Short Review: Everything they did right in the first movie, they did wrong in this one.


In this follow up to Iron Man, director Jon Favreau comes down with a serious case of the sophomore blues. The original film had a sarcastic edge that smoothed out a clunky but still enjoyable plot. The origin story of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) introduced an externally belligerent/internally weak man who finds the cure for his mid-life crisis. In the original Stark is forced to beat down his past self, personified by his business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). This outing avoids all of that messy character stuff and focuses on lots of loud noises, flashing lights and Scarlett Johansson in a body sock.

Tony Stark returns having achieved world peace thanks to his use of the Iron Man suit. At least, that is what we're told. We never get to actually see him protect the world. It's all explained in a Senate hearing. This makes Stark's hero work an abstract. This in turn makes it meaningless. If it is not on the screen, it doesn't exist for the audience.

The screenplay by Justin Theroux clearly explains that the world is at peace in the opening moments. One would then expect that in turn this world peace would be threatened. Nope. Stark is attacked by Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist with a grudge. Vanko's personal vendetta is funded by Stark's weapons manufacturer rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). World peace is never actually threatened. The only things threatened in this story are the egos of a bunch of scummy super-geniuses. This does not make for a riveting central conflict.

This lack of stakes is the main reason the film fails so completely. Theroux doesn't paint himself into narrative corners, he paints himself out of the whole room. He is so busy introducing characters for the upcoming Avengers movie and fumbling with technological presentations that he almost doesn't have time shoehorn in any actual characterization.

There are numerous scriptural issues that make the story fall flat. This is evidenced in Stark giving up his company in the first act. Once he does this he has literally nothing to lose. At no time does he find it critical to get his company back. It is just something that happens. If it has no deeper value, why does Theroux involve it in the film?

At one point Hammer tells Vanko to take Stark's "legacy" from him. How does the audience know when his "legacy" is taken away? We are given a statement of action by the villains and it involves a motive no less intangible than them saying they're going to hurt Stark's feelings. This is poor writing.

Vanko's whole motivation is a vacuum. Favreau gives us enough to understand that Vanko is fueled by revenge, but this revenge is hollow because we don't understand its cause. This results in Vanko being little more than another hurdle Stark must overcome instead of a villain to confront. (Spoiler warning) This is why at the end, Stark so easily overcomes Vanko and his droid army and why Vanko's death has zero dramatic punch. He is a non-entity. (Spoiler done)

The film also lacks any symbolism or meaning. In the original we were given the cheesy, but effective symbol of Stark's heart. Does Tony Stark have a heart? Yes, and its sitting in this little glass box. It is a symbol that is referred to and played upon throughout the entire film.

In this film, Favreau sets up a similar conceit. Stark is literally being poisoned by his suit. While the suit gives him fame and glory, it is also making him more toxic (both literally and figuratively). This is a solid metaphor and it is strongly established early on. It is then left unused.

One would hope that when they set up in the first act that Tony Stark and Iron Man are one in the same and that he gains so much through wearing the suit, that in the end he would have to discard the suit in order to complete his heroic task. This would make Stark the real Iron Man and make the suit his accessory, instead of it being the other way around. No such luck.

Overall, this version of the film is an incomplete draft of what should have been a more enjoyable production. It stinks of something that was rushed to market. This is not a good movie. Its not even a passable one. The film ultimately becomes an elongated teaser trailer for the upcoming The Avengers movie, hitting screens in 2012.

Labels: Don Cheadle, Jon Favreau, Mickey Rourke, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, sequel, superhero

Short Review: After the first three hours, I was willing to claim I was the Zodiac killer just to get this thing over with.

Your life is as miserable and boring as ever. Watching a deadpan movie with a running time of over two and a half hours about a murderous loser and the failed attempts to catch him is the last thing you need. Try to liven up your day by peeling that lazy butt of yours off of the couch and go outside.
Your sister will call today. Don’t pick up. Seriously, don’t do it. That witch will drive you nuts. Honestly, what has she ever done for you? If you weren’t blood, you probably would have abandoned her ten years ago. She’s just like another in a long line of “serial killer” movies. She plays on the worst and darkest parts of your personality, wastes your time and gives you little in return. The knowledge that you can’t make Mint Julips with Jägermeister comes about ten hours too late. You also discover it is a bad idea to do this experiment right before your company’s summer picnic. It is best to avoid a movie involving seeing Robert Downey Jr. overacting. His futile attempt at nabbing that best supporting actor nod may remind you of your own pathetic missteps in front of your boss. As it turns out, while your boss’ wife does indeed have a mustache, she’s not nearly as amused by it as you are. Suffice to say, you won’t get fired soon, but you can rest assured you’re never – never – going to get that promotion. Just resign yourself to your fate. The sooner you come to understand you have yourself to blame the better off you’ll be. You’re cancer, people tend to want to avoid you. Much like they will want to avoid David Fincher’s boring film. He is one of the best directors out there, but this thing is a droning, mismanaged disaster. He has too many characters not doing enough over too long of a time. When the belated final resolution rolls in, the original spark of the film has already packed its bags and went home in a huff. Editing, David, its called editing. Copious amounts would have done this film wonders. Remember that thing you did with those guys with the thing that time way back over at that place? Yeah, that’s coming back to rear its ugly head. There’s nothing about a movie here, I thought I’d just warn you and also say "ew".

Much of the day will be like finding yourself in a murder mystery where the killer is revealed way too early, and the storyline doesn't have enough depth to support an extended act where said killer evades indictment. Like the movie, you’ll wander around for hours despondent and desperately wanting something – anything interesting to happen. The surprise left out of your brief slice of life will sap any reason for experiencing it. You will have to make your own fun today. You’re sensitive today. Yes, those uncontrollable crying fits are back. Face it, he’s not coming back. Your years of concentrating on your appearance and social status have caused your intellect to atrophy. Your mind is an unbearable hole where random thoughts go to die. Of course he left, you may be pretty and have shiny hair but you can’t talk about anything more complicated than reruns of Sex in the City. Pretty girls may have more fun but smart girls end up happier. With the intellectual vacuum you exist in, you may naturally fall back on wanting to forget your troubles by looking at some hunky guy. If you’re into that Jake Gyllenhaal goof, try one of his other movies. While he does a fine job in this, he looks like he’s been awake for thirty years. You know you’re in trouble when you’re standing next to Robert Downey Jr. and you’re the one who looks under the weather. When I say try one of his other movies, you’re going to want to avoid Brokeback Mountain as well…unless you’re into rutting cowboys. Then again if you are, then maybe your boyfriend left for entirely different reasons than we've explored here. Avoid engaging in viewing a movie that is so clumsily done that it has to show murder victims being ruthlessly stabbed. Knowing that cinema is the art of not only what is seen but more importantly what is left unseen, the image of a woman being stabbed on screen will only support your fears that indeed the culture is going to hell in a hand basket. Well, you’re partly right. It’s actually going to hell in a barf bag. Forget your troubles today and let it all out. Enjoy life, experience the small things and embrace your existence with wild abandon. The stars are showing that that aneurysm in your head you don’t know about is about to blow. Speaking of blowing, the script for Zodiac is ponderous and pointless (a double threat). James Vanderbilt’s script is to brevity what this seemingly endless novelty review is to good writing. Apparently, that stuff you ate in the middle of the night last night wasn’t bean dip (although it was lumpy and spongy). Perhaps next time you’ll won’t rely on that small refrigerator light to guide your way at 3am. You’ll spend most of your day today exploring the personal theme park ride that is your gag reflex. A little rest will do you well, when you’re not perched over the porcelain. For help overcoming your lurching guts and getting some rest, pop in the last two thirds of this film. The lazy plot and stagnant tone will lull you into a deep sleep. Please sleep on your stomach however. We don’t want you pulling a Hendrix. You’ll have moments of clarity today. Like right now when you realize that horoscopes are for morons. Some charlatan writes up vague descriptions that have no real meaning and then dimwits read these things and shoehorn their individual meanings into them. Try this, on your way home from work today think to yourself that you’ll see the number 22. Soon everywhere you look the number 22 will appear. Same thing with horoscopes, you’ll fit your life into the frame they provide. Stop with the divination idiocy and just face your life already. Things at work will fall apart in a brilliant and embarrassing public spectacle. Your hard work will be forgotten and any positive efforts you’ve offered will be for naught. Today you’re a little like Mark Ruffalo. He provides a great performance in this film but all of his efforts amount to little in face of the remainder of the production. Yes, he is the best part of the film, but this is a little like saying he’s the best violin player on the Titanic. I wouldn’t even bother going into work today. You’ll just end up in your car over your lunch break asking yourself where it all went wrong. You can do that at home and you don’t even need to get dressed.




Related Reviews:
Jake Gyllenhaal movies
Donnie Darko (2001)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews
Cinema Dave
Exclaim!

Labels: David Fincher, film, Jake Gyllenhaal, movie trailer, Robert Downey Jr, serial killer

Short Review: If you can stomach seeing Sherlock Holmes beating up a guy with nunchuck-looking things, hear his British accent fail him at the end of long sentences and seem more like Tony Stark than the classic character, you'll be just fine.


It takes about three seconds for the movie to reveal that this has as much to do with Sherlock Holmes as Austin Powers has to do with James Bond. The new and improved, space-age Sherlock (now with extra zing!) shares a name and some traits with his literary twin, but other than that, leave your knowledge of the old guy at home. He will only serve to get in the way of his newly minted cinematic doppelganger.

Taking the film for what it is, a plump, squishy, nonsense-laden hunk of crap from Hollywood, it is very effective. It offers attractive characters with bouncy dialog and some amusing moments of peril. The film entertains, which is better than I can say for most Hollywood deposits over the past twelve months.

Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes is a British version of Tony Stark who is less sexed and has baggier facial expressions. Downey is fantastic at balancing himself on the edge of over-acting without ever crossing over. To me, this is his draw. He is charismatic and often overtakes the other actors around him. But he at least does us the favor of being worth watching while he distracts from everything else.

Downey is a solid actor and is finally delivering on the promise he showed way back when he made Chaplin. He spent a lot of years wandering the back alleys of Hollywood doing very stupid movies and simpleton roles (One Night Stand, Natural Born Killers, Two Girls and a Guy, Only You), but clean and sober, he has finally found his niche - regular stupid movies and relatively stupid roles. Yes, he's still slopping burgers at McDonalds, but the fact is that he is the best kid working the fry machine.

Opposite Downey is Jude Law as Dr. Watson. Other than offering to step in and dispatch of some toothless, dingy minions, we're not clear as to his purpose. He offers Holmes some banter and plays Felix to Holmes Oscar, but otherwise he follows the detective around like some intern assistant.

Law's performance does manage to keep up with Downey's work. The two mix well together and give the production a comfortable and friendly vibe. Law also looks the part of a Englishman. His presence, and steady accent, help to remind audiences this is supposed to be taking place in London, not Lot 13 in Burbank.

The film isn't without its downsides. The casting of Rachel McAdams is a notable fault. She has a pretty smile and near perfect skin. That wraps up the depth of her character Irene. McAdams wilts in comparison to both Downey and Law. She never finds her footing and fades into the background, even when she's the only one on screen. It is as if she was given her lines moments before stepping in front of the cameras, whereas Downey and Law had plenty of rehersal time with ample opportunity to explore their dialog, non-verbals and reactions. The two will have a scene with complex dialog, filled with lively exchange. Downey will then spend time with McAdams and their whole conversation could be reduced to grunts and eyebrow wiggling and little would be lost. In McAdams' defence, Irene is thinly written. Her dialog is far less dramatic and her motivations are clunky.

The other troubling part of the story is the mystery at the heart of the film is no mystery at all. Instead it is a plot that gets quickly unraveled on our behalf by Holmes. The audience has nothing to do with it. The fun of mysteries is for the viewer to attempt to uncover the truth before the hero. We are either outsmarted by the villain, or are as bright as the hero. Here, Holmes deciphers a complex plot and explains his logic in the final moments - a string of logic that would be impossible for any audience member to come to on their own. This drains what could have been, should have been, a great payoff for us. Then again, they had to concentrate on making sure Holmes as like all awesome and stuff.

I recommend the movie but I warn you it is a frosted, high-fructose, McMovie served in a dome-cup.




Related Reviews:
Robert Downey Jr. movies
Iron Man (2008)
Tropic Thunder (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Austin Chronicle
Eric D. Snyder

Labels: Eddie Marsan, film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie review, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

Screenwriter: Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder)
Director: Jon Favreau (Zathura: A Space Adventure)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Chaplin), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler), Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love), Scarlett Johansson (The Island), Don Cheadle (Ocean's 11), Sam Rockwell (Moon), Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane), Paul Bettany (The Da Vinci Code), Kate Mara (Transibberian), Jon Favreau (Swingers) and Garry Shandling (What Planet Are You From?) and Olivia Munn

Labels: Don Cheadle, film, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jon Favreau, Kate Mara, Mickey Rourke, movie trailer, Paul Bettany, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson

I haven't read all of Sherlock Holmes, but I fail to remember the one where he's fighting like a ninja and being handcuffed naked to a bed.

So, we're making Sherlock Holmes into Tony Stark with an accent?

Jude Law is Watson.

What part of this isn't freaking idiotic?




Screenwriters: Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg (Jumper)
Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Rachel McAdams (Red Eye), Mark Strong (Body of Lies) and Jude Law (Sleuth)

Labels: film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie trailer, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

Short Review: A movie dumbly.



What's worse than a boring, pointless movie? A boring, pointless movie coated in intensely irritating animation. Writer/Director Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused, Slackers) is responsible for this dismal yawn fest. To water this down, this is a bunch of bored actors portraying unattractive people yammering through seemingly endless strings of meaningless dialog. Every scene is bookmarked by an intrusive soundtrack that blasts during transitions. Linklater's script is surprisenly bad for someone who's been a professional screenwriter for so long. The dialog is wandering and at times completely incoherent. The characters offer no reason to like them. Its fine if the characters are dispicable people but it is only common sense for the writer to find something positive to give the audience to connect with. Linklater avoids this not because he's making a point, but because he's either ignorant of the flaw or too lazy to fix it.

Bad script. Lifeless acting. Grating animation. Don't bother.



Related Reviews:
Robert Downey Jr. movies
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)
Iron Man (2008)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Rolling Stone
Film Critics United

Labels: animated, Keanu Reeves, Robert Downey Jr, Rory Cochrane, Winona Ryder, Woody Harrelson

I have a number of complaints about this film and hardly any praise. The broadest complaint I cast at this production is that it is simply not funny. The jokes are heavy handed and buried in self-referential smugness and/or so blatantly intended to be edgy they come off as sophomoric pranks. The film follows a group of self involved actors and a director into the depths of a Vietnamese jungle as they attempt to shoot an improvised war film. When the director is killed by a landmine the actors are left to fend for themselves. Still thinking the film is loaded with special effects and extras, the actors are in reality attacked by drug runners. Essentially, this is The Three Amigos without the plotting.

The biggest problem with the film is sloppiness. It is just messy. The scenes trail on for too long and stumble over obvious attempts at industry in-jokes. When they're not busy with their self-mockery the cast doesn't have anything to do. Their characters are very flat so when it comes time to pull on their conflicts to create comedy the results are hobbled by a lack of depth. This pushes the cast (Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Junior, Jack Black, Steve Coogan, and Jay Baruchel) to improvise, a task they are clearly not up to completing. With the exception of Robert Downey, everyone fumbles about like their stuck in the trailing moments of a poorly executed Saturday Night Live skit. They appear to be sticking to humorless vein attempting to find something to deliver and coming up dry. Downey only succeeds to be interesting because of his portrayal of an white Australian pretending to be an African American. This isn't funny but it gives him something to play off of. An example of this fumbling is seen directly following the death of the film's director when he steps on a landmine. His body is decimated by the explosion. In the scene action-movie star Tugg Speedman (Stiller) is convinced that the horrible death he's just witnessed is fake. He locates the director's decapitated head and holds it up for the other actors to see. He proclaims that its all movie magic. He then reaches into the shredded neck of the dead man's head and licks the blood from his fingers. To push things further, Stiller then pulls out the guts from the neck and head while claiming it is a fake head. To push things even further he puts the dead man's head on the butt of his gun. This is all intended to be funny. The whole movie is like this scene. No creativity, no genuine humor, just a bunch of careless elites trying to be edgy and over-the-top.

Beyond the lack of humor and the abundance of clumsy crassness, there are some other very serious issues that need to be addressed. When the film was released there was an outcry from advocacy groups for the intellectually impaired. I wrote about the controversy here. Having worked with the mentally retarded for years, knowing the families of mentally challenged people and seeing the effects of people's bigotry against the handicapped, I take the subject rather seriously. The film hit controversy because of a slew of jokes surrounding one of Tugg Speedman's films called Simple Jack. In this fake film, we see the trailer in the movie, Speedman plays Jack a mentally retarded man who can speak with animals. Stiller is shown in the role chasing a butterfly with a hammer, and generally overplaying the retarded man role. I actually didn't take too much offense at this. It was meant to be offensive and meant to mock how Hollywood handles the mentally retarded. At one point they have Downey and Stiller talk about how actors don't go "full-retard" for roles, meaning they play a mentally challenged person but that person always has a special ability (Forrest Gump was a great runner, Rain Man was a genius at counting, etc.) This is very true. Where the film crosses the line, at least to me, is with Speedman's agent Rick Peck (Matthew McConaughey.) Directly following a conversation focused directly on Simple Jack, right after we see the trailer, Peck is reminded that Speedman is attempting to adopt a child. Peck then grumbles that Speedman is lucky because "At least you get to choose yours. I'm stuck with mine." They then insert a picture of Peck and his son (below.)
The son is clearly shown as being mentally deficient in some capacity. In light of the discussion that directly preceded this shot the implication is heavy that the child is mentally challenged. In an age where people righteously proclaim that it is moral to abort mentally retarded children (Google Trig Palin and marvel at things you find) it is unbelievable to me they would stoop so low as to show a mentally challenged person and push the notion they are a terrible burden. I know families of the intellectually disabled, they love their family member as any other. People with disabilities are brutally treated still in this society and have been treated as less than human throughout our collective histories. This mockery is the lowest kind of humor people can get involved in. To push it further, the film ends with a shot of Peck and his son on a private jet. The son, bib around his neck stares blankly out the window (below.)


In post-production, the controversy was heating up. In the final credits they show the characters, freeze-frame on them and insert a graphic around their image. In the case of the son, they surround him with video-game aliens. In my opinion, this was done to suggest that the kid was simply mind-numbed from too much media. This was never acknowledged in the film, something they would have mentioned since it could have been used to play up some jokes. I believe they did this to try to remove the concept the boy was mentally retarded. Of course, most viewers won't make this connection and still walk away having laughed at a boy for being handicapped.

If this weren't enough, Stiller also mocks the memorable image from Oliver Stone's film Platoon. The image where Sgt. Elias is shot and as he dies thrusts his arms up to the sky in a Christ-like motion. This mockery is done a couple of times. Throughout the film, Stiller and company attempt to make fun of war film imagery and theatrics. The problem I have here is the root of that image. Stone pulled that image very carefully from a real event and used it in his film as a memorial. The original image comes from a 1968 photograph by Art Greenspon of a paratrooper of A Company, 101st Airborne assisting wounded and dying men. Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but the mockery of real events such as this are disrespectful. You can say, well he's really mocking Stone's use of the image besides, no one is getting hurt. I understand that there are different ways to take the use of the image. I argue that it is bad taste and disrespectful.

Ultimately, this film is little more that a gaggle of careless people who have grown up in privilege (mostly) who devised a little piece of meta-fiction to mock the frivolity that surrounds them. In doing this however they also reveal an incredible disconnect with any sense of responsible behavior or decorum. I get they were trying to push the envelope, but we need to have standards. A society without standards is one that cannot stand for long. These men are the heirs of greater talents both in a familial sense and cinematic ally. Our culture has been handed over to reckless men who care little about the results of their actions and care even less to putting in the creative energy to deliver worthwhile product. I strongly advise skipping this film. It is not funny and even if someone is completely lacking moral judgment, offensive for no reason whatsoever beyond just to be offensive. Don't you have better things to do than to watch something like this?


Related Reviews:
Ben Stiller movies
Zero Effect (1998)
Zoolander (2001)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Roger Ebert
Need Coffee

Labels: Ben Stiller, film, Jack Black, movie review, Nick Nolte, Robert Downey Jr, Steve Coogan

Short Review: Far more interesting than Nickel Man.

Robert Downey Jr. gives the most inviting and outright fun performance since Johnny Depp dressed up like Keith Richard in Pirates of the Caribbean. Downey's career still stinging from his drug issues and time in the hoosegow manages a remarkable comeback performance in this silly flick. He obviously had fun portraying the weapon industrialist turned iron-clad superhero Tony Stark. He gives Stark a belligerent, but sharp minded snarkiness that lights up the whole picture.

The movie itself isn't going to win any awards for originality. The plot a bit copy and paste and only serves to introduce Stark/Iron Man. The points of the plot tick off predictably but the movie as a whole works because screenwriters Mark Fergus and Hank Ostby (Children of Men) smartly keep the focus on Stark rather than Iron Man. The time it takes for the transformation from man to superhero takes almost the whole film. If you're heading in to see Iron Man kick the stuffing out of bad guys and perhaps throw something through a building, you won't be completely disappointed but you're going to have to wait. Don't take this patience to mean this is a moody and ponderous film like Batman Begins. This more like Spider-Man - the story is properly developed so there's less time for the visual eye candy we have come to expect from content free films like Fantastic 4, Tomb Raider, and Daredevil, X-Men: The Last Stand.


What is interesting, at least to me, with this film is its view of the United States. In a time when Hollywood can't seem to say anything positive about America, this movie goes out of its way to be fair. Stark, a weapons dealer, gets kidnapped in Afghanistan. The American soldiers in the field with him are shown as heroic and kind. Given how they've been treated for the past twenty years, this is a notable exception. On top of this, the duality of America's foreign policies is also carefully displayed. Yes, we blow tons of things up and we've caused a great deal of pain. Conversely, we have also fed and saved millions through humanitarian aid and protection. When Stark's friend lies dying in an Afghan cave surrounded by American weapons they're using on our troops, it is not an accident the dying man is lying on top of a bag of grain also from the States. Finally, the villain Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), Stark's business partner, is only identified as the villain when it comes out that he is a turncoat against America and is selling weapons to our enemies. Again, in a time when many in Hollywood would be more than comfortable not making a distinction between terrorists and America, this a worth noting.

If you can turn your brain off and gloss over the details (and ignore the plot conveniences) this is an enjoyable film on many levels. It doesn't rise above its comic book origins. Then again, its about a guy in an iron suit, its not meant to be an Oscar contender.


Cautions: Given that the Iron Man toys have hit the shelves and the franchise is off to a stellar start, many parents will be tempted to take their children to see the movie. For parents I'd give a warning that the movie does have some frank sexual behavior. Stark picks up a reporter and they are shown rolling in the sheets. She is then shown draped naked on the bed, blurry eyed, the morning after. Stark is a womanizer and this is referenced a number of times throughout the film. The violence is not gory but people are shot, beaten and thrown around like rag dolls. It should also be noted that small children will probably be disturbed by the frightening robots and loud voices.


Worldview: The movie contains a very valuable lesson on defining oneself through ones works. Stark is filthy rich, brilliant and insanely successful but his life is hollow. His mentor, once he learns Stark is without a wife and kids points out that Stark is a man who has everything but it means nothing. Much in the same way he sleeps around with women but never experiences love, Stark turns when he looks at his life and recognizes that works for their own sake are without value. The script does a great job of bringing this to life through the use of an obtuse symbol of a chuck of glowing technology that essentially replaces his heart. He only becomes a man when he lives to serve others and not his own selfish needs.


Related Reviews:
Superhero movies
Superman Returns (2006)
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Oxford Film Freak
The Film Chair

Labels: Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Jon Favreau, movie review, Robert Downey Jr, superhero, Terrance Howard

A meandering script and an irrational fear of editing makes this film a dry bore. The performances are good but since they go on so long they lose their potency and eventually become tedious.

It's a remarkable thing to make a movie about a famous serial killer boring.






Screenwriter: James Vanderbilt (Basic)
Director: David Fincher (Fight Club)
Actors: Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback Mountain), Anthony Edwards (Gotcha), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), and Brian Cox (The Ring)

Labels: Brian Cox, David Fincher, film, Jake Glyyenhaal, movie trailer, Robert Downey Jr

Short Review: Apparently, the writer decided to replace the punctuation in his script with curse words.


Watching this film is like going out for a night on the town with a friend of mine. You have fun and intelligent conversation for about the first hour and then he gets one too many drinks in him and he starts fights, swears too much and eventually moons the cops. This movie begins wonderfully. Yes, it is littered with foul language, crude references and violence…that breeze you just heard was all of my Christian readers running away from this review. This is a foul movie in many respects but the first act of the film is still a great watch. It is tightly written, expertly crafted and needless cursing aside, fun.

Penned and directed by veteran screenwriter Shane Black (Lethal Weapon, The Last Boyscout) this movie is bristling with marvelous dialog and ingenious narration. Yeah, narration, the bane of my existence - the Cheese Whiz and Spam sandwich in the screenwriting buffet. Black’s use of narration is wonderful and funny. Black has a cynical sense of humor and knows how to throw out insults. As one who appreciates cynicism, along with clever insults, I have always had a soft spot for Black’s work.

The film revolves around Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey Jr.), a former failing criminal turn soon to be failing film actor. Lockhart gets mingled in a murder mystery with hardened Hollywood private investigator Gay Perry (Val Kilmer.) The piece is an exercise in the hollow joys of cynicism. Everyone is bitter, disturbed and sarcastic to the extreme. Every scene drips with contempt for Hollywood, the entertainment industry and those who exist around its fringes. This is the film’s strongest point but it is also its undoing.

The film is a great watch for about forty minutes Again, I return to the idea that this film is a little like sharing a park bench with a belligerent drunk. They may be humorous for a little while but eventually it just wears on you and its just sad. The film keeps going on you just want it to end already. The cynicism is great to open with, but it just doesn’t let up and eventually overtakes the piece. This is particularly evident in the final act where Black’s story loses steam sputters along for the final half-hour. The film ends with a limping plot that becomes more crude than clever.

Overall, while I love many parts of the film for my own film geek reasons, I think the normal person will not find this experience one they will want to repeat. As a movie, it goes stale and why would you want to sit through that?

The final piece of narration in the film should sum up whether you think this film is for you or not:



Related Reviews:
Val Kilmer movies
Top Secret! (1984)
Spartan (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Strong Opinion
Monsters & Critics

Labels: film, movie review, Robert Downey Jr, Shane Black, Val Kilmer

This is the second movie I know of about a African-America homeless paranoid schizophrenic who once attended Julliard and is a masterful musician.

This trailer gives no real reason to see the movie. With all of the sweeping music and pushy emotionalism the story itself seems rather hollow. A rich white guy stops his self important life long enough to give aid to a troubled black man. The film meets all of the usual racial elements Hollywood is comfortable with (geez I wonder if white guy will bring troubled black man to meet the rest of this rich white guy friends and, gosh I wonder how things will turn out?).

There wasn't a screenplay for this movie, it was a recipe.





Screenwriter: Susannah Grant (Catch & Release)
Director: Joe Wright (Atonement)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Catherine Keener (Living in Oblivion), Jamie Foxx (Ray) and Stephen Root (Office Space)

Labels: Catherine Keener, film, Jamie Foxx, movie trailer, Robert Downey Jr, Stephen Root

Short Review: After the first three hours, I was willing to claim I was the Zodiac killer they were looking for just to get this thing over with.

Your life is as miserable and boring as ever. Watching a deadpan movie with a running time of over two and a half hours about a murderous loser and the failed attempts to catch him is the last thing you need. Try to liven up your day by peeling that lazy butt of yours off of the couch and go outside. Its summer, why are you wasting your time inside watching movies anyway? Your sister will call today. Don’t pick up. Seriously, don’t do it. That witch will drive you nuts. Honestly, what has she ever done for you? If you weren’t blood, you probably would have abandoned her ten years ago. She’s just like another in a long line of “serial killer” movies. She plays on the worst and darkest parts of your personality, wastes your time and gives you little in return. The knowledge that you can’t make Mint Julips with Jägermeister comes about ten hours too late for you. You also discover it was a bad idea to do this experiment right before your company’s summer picnic. It is best to avoid a movie involving seeing Robert Downey Jr. overacting. His weak attempts at nabbing that best supporting actor nod may remind you of your own pathetic missteps in front of your boss. As it turns out, while your boss’ wife does indeed have a mustache, she’s not nearly as amused by it as you are. Suffice to say, you won’t get fired soon, but you can rest assured you’re never – never – going to get that promotion. Just resign yourself to your fate. The sooner you come to understand you have yourself to blame the better off you’ll be. You’re cancer, people tend to want to avoid you. Much like they will want to avoid David Fincher’s boring film. He is one of the best directors out there, but this thing is a droning, mismanaged disaster. He has too many characters over too long of a time period not doing enough. By the time the belated final resolution rolls in, the original spark of the film has already packed its bags and went home in a huff. Editing, David, its called editing. Copious amounts would have done this film wonders. Remember that thing you did with those guys with the thing that time way back over at that place? Yeah, that’s coming back to rear its ugly head. There’s nothing about a movie here, I thought I’d just warn you.

Much of the day will be like finding yourself in a murder mystery where the killer is revealed way too early, and the storyline doesn't have enough depth to support an extended act where said killer evades indictment. Like the movie, you’ll wander around for hours despondent and desperately wanting something – anything interesting to happen. The surprise left out of your brief slice of life will sap any reason for experiencing it. You will have to make your own fun today. You’re sensitive today. Yes, those uncontrollable crying fits are back. Face it, he’s not coming back. Your years of concentrating on your appearance and social status have caused your intellect to atrophy. Your mind is an unbearable hole where random thoughts go to die. Of course he left, you may be pretty and have shiny hair but you can’t talk about anything more complicated than reruns of Sex in the City. Pretty girls may have more fun but smart girls end up happier. With the intellectual vacuum you exist in, you may naturally fall back on wanting to forget your troubles by looking at some hunky guy. If you’re into that Jake Gyllenhaal goof, try one of his other movies. While he does a fine job in this, he looks like he’s been awake for thirty years. You know you’re in trouble when you’re standing next to Robert Downey Jr. and you’re the one who looks under the weather. When I say try one of his other movies, you’re going to want to avoid Brokeback Mountain as well…unless you’re into rutting cowboys. Then again if you are, then maybe your boyfriend left for entirely different reasons than we've explored here. Avoid engaging in viewing a movie that is so clumsily done that it has to show murder victims being ruthlessly stabbed. Knowing that cinema is the art of not only what is seen but more importantly what is not seen, the image of a woman being stabbed on screen will only support your fears that indeed the culture is going to hell in a hand basket. Well, you’re partly right. It’s actually going to hell in a barf bag. Forget your troubles today and let it all out. Enjoy life, experience the small things and embrace your existence with wild abandon. The stars are showing that that aneurysm in your head you don’t know about is about to blow. Speaking of blowing, the script for Zodiac is ponderous and pointless (a double threat). James Vanderbilt’s script is to brevity what this seemingly endless novelty review is to good writing. Apparently, that stuff you ate in the middle of the night last night wasn’t bean dip (although it was lumpy and spongy). Perhaps next time you’ll won’t rely on that small refrigerator light to guide your way at 3am. You’ll spend most of your day today exploring the personal theme park ride that is your gag reflex. A little rest will do you well, when you’re not perched over the porcelain. For help overcoming your lurching guts and getting some rest, pop in the last two thirds of this film. The lazy plot and stagnant tone will lull you into a deep sleep. Please sleep on your stomach however. We don’t want you pulling a Hendrix. You’ll have moments of clarity today. Like right now when you realize that horoscopes are for morons. Some charlatan writes up vague descriptions that have no real meaning and then dimwits read these things and shoehorn their individual meanings into them. Try this, on your way home from work today think to yourself that you’ll see the number 22. Soon everywhere you look the number 22 will appear. Same thing with horoscopes, you’ll fit your life into the frame they provide. Stop with the divination idiocy and just face your life already. Things at work will fall apart in a brilliant and embarrassing public spectacle. Your hard work will be forgotten and any positive efforts you’ve offered will be for naught. Today you’re a little like Mark Ruffalo. He provides a great performance in this film but all of his efforts amount to little in face of the remainder of the production. Yes, he is the best part of the film but this is a little like saying he’s the best violin player on the Titanic. I wouldn’t even bother going into work today. You’ll just end up in your car over your lunch break asking yourself where it all went wrong. You can do that at home and you don’t even need to get dressed.


Related Reviews:
Jake Gyllenhaal movies
Donnie Darko (2001)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews
Cinema Dave
Exclaim!

Labels: David Fincher, film, Jake Gyllenhaal, movie trailer, Robert Downey Jr, serial killer

Here's the latest foul deposit tugged out of Ben Stiller's cat box of comedy. Thanks to a string of coincidences a group of actors filming a war movie get caught up in a situation where they must act like soldiers. If this looks good to you just remember this was penned by Stiller who is also responsible for the cinematic blight Zoolander. This production seems to match Stiller's other offerings, a solid concept completely ruined by a lack of actually humorous jokes.

Movies about making movies are very rarely worth the effort. They are usually littered with inside jokes and shop talk and give the audience little to identify with. Maybe they'll pull this off but given Stiller's track record of making truly awful comedies, it doesn't seem very likely to me.



Screenwriter: Ben Stiller (Zoolander), Justin Theroux, and Ethan Cohen (Idiocracy)
Director: Ben Stiller (The Cable Guy)
Actors: Ben Stiller (Mystery Men), Jack Black (School of Rock), Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Brandon T. Jackson (Envy), Steve Coogan (Night at the Museum), Nick Nolte (Weeds), Tom Cruise (Vanilla Sky), Tobey Macquire (Spider-Man), Matthew McConaughey (Sahara), and Mickey Rooney (Baby Face Nelson)

Labels: Ben Stiller, comedy, film, Jack Black, Matthew McConaughey, movie trailer, Nick Nolte, Robert Downey Jr, Steve Coogan, Tobey Macquire, Tom Cruise

Short Review: Far more interesting than Nickel Man.

Robert Downey Jr. gives the most inviting and outright fun performance since Johnny Depp dressed up like Keith Richard in Pirates of the Caribbean. Downey's career still stinging from his drug issues and time in the hoosegow manages a remarkable comeback performance in this silly flick. He obviously had fun portraying the weapon industrialist turned iron-clad superhero Tony Stark. He gives Stark a belligerent, but sharp minded snarkiness that lights up the whole picture.

The movie itself isn't going to win any awards for originality. The plot a bit copy and paste and only serves to introduce Stark/Iron Man. The points of the plot tick off predictably but the movie as a whole works because screenwriters Mark Fergus and Hank Ostby (Children of Men) smartly keep the focus on Stark rather than Iron Man. The time it takes for the transformation from man to superhero takes almost the whole film. If you're heading in to see Iron Man kick the stuffing out of bad guys and perhaps throw something through a building, you won't be completely disappointed but you're going to have to wait. Don't take this patience to mean this is a moody and ponderous film like Batman Begins. This more like Spider-Man - the story is properly developed so there's less time for the visual eye candy we have come to expect from content free films like Fantastic 4, Tomb Raider, and Daredevil, X-Men: The Last Stand.


What is interesting, at least to me, with this film is its view of the United States. In a time when Hollywood can't seem to say anything positive about America, this movie goes out of its way to be fair. Stark, a weapons dealer, gets kidnapped in Afghanistan. The American soldiers in the field with him are shown as heroic and kind. Given how they've been treated for the past twenty years, this is a notable exception. On top of this, the duality of America's foreign policies is also carefully displayed. Yes, we blow tons of things up and we've caused a great deal of pain. Conversely, we have also fed and saved millions through humanitarian aid and protection. When Stark's friend lies dying in an Afgan cave surrounded by American weapons they're using on our troops, it is not an accident the dying man is lying on top of a bag of grain also from the States. Finally, the villain Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), Stark's business partner, is only identified as the villain when it comes out that he is a turncoat against America and is selling weapons to our enemies. Again, in a time when many in Hollywood would be more than comfortable not making a distinction between terrorists and America, this a worth noting.

If you can turn your brain off and gloss over the details (and ignore the plot conveniences) this is an enjoyable film on many levels. It doesn't rise above its comic book origins. Then again, its about a guy in an iron suit, its not meant to be an Oscar contender.


Cautions: Given that the Iron Man toys have hit the shelves and the franchise is off to a stellar start, many parents will be tempted to take their children to see the movie. For parents I'd give a warning that the movie does have some frank sexual behavior. Stark picks up a reporter and they are shown rolling in the sheets. She is then shown draped naked on the bed, blurry eyed, the morning after. Stark is a womanizer and this is referenced a number of times throughout the film. The violence is not gory but people are shot, beaten and thrown around like rag dolls. It should also be noted that small children will probably be disturbed by the frightening robots and loud voices.


Worldview: The movie contains a very valuable lesson on defining oneself through ones works. Stark is filthy rich, brilliant and insanely successful but his life is hollow. His mentor, once he learns Stark is without a wife and kids points out that Stark is a man who has everything but it means nothing. Much in the same way he sleeps around with women but never experiences love, Stark turns when he looks at his life and recognizes that works for their own sake are without value. The script does a great job of bringing this to life through the use of an obtuse symbol of a chuck of glowing technology that essentially replaces his heart. He only becomes a man when he lives to serve others and not his own selfish needs.


Related Reviews:
Superhero movies
Superman Returns (2006)
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Oxford Film Freak
The Film Chair

Labels: Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Jon Favreau, movie review, Robert Downey Jr, superhero, Terrance Howard