In Contention

Tag: Iron Man

  • Movie stingers: do they work?

    Columbia Pictures\' Hancock

    If you saw “Hancock” over the weekend, you probably noticed a brief scene in the middle of the closing credits sequence featuring Mike Epps and meant as a funny punch for your theater exiting pleasure.

    It got me thinking about inter- and post-credit sequences — called “stingers” — and whether they ought to be eliminated altogether.  I ask this despite a history that includes a precious few great examples in films like “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and perhaps extending way back to the point-and-shoot moment of “The Great Train Robbery” that sent audiences screaming out of nickelodeons in 1903.

    Most of the time, these moments are random, useless and nothing more than a send-off treat (like in “Hancock”).  Other times, they might be an “Easter egg” for those who know to stick around, like Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury scene at the end of “Iron Man.” (There are also stingers after the credits of “WALL-E” and “Kung Fu Panda” this year.)

    More often, however, they have the potential to leave viewers who weren’t aware somewhat burned.  Or otherwise irritated — like Eric Snider of Cinematical, who dug into this issue in May.

    The question actually brings up another point, which is, are the closing credits of a film a part of the greater artistic whole?  Plenty of opening credit sequences provide direct commentary on a film and could therefore be argued part and parcel of the piece.  But with few exceptions, closing credits are a tacked-on necessity that even those featured in the roll wouldn’t consider any part of a directorial vision or collective filmmaking result — even if they are beautiful or interesting (i.e. “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King”).

    Then again, used to the right artistic effect, a subtle stinger might actually add to the overall canvas of a film.  Such is the case, I thnk, with the sound of children’s laughter after the credits of “Children of Men.”

    Typically, the existence of stingers just annoys me.  I’m more at ease with the inter-credits stuff.  As I was leaving “Hancock,” the Mike Epps scene kicked in and we all stopped and watch — har, har — off we go.  Fine, fair enough.  But if I miss something I realy want to see (like in “Iron Man”), it’s quite irritating.

    That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy the scenes, however.  And I do have a few favorites.

    My top 5 movie stingers of all time after the jump! (spoilers obviously involved)

    (more…)

  • Half-way there: The best and worst of the year so far

    We’ve reached the mid-way point of 2008, a year that truly seems to be speeding along (or is it just me?).  That means it’s time to assess what’s come down the pike over the last six months as our contributors make their picks for the best and worst cinematic offerings of the year so far.

    If you want my thoughts on the Oscar potential of these and other releases from the first half of the year, check out this week’s Off the Carpet column.

    Note: With Gerard, Guy and me being in the UK at the moment, neither of us has had a chance to see “WALL-E” yet.  Press screenings won’t happen until later in the month and it finally opens out here on July 18.

    In Contention’s picks for the best and worst of the year after the jump!

    (more…)

  • OFF THE CARPET: Stuck in the middle with…what?

    Since we’ve finally reached the midway point of 2008, it seemed as good a time as any to post the first “Off the Carpet” column since our year in advance take over four months ago.

    First and foremost, I’m in a unique situation this year.  Being in London since mid-May, I’ve found myself looking from the outside in on a lot of projects.  The UK generally has later release dates, meaning later press screenings.  And so, films like “WALL-E” and “The Dark Knight,” I won’t be commenting on them (and, therefore, won’t have an educated viewpoint on their Oscar prospects) until I’m back in the States in three weeks.

    In a lot of ways, it’s just like the old days (for those who remember the old, clunky Oscar Central stuff, or perhaps the sporadic columns at Oscarwatch (now Awards Daily).  I’m back in the position of fan first, commentator second in some areas, and it’s been a bit of a thrill, I have to say.  Especially in a year of Bat-hype nearly approaching the hysteria of the summer of 1989.

    But with that in mind, I also humbly recall that my Oscar-guessing mind was in a slightly better place back then, removed from the fray, having the true instincts of an observer on which to depend.  But all of that is beside the point.  The real question is, right now, half way through the year, which films have even laid a claim for film awards attention in the brutal season that will be here before we know it?

    (more…)

  • Edward Norton and the not-so-jolly green giant

    What can be said of the fearless Edward Norton, who recently became an on-screen comic book hero?  I never understood his choice to take on the role of Bruce Banner, a.k.a. The Incredible Hulk.  And now, post-release, I’m still puzzled.

    He walked into a franchise that became a fast mess just five years ago.  And according to IMDb, he turned the role down back then. Given the actor’s commitment to characterization in his performances, it makes sense that he would turn the other cheek.  After all, so much of Bruce Banner, or at the least what audiences might want to see, is a technological creation. Unlike any of the characters in “Iron Man” or in the upcoming “The Dark Knight,” Mr. Norton doesn’t get to sport a good makeup job and put his true talents on display. He has to disappear all together.  It seems so unlike him.

    (more…)

  • REVIEW: “The Incredible Hulk” (***1/2)

    When Ang Lee set out to direct the first feature film adaptation of Marvel’s Incredible Hulk property five years ago, some things were…different.

    Lee was coming off of the major awards success of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” which led audiences – many of them skeptics – to ponder what he might be able to accomplish with the psychology of another action-oriented effort.

    However, Marvel had its hands tied. Unlike Detective Comics properties, which fall under Time Warner ownership and therefore receive continual distribution out of Warner Bros. Pictures, Marvel was still at the whims of studio discretion, its properties scattered to the winds despite having the consistency of an Ari Arad behind the scenes.

    Nothing could be said less of Lee as a filmmaker when the finished, disastrous product was unveiled. He took a gamble and hit craps…hard. And he bought back in two years later, bouncing back with a Best Director Oscar to show for it. But Marvel was left with a serious consideration that had likely lingered for many years: how to get a developmental handle on a catalogue of material that was bursting at the seams with cinematic potential.

    The difference now is Marvel Studios, which saw its first production “Iron Man” held on high by critics and audiences alike just one month ago. It was a home run for an unexplored property on the big screen, but could it be duplicated? And via a franchise that wasn’t nearly far enough removed from it’s immediate past to be considered stale by any means?

    Apparently so. Because Louis Leterrier’s “The Incredible Hulk” is not only likely to be the biggest, most exhausting (in all the good ways) film-going experience you’ll have this year, but it also holds the second turtle dove of a young studio’s seizure of what promises to be one of the greatest cinematic roll outs the genre has, or perhaps will ever see.

    (more…)

  • Bart’s ‘non-Oscar’ list

    Variety’s Peter Bart is spinning his Oscar wheels at his new blog. The post is a efw days old at this point, but his “non-Oscar list” is a cute little aside worth a look. He chalks actors like Robert Downey Jr. and Sarah Jessica Parker up as being on the list by sheer fact that they’re in bona fide hits (to say nothing of bias against the former and quality of the latter, of course).  But the move toward the unpopular is the point he’s driving at, and a look at the Oscar telecast’s ratings the last few years tells that tale clear enough.

    Here’s a glimpse at his logic:

    A generation ago, Oscar voters were tolerant of success — witness such best picture winners as “The Godfather,” “The Sting,” and, god forbid, “The Sound of Music.” However, a curious bipolar behavior has set in lately. Members of the Academy serve dutifully as professionals in the industry throughout the year, going about their tasks of producing, acting, editing, composing, etc. Then Oscar time sets in and they all think they’re members of a festival jury. “Art” is in and “commerce” is out.

    Lately, several important studio executives have met with the Academy to review these trends and also propose possible changes in the Oscar show. They advocated a tighter show, fewer awards and a greater stress on entertainment value.

    They hit a stone wall. The bipolar Academy is sticking to its ways.

    Read the rest here.

  • Batman vs. Iron Man

    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLeCu63HCA

  • What next?

    As you can see in the polls archive, it looks like readers aren’t too receptive to the notion that Baz Luhrmann’s “Australia” will be a major awards contender as it sits atop the hep with four or five other “frontrunners” early in the season. Joe Wright’s “The Soloist” wasn’t far behind. We’ll see if you guys were on the money in a matter of months, but for now, we’ve got a new query for you all.

    Now that the summer movie season has exploded onto the scene in the form of last week’s “Iron Man,” what are you most excited about on the horizon? Well, speak up!

    (I went with the nine most likely choices and an “other” option as well. If you’re more psyched for something else, come back here and let us know!)

  • 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…)

  • Opening day = $32.5 million

    You always expect the first summer blockbuster to do well but still…Yowsers. The sky is really the limit for this one now, especially with the great reviews. I have to say I’m really happy for Downey and “Iron Man” in general at this point. This is the start of an amazing year for him — a year he’s had coming for a long time.

    How far do people think this one can go? What does it tell us is in store for the next blockbusters on the way?

  • What did you think of ‘Iron Man?’

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

  • 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.

  • On Robert Downey Jr.

    It was only a few years ago that the inimitable Robert Downey Jr. was in our living rooms as a result of repeated drug arrests. I recall several instances where I felt as if he’d never recover. Fortunately, he did, and on May 2 Mr. Downey will appear as a comic book hero in “Iron Man.” Advance buzz for the film has been strong, and David Carr of The New York Times filed this profile in today’s paper of the actor once labeled “the best of his generation.”

    “Iron Man,” I suspect, will be an enjoyable film. Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow and Terrence Howard also star. Based on what I’ve seen thus far, it has some technical appeal that may catch voters come awards season. It’s this film – and the remaining work on Mr. Downey’s schedule in 2008 – that should finally complete his remarkable comeback.

    Later this summer, he stars as Kirk Lazarus in the film “Tropic Thunder” from Ben Stiller. Downey’s character, a method actor who undergoes a pigment alteration, has many people curious. And this fall he appears in Joe Wright’s latest film “The Soloist” opposite Jamie Foxx.

    Mr. Downey has only been nominated once for an Academy Award, in 1993, for his role as Charlie Chaplin in Richard Attenborough’s film “Chaplin.” He did not win. Since then, he’s appeared in more than thirty five films — some quite memorable (“Wonder Boys,” “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints,” “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” and “Zodiac,” especially). But none of these roles caught the attention of the awards community.

    Seven years ago this month, Mr. Downey was fired from his recurring guest role on “Ally McBeal.” This year, he’ll release three films, one of which, “The Soloist,” may earn him a second Oscar nomination. And his past seems to be well behind him. As he remarked to Mr. Carr, “I’m not in that sphere of activity anymore, and I don’t understand it any more than I understood 10 or 20 years ago that somehow everything was going to turn out O.K. from this lousy, exotic and dark triple chapter of my life. I swear to God I don’t even really understand that planet anymore.”

    I’m certainly grateful for that.

  • The Indy scuttlebutt goes into high gear

    Leave it to Anne Thompson to diligently amass the rampant Indy IV speculation that has suddenly ejaculated all over the Web this week.

    And what a hairy bunch of links it is, everything from her and Todd McCarthy’s original break that the film would debut at Cannes, to McCarthy’s round-up of Cannes films in play, Jeffrey Wells’ scoop that the film would run over 140 minutes (WHY?!) to Vulture’s latest blast, which rounds up all the rumors circulating what might be a below-par effort.

    I remain, as I have been on this film from day one, completely and utterly terrified. I honestly, truly, 100% think that “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” is going to be a turd, a stinker…an afterthought. Like the aftershocks of a bad dream where you’re kind of awake, kind of not, but praying the worst is behind you.

    There…I’ve said it. Do I base this on anything other than sheer gut feeling? Nope. Although I don’t think it needs to be said…again…that David Koepp is public enemy#1. My friend John Campea over at The Movie Blog continues to have hope. He tells me every time we broach the subject that, no matter the endgame, Indy IV is his #1 most anticipated film of the year and will remain that way. Fine, fair enough.

    But I’ve anticipated a lot of shit storms in my day. At the end of the day, I don’t think I could possibly cross enough fingers. Let’s hope “Iron Man” is phenomenal, and therefore, softens the blow as we wait, patiently, for “The Dark Knight.”

  • Most anticipated films of the summer

    The release of “Iron Man” is breathing down our necks, if you can believe it. And with it comes the 2008 summer movie season, which looks to be an overall kick-ass time at the cineplex.

    Usually I end up peppering in a few unexpected flicks in a summer list such as this, but beyond maybe David Mamet’s “Redbelt” and — I don’t know — “Son of Rambow,” there really just isn’t a lot of peripheral stuff that’s catching my eye. It’s all about the popcorn, baby!

    Additionally, I’ll be in London from the middle of May to the middle of July, so my summer movie perspective will be a little different this year.

    Anyway, I haven’t been this excited for the hot months since…well, last year. But we know how that turned out. 2008 goes above and beyond in the anticipation arena, however, so here’s a list of the films I find myself thinking about…constantly:

    1. “The Dark Knight” (July 18)
    2. “Iron Man” (May 2)
    3. “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” (May 22)
    4. “The Incredible Hulk” (June 12)
    5. “Pineapple Express” (August 8)
    6. “WALL•E” (June 27)
    7. “The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian” (May 16)
    8. “Hancock” (June 2)
    9. “Tropic Thunder” (August 15)
    10. “The Happening” (June 13)

  • OFF THE CARPET: 2008, a year in advance

    Another year, another set of wins…and another look ahead at what’s in store NEXT year.

    It’s never too late to take a long gander at what we might see dominating the film awards landscape in 365 days, and with that in mind, I’ve been doing my usual mulling over the possibilities for a few weeks to put together the sadly thorough examination of the 2008-09 award season that follows. Let’s get into it. There are some major considerations to take into account. right off the top.

    Like Leonardo DiCaprio, for instance, who is set to be the entertainer of the year. With performances in “Body of Lies” (Ridley Scott) and “Revolutionary Road” (Sam Mendes), DiCaprio is working with a duo of awards-proven talent this year. Perhaps that will work against him, much like it did in 2006, and no major Oscar success will come knocking. But we’ll wait until we see the performances. Each of them could be enticing.

    This year’s Best Picture Oscar victor Scott Rudin is back again, by the way, with “Revolutionary Road,” recently inherited by Paramount Vantage and probably one of the true “frontrunners” this far out that we could put our finger on. The only other film in Vantage’s arsenal is Edward Zwick’s “Defiance,” which could simply be a commercial success, but might find its way to multiple nods like “The Last Samurai” and “Blood Diamond” in recent years.

    (more…)