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.

The studio was clearly becoming a run-of-the-mill entity interested more in getting out quick, fast food-like product rather than giving people memorable films that entertain and refresh far beyond a 90-minute popcorn summer film. Rourke, known for his brutal honesty about everyone from himself to those he works with, outed the studio while he was out promoting the film “Immortals.” Rourke made the following statements about his experience working with the studio:

[W]hen I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau, that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors [to the character], not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.

[It’s] ****ing too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh **** ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.

If they let you, play the bad guy with other dimensions other than one-dimensional. You have to fight for that though, to bring layers to the character. Otherwise, if you’re working for the wrong studio or let’s say a director that doesn’t have any balls, then they’re just gonna want it to be the evil bad guy. […] So, if you’re working with some good studio guys that got brains and you’re working with a director with a set of nuts that’ll let you incorporate that then it’s fun. Otherwise, you end up with what happened on “Iron Man.”

That sounds like enough explanation as to why “Iron Man 2″ felt like it was made by a 13-year-old boy. The films just got worse in quality with the release of “Thor” and “Captain America.” I mean, they picked the guy who directed “Jumanji” to direct “Captain America!” The same guy who was quoted time and time again wanting to downplay the patriotic side of Captain America. What? I thought these guys were trying to be more faithful to the characters they showed on screen. His name is Captain America! The film was awful. The special effects showing Chris Evans as a scrawny pre-Captain America were just sad and awkward. The action scenes were so cardboard that the film felt like it had no personality. And it all just felt like one big rush to the setup for “The Avengers” at the end. Clearly, Marvel Studios had become interested in simply making mindless comic book movies, which is the reason they took control of these projects in the first place.

The studio also dumbly fired Norton when it came time to cast The Hulk in “The Avengers,” and it replaced him with Mark Ruffalo. Here was their explanation:

We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.

I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but I can read between the lines. Basically, they needed someone who was more of a puppet than Norton and whose voice would not interrupt theirs. So much for being a novel idea.

Has Marvel Studios really been a success? Not really. “Iron Man” and “Iron Man 2″ managed to pull in heavy sums, but “The Incredible Hulk” couldn’t even match its production budget with its domestic haul. Neither “Thor” nor “Captain America: The First Avenger” could even touch the $200 million mark. The hauls they brought in were almost guaranteed just based on curiosity with the movie going public. I, for one, am not looking forward to “The Avengers.” Why should I? Marvel Studios has become just like the studios they were a reaction to. They make mindless entertainment that barely scratches out a profit and they allow no creativity, which we know leads to the lasting success films need.

We’ve already had Ruffalo out there comparing the Avengers to Occupy Wall Street, and behind the camera we have Joss Whedon, whose film credits include directing a whopping total of one picture. Marvel Studios is now just a part of the crop of studios turning out everything from crap to liberal crap and then not understanding the financial results. Waste your hard earned money on something more worth it.

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.

“Killers” came of age during the O.J. Simpson case, the Menendez trial and the clown-like antics of Long Island’s own Joey Buttafuoco. So we can forgive Stone for feeling less than charitable about the state of media. But “Killers” is such an over the top affair, so bloated with stylistic excess and Pacino-esque ranting that nothing resonates beyond an overwhelming sense of “ick.”

A media satire by design can’t be done with a sledgehammer approach, at least if that’s the only tool being applied to the screen. Even the best action films have quiet spells, solemn moments when the audience can catch its breath and prepare for the next stunt-filled extravaganza.

“Killers” is all exclamation points and bold type. Attempts to humanize the murderous couple fall hopelessly flat. Can we really feel Mickey and Mallory’s pain just because they both suffered at the hands of abusive parents? Rodney Dangerfield appears in the film’s lone flash of brilliance. He plays Mallory’s lecherous papa, sequences arranged like a sitcom pilot from hell complete with laugh track.

Harrelson transcends the noise long enough to carve something novel out of Mickey’s wicked ways. The actor’s brutish charisma holds the film together, just barely, while Stone asks the rest of his cast to perform as if a pack of firecrackers had just invaded their skivvies. Those intrigued by Lewis’ bad-girl performance should rent the severely underrated “Kalifornia” for a better look at her curious screen presence.

“Killers” began as a screenplay by Quentin Tarantino, the pop culture junkie who later distanced himself from the production. We’re left to wonder what the “Pulp Fiction” auteur might have said differently than Stone, since very little of Tarantino’s patented wordplay made it into the final draft.

Robert Downey Jr. arrives mid-film to personify the soulless media vultures who thrive on tabloid trash. The future “Iron Man” nails the Steve Dunleavy accent – the Aussie reporter from “A Current Affair fame directly influenced Downey’s character. In a film teeming with one dimensional players, Downey’s reporter emerges as even more detestable than the titular “Killers.”

One can easily accuse Stone of glorifying the kind of violence he detests in the media as well as for letting Mickey and Mallory survive with their black souls unscathed.

“Natural Born Killers” arrived on Blu-ray two years ago along with scenes excised to ensure an R-rating. Such a bloated enterprise hardly needed more shock value. What’s left out here is the sense that Stone had something truly original to say other than, “I wish the media didn’t treat the Tonya Harding affair with the same intensity as the first Gulf War.”

It doesn’t take an Oscar-winning filmmaker to remind us of that.

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.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Graysmith, the boyish editorial cartoonist for the San Francisco Chronicle circa 1969. Graysmith’s job is to deliver cutting-edge satire, but he allows himself to get sucked into the case of a serial killer with a serious need for attention.

The self-proclaimed Zodiac killer is on the loose in San Francisco, and the Chronicle’s crack crime reporter Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is on the case. But this killer proves to be as mysterious as he is lethal, and neither Avery nor the cops assigned to bring him to justice (Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards) can get their man.

“Zodiac” stretches from the Woodstock era to the dawn of the Reagan revolution, methodically ticking away the important breaks in the case. Fincher’s story is nothing if not methodical. Dates flash on the screen to remind us of the timeline, and the just the facts, ma’am screenplay hardly has time to provide unnecessary character build-ups.

All the while, the killer gives clues to his intentions to the baffled press corps. Even famed attorney Melvin Belli (given a pompous airing by Brian Cox) gets enmeshed in the mystery.

One reason “Zodiac” surpasses most whodunnits is the intensity of the crimes in question. Fincher’s camera is unflinching as it records the shootings and stabbings that made headlines across the West Coast. Who could blame Bay-area residents for being afraid to leave their homes?

The film also captures a moment in time when the local newspaper provided both solace and support for a community. Avery is as much a key figure here as the cops working the beat, and it’s not shocking that a cartoonist would play such a big role in the investigation.

“Zodiac” isn’t interested in sensational cop tactics or detectives drowning their sorrows at the local watering hole. Avery’s alcohol problems are documented but not obsessed upon, and the workaday atmosphere surrounding Ruffalo’s character makes his role all the more intriguing.

Graysmith’s decision to focus on the unsolved murders rather than his young family isn’t explored fully enough here. It’s as if the cast became as obsessed with finding the Zodiac killer as those real-life counterparts. Gyllenhaal’s eyes grow blank as he pores over the minute aspects of the case, but the young actor cannot fully convey the sense of clarity he finds in doing his own detective work on the side.

“Zodiac” is long but never tedious, deliberate but rarely distracting. It’s precisely how to recreate an impossibly complex case with more than a few loose ends still remaining.

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.

The inestimable Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and faithful sidekick Dr. Watson (Jude Law) suspect the mind behind a series of terrorist bombings is none other than Professor Moriarty. But the slick professor isn’t sloppy enough to leave any evidence to prove that suspicion. So Holmes and Watson must outsmart the mastermind before more innocents get killed.

That short summation is far more clear-eyed than the film itself, which once more overwhelms us with the unending style palette of director Guy Ritchie. The British director’s choices aren’t all oversold. He’s keen enough to step back and let Downey and Law banter incessantly, the former’s rapid-fire line readings feel like he can’t wait to share his next thought with us.

And while we cross our arms and wait for the style parade to wind down, along comes Moriarty to give us a villain of real consequence. Harris isn’t a “name” actor that might have lured a few extra ticket buyers, but his intensity and arrogance is a perfect match for Holmes’ flip demeanor.

By now, we know the new, improved Sherlock Holmes is a pugilist of the first order, But the sequel doesn’t give him enough secondary characters with which to scrap. His love interest from the first film, Rachel McAdams, appears just long enough to illustrate just how cruel Moriarty can be to an innocent. And the addition of Noomi Rapace as a fortune teller whose brother figures into the knotty plot adds virtually nothing to the proceedings.

Who needs supporting players when Downey and Law are swapping gentle jibes with such alacrity? Holmes’ affection for his mate is appealing, and while Watson is desperate to marry his longtime squeeze it’s clear he’ll have far more funny scampering around England with his best bud Holmes.

The duo’s connection, a source of surprise the first time around, is played for knowing laughs here. That’s a hearty sign for the franchise – it feels comfortable in its own skin.

And while most popcorn movies run out of imagination long before the final battle, “Shadows” wraps with a grand intellectual cage match and some first-rate humor.

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” won’t make anyone forget the classic Holmes tales of yore, but it’s cheeky spirit makes it a welcome addition to the holiday movie parade.

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

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.

That is why the time for Hollywood conservatives to come out of the closet is now. I know I’m not the only one looking for people to throw my support behind. Every time I see a link on a website to a list of “Conservative Actors” I follow it, hoping I’ll see a new name added to the list of Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. Recent additions have included Robert Downey, Jr. and Adam Sandler.

Sandler is one I have yet to see confirmed as a conservative. He is always listed as having supported former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in the past. Based on Sander’s recent family values based movies, I can certainly see it, though. The fact that he has not come out and openly stated his conservative views also leads me to believe it is true.

Am I wrong for hoping it’s true?

There is also a rumor that Angelina Jolie was going to come out in support of John McCain for the 2008 election, but her people convinced her not to in order to save her career. Would it really have been that detrimental to her? She has already established herself as a star in Hollywood. Does she not realize she would likely have gained fans by doing so?

It’s time for Hollywood conservatives to understand there is a possibility they are not the minority anymore. A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found 34.3 percent of respondents identified themselves as Republican, with 33.1 percent identifying as Democrat. This is a reversal of results from the same survey the past two years which found Democrats ahead in 2010 (36.3 percent to 33.4 percent) and 2009 (37.8 percent to 31.9 percent). Those numbers look like a trend to me. Since Hollywood is looked at as a major trendsetter, why are they so far behind on this one?

I understand the hesitancy to come forward, based on how Hollywood conservatives have been treated in the past. Those who are on the fence about coming out need look no further than Alcon Entertainment and Sherwood Pictures. In a down box office year, Alcon’s “Dolphin Tale” has made more than $30 million in profit on a film with an estimated $37 million budget. Sherwood’s “Courageous” has grossed almost $30 million off of a $2 million budget.

There is an under-served movie-going audience that is hungry to support those who share their values. Though he was not the first to say it, I’m reminded of this quote from President Ronald Reagan in 1981: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

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 often than not, today’s bad guys, radical Islamist terrorists, became terrorists only because we somehow made them do it. The U.S. government or the military are really the bad guys. Welcome to life in the age of political correctness and Saul Alinsky tactics.

That’s why ‘Homeland’ is such a breath of fresh air.

When Showtime first announced that they would be distributing a television series about a CIA officer investigating radical Islamist terrorists, conservative viewers were probably tentatively optimistic. Learning that the series would be produced by the same group who brought us the Fox hit ‘24′ may have eased some, but not all, concerns. Conservative viewers do not want to see Americans portrayed as bad guys when they fight evil. Nor do they want to have to listen to ignorant actors who label them as tea-bagging racists.

The Hollywood Reporter recently published an article about actors that Republicans and Democrats refuse to pay to see. Tops on the list were Sean Penn for Republicans and Charlton Heston for Democrats, despite the fact that Heston died in 2008 and his last real film was released in 2003. The list of actors that Republicans refuse to pay to see appears to be getting longer by the day. The producers of next year’s ‘The Avengers’ are probably hoping that the desire of those who want to support Robert Downey, Jr. will outweigh any misgivings over avowed Occupy Wall Street supporter Mark Ruffalo (cast as the Hulk’s alter ego Bruce Banner).

This feeling toward actors also extends to cable news anchors and the media in general. So, when the preview for the third episode of ‘Homeland’ showed Sgt. Brody being interviewed by admitted socialist Lawrence O’Donnell, conservative viewers may have been left thinking “Oh, great. Here we go again. Another show I’ll have to stop watching.”

Thankfully, those feelings were quickly laid to rest. For now, the show is an apolitical look at the War on Terror. O’Donnell’s questions were straight-forward and honest, the complete antithesis of his disgusting interview of Presidential candidate Herman Cain.

In fact, when Sgt. Brody’s wife asks him if he is nervous about the interview, his response is “No. I was told that Lawrence O’Donnell gives everyone a hard time except guys in uniform.” That may be putting it lightly.

Whether the lack of a political ideology continues throughout the series, which will return for a second season, remains to be seen. Thus far, viewers have been treated to a suspenseful thriller with the only question being, who really is Sgt. Nicholas Brody?

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.

Exhibit 1: Michael Keaton in ‘Batman’ (1989)

The Evidence: He snarled up a storm in ‘Johnny Dangerously’ and scared Winona Ryder three fourths to death in ‘Beetlejuice.’ He also showed some serious dramatic chops in ‘Clean and Sober.’

The Worry: Bruce Wayne is … Mr. Mom? A receding hairline and slip of a frame hardly pass Superhero 101. Bat fanatics thought Jack Nicholson’s Joker was the silver lining to this otherwise troubling casting call.

The Verdict: Pow! Bam! Zoom! Keaton defied conventional wisdom to make ‘Batman’ a sensation even with those awful Prince tunes. Turns out he could do dark and foreboding when given the chance, and his pursed lips looked just right beneath that hard rubber cowl. Bonus points for ditching the franchise before Robin entered the equation.

Exhibit 2: Robert Downey, Jr. in ‘Iron Man’

The Evidence: Snared an Oscar nomination for ‘Chaplin’ but wasted much of his youth on drugs and dismissible film roles.

The Worry: Did you see ‘Back to School?’ Downey, Jr.‘s Derek Lutz couldn’t beat up a sorority girl, let alone a supervillain.

The Verdict: Handsome, edgy and super believable as a genius who saves himself by forging a suit out of metal scraps. A near perfect marriage of actor and material.

Exhibit 3: George Clooney in ‘Batman and Robin’

The Evidence: Clooney proved he could do complicated with his turn as Dr. Ross on television’s ‘ER.’ He later made the jump to the big screen, flashing Tarantino-esque cool in ‘From Dusk Til Dawn’ when his screen bro (Quentin Tarantino himself) became a vampire’s snack.

The Worry: You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have Clooney’s most regrettable role in ‘The Facts of Life.’ Let’s not forget his middling turn in ‘One Fine Day.’

The Verdict: Holy franchise ender! Clooney doesn’t deserve all the blame for the calamitous ‘Batman and Robin,’ but he hardly distinguished himself in his first super effort. It took nearly a decade for fans to forgive this bat-travesty and allow the mighty Christopher Nolan to bring Bruce Wayne back with ‘Batman Begins.’

Exhibit 4: Tobey Maguire in ‘Spider-Man’

The Evidence: ‘Wonder Boys’ showcased Maguire’s sensitive side. So did ‘Pleasantville.’ And ‘The Cider House Rules.’ Heck, he could do Peter Parker-style sensitivity in his sleep.

The Worry: Spider-Man isn’t the stockiest superhero, but a stiff wind would give Maguire trouble.

The Verdict: More movie magic. The soulful Maguire nailed his dweeby high school moments, and the all-purpose Spidey mask helped distract us from that cherubic face. It helps that he got paired with the height-challenged Kirsten Dunst, with whom he shared one of the best screen kisses of all time.

Exhibit 5: Halle Berry in ‘Catwoman’

The Evidence: She overcame a lousy wig to play Storm in ‘X-Men’ and flaunted her curves in ‘The Flintstones.’ Oh, and she had just won a Best Actress Oscar for ‘Monster’s Ball.’

The Worry: Some pretty questionable film choices including ‘B*A*P*S’ and ‘Swordfish,’ even if the latter gave us the chance to ogle her, ahem, Golden Globes.

The Verdict: Me-ouch! Berry sure looked purty, but every other element of this neo-S&M dud went awry. She could have sauntered through the film nekkid and we’d still throw tomatoes at the screen.

Exhibit 6: Ryan Reynolds in ‘Green Lantern’

The Evidence: He looks like a superhero sans shirt. He’s even been a superhero of sorts twice already — as Deadpool in ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ and in ‘Blade: Trinity.’ Plus, he’s quick with a one-liner and wooed Scarlett Johansson off-screen. That’s a superpower 99.9 percent of men wish they had.

The Worry: Is Reynolds too pretty to be a rough and tumble superhero?

The Verdict: Thud! ‘Green Lantern’ proved the biggest disappointment of last summer’s super flock of movies. Reynolds looked lost amidst all those ones and zeroes zipping around the screen, and bland love interest Blake Lively couldn’t help.

Exhibit 7: Chris Evans in ‘Captain America: The First Avenger’

The Evidence: Holy coincidence! Evans also played a superhero long before tugging on Captain America’s tights. In fact, even those who found the two ‘Fantastic Four’ films a bore, and that’s most of us, cheered Evans’ glib turn as the Human Torch. If that resume chip wasn’t enough, Evans also played a man with supernatural powers in ‘Push,’ a clunker co-starring Dakota Fanning.

The Worry: With apologies to Johnny Storm, the Human Torch is no Captain America. Ol’ Cap is an icon, a red, white and blue example of American pride. Those are pretty big boots to fill.

The Verdict: Let’s Salute Capt. Evans! ‘Captain America: The First Avenger’ got the rah-rah spirit of the Allied powers just right, even if the film’s ending revealed the whole product was primarily a plug for ‘The Avengers.’

Exhibit 8: Christopher Reeve in ‘Superman’

The Evidence: Slim, at best. Reeve’s pre-’Superman’ work consisted of three TV appearances and a small role in the 1978 film ‘Gray Lady Down.’

The Worry: Who is Christopher Reeve, and why does he think he can share the screen with the likes of Gene Hackman? Or Valerie Perrine, for that matter?

The Verdict: Super, indeed. Reeve proved the ideal fit for The Man of Steel, capturing the character‘s innate goodness while proving you don‘t need CGI muscles to look like a hero. Director Richard Donner forged the template for future superhero films, combining the silly with the serious in just the right ratio. But that wouldn‘t matter if Reeve hadn‘t filled out the Superman costume in such convincing fashion.

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).

Gervais’ biting lines were scattered at various stars (and movies like The Tourist), with not everyone taking kindly to the treatment. Bruce Willis seemed miffed to be called the father of Ashton Kutcher, Robert Downey Jr. seemed to take slight umbrage about his rehab past (before going into his own salacious and super speech), etc. Even when the jokes weren’t directed at them, some stars took gentle swipes back, as when Tom Hanks, who just received a rave recitation of his career achievement from Gervais, protected Tim Allen, who received none.

Full article here.

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.

Unfortunately, many of these comic adventures fall flat. There are a few laughs in the movie but most of them were featured in the film’s trailers so the audience has seen them before. A large majority of the jokes and plot twists feel tired. Galifianakis even seems to be playing the same character he played in “The Hangover.” There’s nothing really smart or witty about this story that makes it stand out.

Additionally, both of the main characters are extremely unlikable. Although I like Robert Downey Jr., Peter is a mean-spirited jerk who is ready to lose his temper on a moment’s notice. On the other hand, Ethan is both annoying and offensive. (See his “personal” activities before going to bed, with Peter sleeping inches away, as an example of how disgusting he can be.)

What “Due Date” ultimately lacks is charm and personality. All of the four main characters in “The Hangover” had both and it wasn’t forced upon them. Neither of the two main characters in “Due Date” have either. This is a formulaic movie with little originality and unlikable characters. The film may be called “Due Date” but it’s full of clichéd jokes and tired twists that have already passed their expiration date.