In Contention

Author: Kristopher Tapley

  • Eckhart on Dent

    My guy identifies with everybody in the movie…Really, all of it is more than an adventure tale, it’s somewhat of a mirror of our times. It deals with some fundamental questions of what’s going on in society. To me, this film is about how Batman feels about justice, how he takes care of the city, how he feels about the Joker when he meets him and sees what he is capable of doing. How he feels when Harvey Two-Face takes matters into his own hands. It’s not simple, and it gets ugly. I think people will be surprised.

    From this weekend’s profile in the LA Times.

  • Uh…is it a cleansing by fire for Dent rather than acid?

    A second look at “Iron Man” with the masses (indeed, the MASSES) last night afforded a look at the new trailer for “The Dark Knight” on the big screen, rather than dealing with that clumsy cell phone video that’s out there.

    Two things hit me when I was watching this:

    1) Wally Pfister is all but guaranteed a second nomination for his work on the series. The opening hero shot, dizzyingly high above and looking down a Chicago skyscraper, has to be the coolest shot in the genre.

    2) I think the brothers Nolan may have taken some liberties with the Two-Face origin.

    The information has always been scattered out there that, in David Goyer and Christopher Nolan’s vision of a trilogy, the Joker would be the one responsible for the mangling of Harvey Dent’s face and, therefore, the impetus for the creation of Two-Face. (Aaron Eckhart plays Dent in the film. He was profiled in the LA Times this weekend).

    I don’t know if this has panned out, but if it has, I am still not 100% comfortable with it. In the comics, of course, Dent is scarred when a mob boss tosses a vial of acid his way, most interestingly laid out by writer Jeph Loeb and artist Tim Sale in “The Long Halloween.” In that story, the boss is Sal Maroni (portrayed by Eric Roberts in “The Dark Knight,” by the way).

    No, I’m not beholden to comic-to-screen loyalty every step of the way. “Batman Begins” was, after all, a brilliant mish-mash of a couple of comic sources, and we already know that Nolan and company are taking the mash-up approach to “The Dark Knight,” using a little of Batman #1, a little of “The Long Halloween,” this and that, this and that. Fair enough. But I’ve never been fully comfortable with one of the rogues gallery providing the genesis for another.

    Watching the new trailer again last night, I noticed a brief shot of what looked to be Harvey held down, the left side of his face pressed against a floor covered in gasoline. It was quick, but I think I know what I saw.

    (more…)

  • Artist on Artist: John Cusack and Diablo Cody

    Just ran across this over at The Movie Blog. The latest installment of MySpace’s “Artist on Artist” series features a conversation between John Cusack and Diablo Cody.

    Cody talks a little about her upcoming horror film “Jennifer’s Body,” which is in the midst of filming right now up north. Cusack feigns interest while clearly trying to figure out how he might get her back to his crib. (Kidding, of course…kinda.)

    Check it out:

  • What did you think of ‘Iron Man?’

    Now that the first summer blockbuster has landed, tell us what you thought.

  • Official poster for ‘Hamlet 2’

    This was a big hit at Sundance and something tells me with the right finesse, Focus Features could spin some awards potential out of the film. But admittedly I haven’t seen it yet. Here’s the trailer. And the new poster:

  • Audiences to see a different ‘Iron Man’ than critics?

    At Monday’s screening of “Iron Man,” I was sad to see that Samuel L. Jackson’s much-anticipated cameo as S.H.I.E.L.D. leader Nick Fury wasn’t in the cut. Though director Jon Favreau has suggested the scene might surface in the DVD release.

    Well New York Mag’s Vulture blog points us today to a Comic Book Resources story revealing that general audiences will get to see the Easter egg scene that was withheld from critics’ screenings on the grounds of Top Secrecy, so to speak:

    One thing missing from the film was the much-touted end of movie scene with Samuel Jackson as Nick Fury. I understand from British Film classification sources that the scene is in the print that they’ve approved for general release, but not in premiere or preview screenings, so as not to spoil the um.. surprise… bugger. Anyway, he’s recruiting for a group called The Avengers.

    And Moviehole confirms the notion. With the sentiments of two fellow journos. Fair enough. I was gonna pay to see it again anyway. Now I have even more incentive!

    And come on, “The Avengers initiative?” A shared scene with Tony Stark in “The Incredible Hulk?” The road to an “Avengers” moving being paved with gold? My geek meter is on overload.

    God bless Marvel Studios.

    UPDATED: It looks like John over at The Movie Blog has the footage in question up, from a YouTube posting.

  • SHORT TAKE: “Iron Man” (***1/2)

    Paramount Pictures\' Iron ManYou know, I find myself agreeing with many of the criticisms leveled at “Iron Man” in some quarters this week, rather than adhering to the admittedly overreaching raves pouring out of others.

    Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. are working from very thin material here, from a horribly green four-person screenwriting team. Set pieces seem injected without the benefit of a valid thought process that might have elevated the film within the genre, while character details are buried under the desire to go high gloss throughout. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with any of this, mind you, though it is a bit difficult to sit through the film without wondering what might have been, the “next level” hovering like a specter above.

    Yes, “Iron Man” is a hell of a time at the movies. Yes, the suit is really, really cool. And yes, Downey Jr.’s performance might stay at the top of a lot of personal favorites lists throughout the season. It’s like a glove; the actor fires on all cylinders, more a machine of dramatic purpose and performing genius than an actor playing the part. For comic fanatics (to avoid the pejorative “geeks”), hair-raising joy is in many a minor crevice. Terrence Howard will afford the line of the year in some respects — a simple toss to a crowd in the know but smooth as butter and damn near an afterthought all the same. Very cool.

    (more…)

  • Could Robert Downey Jr. own this year?

    I remember when Robert Downey Jr. was cast in the role of Tony Stark for Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man,” my colleague David Poland made the shrewd observation that the former drug-addled wash-up was once again insurable.

    Not that I like putting such language to an actor I love so much, but the truth is, he hit one of the deepest downward spirals a star of his caliber could imagine, all of it following nearly 10 years of Brat Pack fame and a heralded Oscar nominated performance in 1992.

    But how about the turnaround? After the bad days of the mid-to-late 90s, and some major relapses in the first part of the new millennium, Downey finally turned the corner. A new role on one of television’s hottest shows wasn’t enough to get him bonded for Woody Allen’s “Melinda and Melinda” (which waited another four years to hit screens, with Will Ferrell ultimately taking the role), and there were pitfalls ahead still, but the upward curve seemed on the horizon somewhere, lurking.

    And here, eight years later, Downey is one day away from the release of one of the year’s most anticipated, likely highest-grossing films. Insured doesn’t say the half of it. Robert Downey Jr. is vindicated.

    But it doesn’t end with Tony Stark. The actor has two other very high profile performances landing in 2008, one of them set to be a laugh riot as he sports black face opposite Ben Stiller in “Tropic Thunder,” releasing in August. To cap off the year, Downey will star in Joe Wright’s “Atonement” follow-up, “The Soloist,” an awards season hopeful for DreamWorks SKG and perhaps a ride to a second Oscar nomination for the actor.

    I bring all this up because it is the story people should be writing, however much publicity would likely prefer to shine the light elsewhere. David Carr wrote a superlative piece that touched the finer points for The New York Times a few weeks ago, and my colleague Blake Rutherford offered his own thoughts in that light as well. But there isn’t enough patting on the back going around for my taste — sue me. An actor taking this big a stumble, looking like straight-to-DVD material if ever a career could be salvaged, and then pushing back with a creative and hard-working fury such as this — it is cause for celebration.

    When all is said and done, I have a feeling Robert Downey Jr. will be the toast of Hollywood in 2008. Entertainer of the year? Maybe. But it’s certainly the story of the year.

    Bravo. And here, here.

  • The buried

    Okay, I think we’re done cleaning out all the kinks here for the night. I wanted to mention, however, that the old site is still out there in cyberspace for you to peruse. Check it out here. It’s a little buggy over there in the wake of the move, but I’ll iron all that out in due time. But now that the new design is out and about, I wanted to link back to a few posts from the last month by both myself and a few contributors, lest they be lost in the shuffle of today’s goings-on:

    1) Guy Lodge previews the Cannes line-up. (4/22)
    2) John Foote takes a look at Brad Pitt’s Oscar hopes this year. (4/21)
    3) Steve Lopez talks about his new book, “The Soloist,” in Pasadena. (4/19)
    4) The “Valkyrie” pile-on knows no bounds. (4/8) and (4/22)
    5) Anticipating the summer movie season. (4/8)
    6) Very brief notes on the “W” screenplay. (4/1)
    7) Remembering Anthony Minghella. (3/23)
    8) And of course, the year-in-advance Oscar column. (2/26)

    That should cover it.

  • Welcome to the new In Contention

    And a day and a half early at that. I like to keep you on your toes. But…a bit of a change, no?

    We’ve cleaned things up around here and consolidated the look of In Contention to what, we hope, is a little more streamlined and user-friendly. Allow me to offer a brisk walk-through.

    We’ve added a few new voices to the mixture who will be posting at their will, so be sure to check out our Contributors section to read up on what they bring to the table. It should make for an exciting season for those of you desperate for some sort of Tapley dilution (I know you’re out there).

    Gerard will still be offering up his weekly “Tech Support” column, but it will be streamlined into the main page of the site here. Ditto Brian Kinsley’s “Page to Screen” articles, though I will be contributing to that weekly feature as well. All features, by the way, will be tagged and headlined accordingly (i.e., “TECH SUPPORT: Best Cinematography,” “PAGE TO SCREEN: ‘Body of Lies,’” etc.). No separate blogs/pages this time.

    You’ll also notice a backlog of a month or so of content. While I was working out the kinks here and there in setting up the new digs, I figured I would continue my various pontifications. Nothing earth-shattering, but some points of interest, perhaps, to be perused. The introductory posts from our new team members can be found sprinkled throughout as well.

    (more…)

  • Vulture takes a piss out of ole’ Dubya

    In my daily trek through the ranks of New York Magazine’s Vulture blog this afternoon (increasingly my favorite stop on the net), I came across a couple of posts ripping into our Commander in Chief (*shiver*).

    First up, a very insightful entry, actually, concerning how the evil leader of our gloriously broke and battered nation has come to be embraced with pity by pop culture, rather than accosted on appropriately venomous levels.

    Here’s a look:

    The two places that George W. Bush is showing up in pop culture this spring — besides, of course, taped appearances on game shows — confirm that the culture no longer views him as relevant to the discussion. The Times’ Dennis Lim refers to Bush’s depiction in this week’s stoner comedy Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantánamo Bay as “arguably the most sympathetic movie portrayal of him to date” — but apparently he hasn’t read the widely leaked early draft of the screenplay to Oliver Stone’s biopic. Both portrayals mostly bypass direct criticism of the president, substituting bemusement and — dare we say it? — affection. He’s not a bad guy, just an amiable buffoon — a figure to poke fun at, like an eccentric uncle, but not to revile.

    It’s admirable, in a way, that at his lowest point — with his popularity in the cellar and his political influence in the toilet — pop culture is willing to cut George W. Bush some slack. It’s also disheartening that the leader of the free world is so unimportant that even self-righteous Hollywood blowhards can’t be bothered to get angry at him.

    Also, the webmasters over there got a copy of that widely circulated “W” screenplay that Oliver Stone is hard at work filming down in the Bayou at the moment (or that was the plan last I checked). Along with the help of some of their buddies at the Upright Citizens Brigade, they filmed five scenes (just, you know, to give you an idea of how ridiculous this script really is).

    Take a look, if you can’t stomach it. And yes, “serious as dick cancer” is a line in this thing. Along with the now infamous “Freedom Fries” quip.

    Oy.

  • ‘Enchanted 2’ in the works?

    According to moviehole.net, yes.

  • Fonda talks Leone

    Regarding last night’s David Mamet post and that Henry Fonda/Sergio Leone story, I was poking around YouTube and wouldn’t you know it, there’s a clip of the actor recounting the whole story. And he does it much better than me.

    Check it out:

    httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=cHI6Hl7FUqA

  • Milking that ‘Valkyrie’ teet

    I don’t disagree with a lot of what Michael Cieply has to say about the counted-out “Valkyrie” in this recent New York Times piece. Indeed, the Web is the greatest offender when it comes to instant declarations. It’s a tough balance that plenty of webmasters, myself included, struggle with on a daily basis.

    Indeed, there is much from every side on this story in Cieply’s filing, if certain parties are grossly under-quoted or under-attributed for my tastes. (A closing note from Bryan Singer just isn’t enough.) But the bottom line is, hey — maybe there’s nothing to see here?

    However, when you quote executives in a context such as this:

    In the interim Mr. Cruise, his partners at United Artists and the “Valkyrie” filmmakers are bracing for what will likely be a nine-month fight to prove their critics wrong. “We will not be daunted,” Paula Wagner, chief executive of United Artists, said last week.

    During a 90-minute interview at the company’s headquarters in a Century City office tower, Ms. Wagner said she and her fellow executives were intent on overcoming negative reactions that she saw as rooted in ignorance of the process of building movie production companies.

    “Anybody trying to dismiss us or write us off doesn’t understand the business,” Ms. Wagner said. She added: “Nothing is going to stop us. We are determined to make this work.”

    How can one not smell blood in the water? Granted, Cieply might have bumped two or three of Wagner’s clearly adamant exclamations that perhaps came at varying times in that 90minute interview, but it still comes across somewhat desperate on her part.

    David Poland is busy washing his hands of all of this, making sure everyone understands that he wasn’t aiming for negativity on “Valkyrie” from the outset. Of course, he’s got that usual balancing act of bashing old media, digging up an old, probably unarchived Oscar call and running through the box office numbers again. But at least he sticks it to Roger Friedman, who Cieply should never have called for such a piece. It takes the story down exponential levels.

    Anyway, I personally could care less about all of this and wish the press would ease off of it. And I’ve said it before, but what good is it doing pulling back the layers on this one?

  • Dun-dun!

    (Props to John at The Movie Blog)

  • David Mamet on the greatest actor ever

    David Mamet’s “Redbelt” is releasing soon, though I just realized I haven’t made it to any of the film’s screenings this past month. I love Mamet, even when he fails. But I’m not hearing good things on that film.

    Anyway, I came across an interesting piece at Film Stew this evening that cornered the esteemed playwright and filmmaker with that most difficult of queries: Who is the greatest actor ever?

    This is the sort of thing that could change with the wind, of course, and any given person is sure to bounce a number of names around his or her head when it comes down to it. In most cases, you might expect some rote answer. Who can’t steer clear of the Pacinos, the De Niros, the Brandos and the Nicholsons?

    I was happy, and not the least it surprised, to see Mamet hang it out there for a unique choice. His pick: Henry Fonda.

    I have to say, I can run with that. I sometimes forget that two Henry Fonda films rest easy in my top five films of all time (“12 Angry Men” and “Once Upon a Time in the West”). I’d buy a “Vote for Juror #8” shirt if they made one. His career spanned decades and genres with ease as he tackled portrayals of villains and heroes with equal aplomb.

    I’m always reminded of the classic Sergio Leone story when it comes to Fonda. Leone, of course, cast Fonda in “Once Upon a Time in the West” as the lawless Frank, a character (and film, in fat) from which Martin Scorsese would borrow greatly when conceiving “Gangs of New York.” Here was America’s golden god of the screen, Henry Fonda, the quintessential good guy — and he was about to portray a guy who’d shoot a child without blinking…and in the first reel!

    Fonda shows up to set looking like, well, a haggard, ruthless villain. Hadn’t shaved, de-glammed to the max, ready to tackle the antagonist for once. Leone was beside himself. “I didn’t hire you to hide behind a beard,” the director said (and of course, I’m paraphrasing). “I hired Henry Fonda and that’s what I want.” Leone was well aware of the impact a sculpted, shaved, blue-eyed angel like Fonda would make as he tore through the narrative in such a despicable role.

    And boy was he right:

    httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=WgKsMolvDLw

    Quite an inspired choice by Mr. Mamet. It’s a shame Fonda only walked away with a solitary competitive Oscar for one of his lesser (if still wonderful) portrayals. But ain’t it always the case?

    By the way, if you’ve never flipped through Mamet’s guide for actors, “True and False,” I encourage you to do so.

  • The LA Times points and laughs at poor bastards

    It looks like LA Times is still beating that Oscar drum for the old media sect. This week, Susan King writes up the lackluster career choices that followed a number of Academy wins throughout the years.

    Here’s a look:

    Just because you win an Oscar doesn’t mean that every subsequent film you make will be Academy Award-caliber stuff. In fact, Oscar winners inevitably make incongruous missteps in their career after they pick up an Academy Award.

    Just look at Kevin Costner. After being on top of the world when he won the best director Oscar for the 1990 best film, “Dances With Wolves,” he made the gargantuan turkey “Waterworld” and then directed a three-hour celluloid nightmare called “The Postman,” which was DOA with critics and audiences alike. No sooner did Julia Roberts earn an Oscar for “Erin Brockovich” than critics soured on her talents in the ill-fated comedy “America’s Sweethearts.” And what was Oscar-winner Tommy Lee Jones thinking when he signed up for the yawn-inducing comedy “Man of the House,” a film so tepid that it wasn’t even screened for critics?

    She goes on to pour salt on the wounds of Al Pacino, Halle Berry, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams and Nicole Kidman, among others. But I’m left wondering what good a piece like this serves.

    Now I’m no elitist. I understand we all have to stretch for awards content and perspective from time to time. And typically, the LA Times and its awards site, The Envelope, nail down interesting subject matter in that regard. But this piece is like one of those throwaway photo galleries that land on a weekly basis over there on a weekly basis.

    Obviously this was a buttress piece for Patrick Goldstein’s latest think piece (regarding the downward spiral of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino), but I don’t know. It seems a little cheap and unnecessary to me.

    Check out the rest of King’s piece here.

  • It’s go time…

    EDITED (6:09 p.m.): Well…that was fast. The power of negativity lives on as the old school triumphs one more day.

    EARLIER: Polls closed in Pennsylvania one second ago. Now we wait. Let’s hope the media doesn’t drop the ball here with exit polls like they did in New Hampshire.