Posts Tagged ‘Iron Man 2’

Short Take: A fun ride that makes up for the atrocious Iron Man 2, yet doesn’t live up to all its potential

Director: Shane Black

Screenwriters: Drew Pearce, Shane Black

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Guy Pearce, Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Kingsley, Rebecca Hall, William Sadler

Length: 2h 10m

The world is facing a grave new terrorist threat, and it goes by the name of The Mandarin (Kingsley). The precocious Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man (Downey Jr.), is at a loss in figuring out how the maniac has left no evidence of how his efforts have caused so much destruction. And after Tony is forced to take one attack personally, he invites The Mandarin to make him his next target – which he does.

In reeling from an explosive ambush at his home, Tony discovers that Aldrich Killian (Pearce) – a genius he once ignored – is in cahoots with The Mandarin, turning humans into living bombs. With the help of Col. James Rhodes, a.k.a. Iron Patriot (Cheadle), Tony must uncover The Mandarin’s master plan and thwart it, all the while dealing with unsettling anxieties left over from his adventure with The Avengers. Will Tony redeem himself for underestimating the evil potential of Aldrich Killian, and spare the world of any more terror from The Mandarin? There’s only one way to find out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Over the past four years, we’ve been witnesses to a pretty significant phenomenon. We’ve gotten to watch a studio endeavor to create several different films of a single universe in an effort to release a crossover film that collected these films’ main characters into a team. I’m of course referring to Marvel Studios and its efforts toward making The Avengers a reality.

The road to The Avengers has been anything but a smooth one. In the four years since Iron Man, the first film planned for this Marvel Movieverse amalgamation, its films have seen changes in cast and crew, which were often caused by internal power struggles, while they tried very hard to make the universe work as a whole. Did Marvel succeed in the end? In my opinion, the only way to really answer this is to break down Marvel’s efforts film by film.

Read the rest of this entry »

Short Take: Exceeds expectations by balancing action and story

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Screenwriters: J. Michael Staczynski and Mark Protosevich (story), Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne (screenplay)

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston

Length: 1h 55m

Synopsis: King Odin (Hopkins) of Asgard was looking to pass down the crown to his son Thor (Hemsworth), but before that would happen the sophomoric son went on a foolish and dangerous errand that could potentially rekindle a war between Asgard and their olden enemies the Frost Giants. For such recklessness Thor is exiled to Earth where he shall be powerless until he proves himself worthy to return. While gone, Odin’s adopted son Loki (Hiddleston) carries out plans to usurp the throne and compromise Asgard for the Frost Giants. With the help of several humans trying to understand Thor’s plight, the most empathetic of which is an astrophysicist named Jane (Portman), the God of Thunder must mature in time to save his kingdom.

Read the rest of this entry »

George Lucas gave us the great fantasy of "Star Wars," but also the authenticity of "American Graffiti." Which type of venture is more worthwhile?

In an attempt for us to better know our readers, and perhaps for you to better know yourself, we would like to ask you a personal question: When it comes to the purpose and function of movies, which side are you on?

Introductory film theory splits itself up into two main schools of thought dubbed Formalism and Realism. Formalists believe that because cinema as a medium has the ability to play around with what is possible to see in a movie that those who make movies should be primarily focused on testing the limits and boundaries of what they’re able to create. Creativity is key and we should constantly be looking to see new things and new ways of conveying old messages. On the other hand, realists believe that because cinema has the unique ability to depict the real world as-is, like a still camera, that those who make films should be primarily focused on being more and more real and capturing as much authenticity as possible. Both of these schools of thought are much more intricate than what we can detail here, but you get the gist.

Now, asking you the reader to side with one purpose over another is pretty much the equivalent of asking everyone to declare themselves as either a democrat or republican. It’s a very restrictive question. However, we here at Movie-Thoughts aren’t stupid. We recognize that most people, including ourselves, believe there is a place for both ways of thinking. It’s great to have both Star Wars and the Discovery channel. However for the purposes of this newest poll, we would like to know which side you prefer to see most often.

The introduction to the Summer movie season this past week with Iron Man 2 set these thoughts in motion for us, as the season is primarily reserved for more flashy and formative fare, and so we would like to know if this is the time of year that you relish the most because of the types of movies that come out (which typically are the kind that like to push numerous visual limits with incredible special effects and outlandish spectacles). Or, do you dislike this time of year because you prefer the Fall/Winter seasons when more character-driven movies are released?

Let us know which type of movie you prefer watching most – the cool summertime star shows or the late year character studies. If you like them both equally, don’t be afraid to sit on the fence; We’re just fascinated to know if there is a tilt in either direction. Speak up and let your opinions be heard!

Disclaimer: Deciding between liking more formalist or more realist filmmaking is not a choice between the commercial and the artistic. Both types of filmmaking can be used for any purpose and thus are not constrained or limited to any one presupposed association.

Short Take: Shows more promise in future Marvel films than in itself. Entertaining, but disjointed.

Director: Jon Favreau (Iron Man, Elf)

Screenwriter: Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder)

Cast: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes, Tropic Thunder), Don Cheadle (Brooklyn’s Finest, Hotel Rwanda, Ocean’s 11), Gwyneth Paltrow (Two Lovers, Iron Man), Scarlett Johansson (He’s Just Not That Into You, The Spirit, Vicky Christina Barcelona), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler, Domino, Sin City), Sam Rockwell (Everybody’s Fine, Moon, Frost/Nixon)

Length: 2 hours 4 minutes

Synopsis: Picking up where the last film left off, the film follows Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) as he struggles to overcome a number of obstacles after revealing he is Iron Man.  Stark fights to keep the U.S. government from taking the Iron Man technology while also competing with fellow arms businessman Justin Hammer (Rockwell).  However, Stark has bigger problems like Ivan Vanko (Rourke), an angry nemesis out for revenge against the Stark family, as well as the threat that the piece of machinery keeping him alive may also be slowly killing him.  On top of all this, Stark tries to cultivate his budding romance with Pepper Potts (Paltrow) while also flirting with his mysterious new personal assistant Natalie (Johansson). Read the rest of this entry »

With Iron Man 2 opening this weekend, marking the biggest comic book movie since 2008′s The Dark Knight, we thought it would be appropriate to consider what the best castings have been since the genre began. There have been a lot of cases where the actor/actress fit the role like a glove. Some choices seemed obvious at the time, while others worked out unexpectedly well. A perfect example is Michael Keaton as the caped crusader in Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman, a casting which few supported before the film’s release but which many now consider the best casting of the character to date. But not even that sweet surprise made the Movie-Thoughts Top 5 Best Comic Book Castings. See which actors we thought fit their comic book characters best, and then send us your Top 5! Later we’ll tally the totals and see how close we came to the fan consensus.

And the Top 5 are…

5.  Robert Downey Jr. – Tony Stark/Iron Man

Downey Jr. wasn’t so much a casting of a super hero as a casting of a super ego, but nevertheless his quick-witted line delivery and narcissistic on-screen persona transfer perfectly to a character we’re meant to believe is bizarrely brilliant and grossly spoiled (at least before his capture). Once the narcissism was exchanged for just an inordinate amount of pride and confidence, the heroic nature of the character was able to shine through and RDJ flowed from the former to the latter flawlessly.

4. Christopher Reeve – Clark Kent/Superman

As good as Brandon Routh was as his replacement in 2006′s Superman Returns, Christopher Reeve has been immortalized in the iconic role of the Man of Steel for good reason. Not only was he able to look the part, which is harder to achieve than you might think, but he was able to expertly play both the awkwardness of Clark Kent and the self assuredness of his alter ego. Those who know Superman know that that alter ego is not a psychological rock, and when it came time to display the requisite humility and vulnerability the character sometimes shows he was able to pull it off without missing a beat. Mr. Reeve helped prove to us that even the impenetrable are not invulnerable.

3. Patrick Stewart – Professor Xavier

Not only is Mr. Stewart perhaps the best known bald actor thanks to his role as Star Trek‘s Capt. Jean-Luke Picard, which helps match the look of the character, but all else about him as an actor fit this role perfectly. The low but friendly timber of his voice, the air of wisdom and sincerity, and the hyper-disciplined demeanor all amalgamated to Stewart actually being Professor Xavier. The role called for someone who could convince us that he is the ultimate confidant who always knew what’s best, and he pulled it off with flying colors. Imagining anyone fitting this role better seems impossible.

2. TIE: Jack Nicholson/ Heath Ledger – The Joker

Admittedly, we’re cheating with this one, but we just could not decide who fit the role better based on the versions of the character that they played. Nicholson as The Joker in 1989′s Batman fits perfectly because the character as it was envisioned for the film drew inspiration from earlier Batman comics, when the character was more goofy and aloof. During this period the villain took a primarily sociopathic persona but was not nearly the intellectual foe that he later became. Ledger’s Joker, as it was written, was clearly based on the more sinister version displayed in the comic series decades after the earlier version. During this era, which still continues, the character proves to be frightfully brilliant in his scheming to battle Batman and Gotham City, manipulating various peripheral characters to exact his will. Nicholson’s devilish grin and menacing stare made him look the part to a “T”, and his maniacal laugh effectively made him The Joker. Ledger’s actual look relied more on makeup, but his healthier physique allowed him to be a more competent combatant with Batman in physical terms and not just psychological. Much of his success with the character was due to his outstanding performance, but that everything about him fell exactly in line with the version he was portraying makes this a one in a million cast.

1. Hugh Jackman – Logan/Wolverine

The character of Logan/Wolverine in the X-Men movies, we would claim, is based from the version portrayed in the comics of his own series. For unlike his portrayal in the series that involves the entire X-Men crew, there he has considerably more depth and foundation (as one would expect). Jackman’s physical stature and hair styling made him believable from a purely aesthetic standpoint, but his ability to range from all requisite mindsets (tenacious, tortured, paternal, romantic, etc.) allowed him to convey all aspects of the character as needed. The arch of the character in the films is thanks in large part to the writing, but we here find it downright unfeasible that anyone possesses the mix of physical likeness and acting skill to pull off the role of Wolverine better than Hugh Jackman.

We don’t doubt that our Top 5 list is controversial, and we’re hardly married to it, but we feel it certainly captures five of the best castings of any comic book character yet seen on the silver screen. Based on the submissions you all send in to us we’ll likely feel inclined to make a revision or two, but until then we stand by what you see. When you narrow down your own Top 5 lists, try to keep in mind that it’s not about ranking your favorite movie/comic characters but the quality of the casting of those characters and how the actor/actress fits so well in their respective roles.

Here is a list of roles that we hated to leave out but had to (in no particular order): Alfred Molina as Doctor Octopus, Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man, Ian McKellen as Magneto, Danny DeVito as The Penguin, Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman, Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon, Willem Dafoe as The Green Goblin, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor.

Perhaps some of these roles will make your list. We’re interested to see, so let us know!

Jon Favreau (center) gives direction to Robert Downey Jr. (left) and Don Cheadle (right). *IGN images

For those of you itching to see Iron Man 2, which opens this Friday, we suggest you take a look at a video available at movies.IGN.com that shows multiple snippets from interviews taken with the film’s various stars. Director Jon Favreau, Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlet Johansson, and Don Cheadle each share interesting nuggets of information about the film and the direction its story decided to take. For those trying to avoid spoilers, have no fear. No major plot points are given. Instead you learn things like Favreau’s intentions, such as that he tried his hardest to avoid what he called “villainitus,” which he claims is the overabundance of bad guys. After Spider-Man 3 received heavy criticism for this, it’s nice to see that Favreau and Paramount can learn from the past.

In other news…

A release date for the next Batman movie has been announced, which will reportedly be July 20th, 2012. The working title is simply Batman 3, which is expected to change once production begins. Chris Nolan is reportedly not officially signed on to direct the project, but is currently working on writing the film’s script with the help of his brother Jonah and writer David Goyer. Stars Christian Bale, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman are expected to return.

Source: IGN.com

This May's "Iron Man 2" will be the latest summer vehicle designed to appeal to the biggest audience possible. How is it this came to be? Is it a good thing?

With the summer movie season nearly upon us (officially beginning with the release of Iron Man 2 on May 7^th), I naturally got pulled into another conversation with a fellow moviegoer who felt the need to express his contempt for this time of year. According to him, and I’m sure many of you out there as well, the summer months are reserved for when Hollywood likes to flex its corporate muscles and make boat loads of cash by feeding the masses the intellectual equivalent of junk food. Basically, if it’s loud and shiny, it sells. But the movie studios are not entirely to blame, as it’s also the fault of the audiences who readily pay their hard earned money to sit stupefied at a screen while their senses get pushed to the limits (Michael Bay’s Transformers movies were listed as examples several times during the conversation).

This is one way to look at it.

Read the rest of this entry »

This year's version of The A-Team may be part of a new team trend for on-screen heroes

This upcoming summer movie season there are three movies that will be about a group of well trained special ops-type fighters who don’t “play by the rules,” starting with this weekend’s The Losers. This film, inspired by the comic book series of the same name, deals with a group of individual CIA black ops operatives who band together to find and kill whoever betrayed them and left them for dead. The other two films similar to this are The A-Team and The Expendables. The former is, if you don’t know already, based off of the TV series of the same name that first aired in 1983 about four ex-military men who were framed for a crime they didn’t commit and go about trying to clear their names, and the latter deals with a group of mercenaries hired to overthrow the vicious dictator of the small South American country of Vilena.

Well what’s so interesting about the fact that these films are releasing within a couple months of each other? Everyone one knows that Hollywood is a copycat town, right? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, studios like to hang their hats on proven formulas and trends, but that some trends appear at all is often reflective of the cultural mood of our country. Over the past few years there has been a heavy influx of films dealing with individual heroes, many of them being of the “super” variety. But aside from Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man, there were John McClain, Rambo, Indiana Jones, and James Bond. Obviously, none of these rogue stand-alone men did everything by themselves (Batman had Alfred, Iron Man had Pepper Pots, James Bond had MI6, etc.), but by and large they did all of the most difficult and dangerous things by themselves. Americans love heroes that are individualistic and autonomous. They’ve loved them like that for decades and will continue to love them for decades more. What seems so peculiar about The Losers, The A-Team, and The Expendables being released in one summer season, then, is that the team concept stands out so sharply from this crowd of actioners.

These three movies are hardly pioneering new ground, of course, as the X-Men trilogy made the point during the middle of the first super hero wave of the new century that working as a team for a common goal is the real and only way to make progress. However the three films in question seem to have their sights set a lot lower than achieving social understanding and ridding the world of prejudice. In the case of The Losers, for example, the goal is simply to get revenge on the group’s would-be assassinators. So, because the scope is miniscule and the benefits gained from the group’s success are specific to just them, the individualistic sense is still ever-present. And, the same might be said of The A-Team as well. Because the goal in The Expendables is to overthrow a dictatorship it can be argued that the benefits of the heroes victory would not be exclusive to just them but would also include the entire citizenship of Vilena. So, you could say the sense of individual empowerment would at least not be the same variety found in the other two films. However, it is interesting to point out that The Expendables are a group made up of mercenaries, who are a breed of people not known for their team mentalities.

What do you all make of this? Is the concept of working as a team against evil going to become the new wave in action movies, or is it just a phase? Do you expect to see these films come close to enjoying the type of success that Iron Man 2 will no doubt garner? Which type of hero do you emulate the most? Which do you enjoy watching the most? Voice your opinions and let it be known what you think a true hero really is.

We’ll revisit this topic once all three films have been released (which will be mid-August) and ask you these same questions again. Then we’ll compare your responses to try and come to some sort of conclusion. Till then, just enjoy the movies!

Would critics like Rolling Stone's Peter Travers be as influential if his reviews weren't published before the release dates?

In thinking of what kind of strange changes could be made to drastically alter the movie industry, I tried to think about how different things would be if we simply changed the time at which movie reviews were allowed to be published. Obviously most of them are written and published before the movies they judge are released into theaters, but some studios decide every so often to not hold critic screenings for some of their films. When this happens it is usually taken to be an indicator that the studio is not confident in its product and therefore wants to spare the film in question any bad publicity for as long as it can, which is up until the end of its first weekend.

What if, though, there were no preview screenings for critics period? Some might say this would completely change what most people take to be the function of a movie critic, which is to act as a sort of consumer reporter that evaluates the quality of a product and relays its findings and opinions to the public. No one wants to go to a “bad” movie for obvious reasons – it’s a waste of time and money. Right? So if there were no advanced critic screenings then how would people know which movies are worth their time and money, and which ones aren’t? Moviegoers would be forced to rely more on their friends, family, and general word of mouth. This may seem hugely inconvenient, but some studies show that people already put more stock into word of mouth than in movie reviews (this Variety article proves very enlightening on this topic). Read the rest of this entry »