menacing Mickey Rourke), a Russian scientist burning with both a hate for Stark and the technical know-how to fulfill Hammer’s mercenary desires. (more…)

**** This post was updated for clarity

The list of films I’m literally counting down the days to see each summer gets shorter every year. This is either due to my advancing middle age or Hollywood’s advancing suckery. Regardless, few films were as pure pleasure of a surprise as the original “Iron Man,” which seemed to come out of nowhere in 2007 and knock us all out. Part of the thrill was watching Robert Downey Jr. become an icon before our very eyes. Not since Johnny Depp’s Captain Jack Sparrow effortlessly stepped from his sinking ship and onto that pier had a film character created such a reservoir of a goodwill that a franchise was both inevitable and welcome.

So, likes “Pirates 2,” we eagerly anticipate “Iron Man 2.” As news dribbled out, a big plus was the return of the main players and the casting of Mickey Rourke as the villain, Whiplash; the big who cares was Don Cheadle stepping into the role originated by Terence Howard; the big minus was the casting of Scarlett Johansson and not just because she’s Scarlett Johansson. What she represents is the film’s second villain Black Widow (UPDATE: this may be incorrect. I was going by BW’s comic origin story. Sam Rockwell’s Hammer is either villain #2 or #3, depending on how the film uses Black Widow) and the whole idea of a second villain brings back unpleasant memories of Batman Returns and Spider-Man 3. Meaning, overstuffed plots with too much going on resulting in the lack of a focused story impossible to lose yourself in. 

Unless the film critic mentions the dreaded shaky-cam, reviews don’t normally have much of an effect on me. It’s just one person’s opinion, no less or more valid than the neighborhood mailman, crossing guard or the illegal aliens who take care of my yard. But when a review makes sense, when it locks a piece into place that was already floating ’round my mind, that’s when it gets my attention. And today’s review in the Hollywood Reporter diminished my expectations … some — which isn’t necessarily a bad thing:  (more…)

For those of you expecting what the trailer promised: a bloated, confusing, noisy, headache-inducing Christmas blockbuster weighed down with CGI and barely made watchable by the presence of He Who Makes Everything Better – star Robert Downey Jr. – you’re in for a surprise. Director Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” might be a tad bloated, somewhat hard to follow, and easily 15 minutes too long, but the director makes this umpteenth cinematic re-imagining of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s intrepid detective his own and delivers a spirited, entertaining, blissfully mindless couple of hours at the movies.

Ritchie’s slovenly Holmes is a long way from Basil Rathbone’s, the actor who played the resident of 221 B Baker Street in 14 films over half as many years starting in 1939, and he’s even further from Doyle’s. The mannered, sophisticated detective is now a borderline recluse who’s utterly dysfunctional when not preoccupied with a case, a glib ladies man and ready action hero who knows how to use his fists.  As his physician-partner in crimesolving, Jude Law grabs his best role in years as Holmes’ closest friend and mother hen.

Set in London in the late 1800s, the game afoot does not involve Holmes most famous nemesis Professor Moriarty this time, but instead Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), a presumably hanged ritual killer and user of the dark arts who might have risen from the dead with a master plan for world domination. Through an influential Gentleman’s Club of fellow occultists, Blackwood all but controls Scotland Yard which leaves only  Holmes, Watson and Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) — a scheming American woman from Holmes’ past with dueling loyalties and a mind just as sharp as her romantic rival’s — to stop him.   (more…)

You have seen John Nolte’s countdown of the Top 25 Christmas Movies, but this list is something else – a list of movies worth watching that take place in or around Christmas but aren’t about Christmas itself.  They don’t necessarily embrace the spirit of the season – as to some of them, that’s putting it mildly – but each one is guaranteed to provide you at least a couple of hours blissfully sheltered from the mindless socialist rants of the health care demolition crew, from the lame excuses and transparent equivocations of the climate change scammers, and from Howard Zinn-scripted commie nonsense spouted by ignorant Hollywood nitwits.

Here they go, in no particular order:

10. Die Hard (1988): You’ve seen Die Hard probably a hundred times.  See it again, preferably uncut and not sanitized for TV.  Bruce Willis is a cop trapped alone while the incredible Alan Rickman and his band of fashion plate terrorists grab Nakatomi Plaza during the annual Christmas party.  The plot is simple, but the execution is simply awesome.  This movie is the archetype, the template  for a hundred subsequent movies that were pitched as “Die Hard in a (fill in the blank).”  For more fun, try my Die Hard-themed drinking game – take a pull on a Dos Equis every time something happens that creates or reaffirms a classic action film cliché.  Wisenheimer renegade cop who play by his own rules – gulp!  Lots of MP-5s and other (then) hi-tech armaments that fire a ton of rounds but rarely hit anything – gulp!  Villain who rises from the dead to be killed one last time – gulp!  You may want a designate a driver – cue Argyle, the streetwise sidekick in the limo (gulp)!   (more…)

“It’s one of those parties where if a girl is named Jill she spells it J-Y-L-L-E, ya know…that s**t.”  –Harry Lockhart

Those who have read my piece about a film noir revival and the film Brick know that I am an emphatic fan of the noir genre.  While I have a deep love for the classics that fell within the initial movement (arguably 1941-1959), there are still some neo-noir films that spark my interest (not enough, which is why I asked for a revival!).  One of these films is the extremely fun Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang.  It is a very different noir film that is funny and opposite the dark, desperate, lonely noir films of years past.

In a rare combination of coincidences, Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.) is a petty thief in New York City who finds himself auditioning for a role in a new detective film.  He goes to Los Angeles after being accepted as a potential candidate.  Harry is a fast-talking, chain smoking and delightfully sarcastic protagonist that makes this neo-noir film one of the best.

After getting invited to a party in the Hollywood hills, Harry meets Gay Perry (Val Kilmer).  Perry is an (ironically gay) quick-witted private investigator that asks Harry to participate in a murder investigation in preparation for his potential film role.  Perry’s homosexuality plays on the theorists of the 1940’s and 1950’s that psychoanalyzed many noir protagonists as being gay men (I know, those theories are a stretch at times). (more…)

–

(more…)