Review: "Iron Man 2"

- Posted by Rusty

Quick Note: I hate making excuses to you guys, but a quick apology once more for the recent lack of updates. I had to step away from the blog these last few weeks to study for and take the GREs (I’ll sadly have to disappear again in two weeks for my random and potentially insane idea to take the LSATs). To begin making up for all of that, here’s an extra long look at this summer’s first big blockbuster. A review of How to Train Your Dragon – and a return to semi-regular updating - coming by Tuesday night. Thanks again to all of you for sticking around and checking the blog!


Review: Iron Man 2

My Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

In Short: Warning: this review is going to be pretty long (nothing beats my Harry Potter obsession, but Mr. Tony Stark comes pretty damn close). So, here’s a quick rundown: while Iron Man 2 is fun, big, and entertaining, bringing back the characters you loved and delivering just enough good action to justify the $12 tickets (as expected for a mega-budget superhero sequel), it falls short of its predecessor mainly due to a cluttered and unfocused screenplay. For everyone who wants more details, though, brace yourselves: this is my most lengthy monstrosity since the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince review… [full review after the jump]

Full Review:

Ivan Vanko (a.k.a. Whiplash) to Tony Stark: “If you can make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him. Then there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come. All I have to do is sit here and watch…as the world consumes you.”

That’s a brilliant line, said with vengeful relish (and a very believable Russian accent) by Mickey Rourke’s Ivan Vanko, who also doubles as the main villain of this movie, Whiplash. It’s one of the best moments in this sequel, and it represents a fascinating thematic direction for this series to take, especially one that ended with Tony Stark announcing to the world: “I am Iron Man.” However, this also represents one of several great ideas that this sequel explores, none of which, unfortunately, are given enough follow-through to make this as strong and focused an outing as the first film. I can’t fully recommend Iron Man 2, as much as I wanted to and as much as I still love Robert Downey Jr./Tony Stark, but there are still enough good scenes and moments here to make it worthwhile to catch in theaters.

So, first, let’s talk about the good stuff. Picking up 6 months after the press conference at the end of Iron Man, we now find Tony Stark (Downey Jr., brilliant as always) dealing with his own legacy. He was on top of the world by the end of the first film, and now that world is slowly crumbling to pieces as his self-proclaimed savior ambitions bring about unexpected complications. The U.S. government is forcing him to release his Iron Man armor technology (the committee’s headed by a well-cast Garry Schandling, upping the smarm as Senator Stern), an unseen threat comes from Russia in the form of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), whose Whiplash armor looks suspiciously like Stark’s own (even though Stark swears no one could know the arc-core design), his chief rival, Justin Hammer (another piece of swell casting—scene-stealer Sam Rockwell), wants to jump ahead in the arms-technology race, and, in an unexpected turn, the arc reactor that saved Stark’s life (the glowing chest piece that powers his suit and keeps the shrapnel from his heart) turns out be poisonous, now gradually killing Stark unless he can find something powerful – and stable – enough to replace it.

There’s also the matter of his company, now headed by his old assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow, lovely like always), a rift with his best pal Rhodey (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard in one of this sequel’s biggest missteps), a curvy, mysterious new assistant (Scarlett Johansson), and the shady Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, owning the role) who keeps pushing Stark to realize his destiny and join some “super-secret boy band” (Stark’s words, not mine. What do you think that refers to?) That’s a lot to put on Tony Stark’s plate, and as psyched as he was to be a superhero 6 months ago, he realizes here that perhaps he took on far more than he could handle in his (now dwindling) life span.

I mentioned this sequel had problems, and, just from reading the summary, you could tell that the filmmakers took on a lot of different story threads, something that diminishes the character journeys here, and makes the action look more arbitrary than plot-driven. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but in terms of positive qualities, all of those threads are interesting in their own right. I liked watching Stark struggle to make his life mean something, especially after the incredible high he felt in declaring himself to be a global protector. Ditto the arrival of Mickey Rourke, who, with that great, weary, heavy-burden-carrying presence of his (not to mention some respectable Russian skills), makes a solid foil for Tony Stark (at least in theory).

Plus, what’s amazing about these films (inspired, no doubt, by Downey’s own performance style) is how rapid-fire and witty the dialogue is, almost like an old screwball comedy at times. I watched it twice now, and I loved how I missed certain jokes the first time around, or how I was so busy listening to one person that the other’s reactions completely flew by me. That is a rare thing for a big-budget blockbuster, and it‘s especially great to see this immensely gifted cast in such a loose, playful setting – watching them play with and challenge their co-stars is one of the biggest treats in this film. Best of all, the film gives some nice closure to the Pepper Potts/Tony Stark relationship, so wonderfully started in the first film. Their adorable bickering and romantic tension was my absolute favorite part of Iron Man. I think a lot of fans will be satisfied by where these two end up through the course of the sequel, and Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow (in what is becoming one of her most charming and effortless performances) continue to make a great pair, with both actors equally matched in their terrific verbal spars. What I like best about those two is that they are intelligent grown-ups, and not lovelorn teenagers whose biggest hurdle is confessing their feelings. They’re a sensible, very believable, very entertaining pair, and I honestly think Iron Man has the best superhero romance of all such movies. (Even in The Dark Knight, the holy grail of comic-book films, the Bruce/Rachel love story was more of a plot necessity than an emotionally engaging part of the series…and the less said about Spider-Man’s whiny, horrendously annoying Mary Jane Watson, the better).

So what am I grumbling about? If I loved the characters and the acting – not to mention the laughs and inherent sweetness to many of the scenes – why can’t I recommend this as at least a good film? Because, in the end, it felt incomplete to me. There is certainly a lot of thought placed into this second chapter of Tony Stark’s adventures, but I have a feeling that its unbearably-fast production schedule took a toll on some much-needed creative decisions. Think about it: the first Iron Man came out in summer 2008. That means the entire sequel had to be written, cast, shot, and edited (with all special effects intact) in a meager two years. That’s lightning-fast for a production of this scale – The Dark Knight had a whole three years after Batman Begins (plus, it seemed like its storyline was brainstormed long before that script had to be finalized), and, in that light, I think Iron Man 2 needed some extra time to finesse its ideas. What we have here are plenty of strong character and story choices that needed to be better organized to make the entire package more cohesive, as well as more relevant for the further development of Tony Stark, the character.

Take, for instance, the two villains. Justin Hammer and Ivan Vanko are respectable choices on paper. Both of them act as flipsides to Tony Stark and his alter ego. Vanko is the anti-Iron Man, a scientist who uses similar technology for selfish, purely evil reasons. Iron Man wished to save the world, while Vanko/Whiplash only sought to take out Stark for a personal vendetta. Hammer, then, is the anti-Stark, a weapons manufacturer who lacks the fierce intelligence and savvy of his rival, and who simply wants to eliminate the competition for good. From the good superhero sequels, like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2, we know that the ones that succeed manage to tie their villains into the personal issues faced by the hero, to make one unified theme in both the secret identity and superhero spheres. With the Joker, Batman/Bruce Wayne had to confront a nemesis who operated with no rules, no semblance of moral order, fueled by anarchy and chaos, a direct contrast to the upstanding, rigid-rules-abiding hero that Batman represented (which, of course, affected Bruce Wayne’s life choices as well). While Vanko and Hammer briefly touch on Stark’s own demons (both in his heroic and regular identities), like so many things in this sequel, those similarities never extend far enough to become fleshed-out ideas for the movie in whole (even Jeff Bridges' Iron Monger - lame a villain as he was - was a cool little metaphor for the type of cold, heartless arms-business perspective Stark swore to abandon for good). In the end, Hammer plays no role but providing money for Vanko to build some more suits, and, consequently, Vanko simply finds himself transformed from multi-dimensional, sympathetic bad guy into a video-game-like boss in the film’s climax. All in all, I think it’s time for Iron Man to have a real villain -- not another guy in a pumped-up techno-suit, but someone who actually challenges him intellectually as well as physically. Vanko and Hammer represent a move toward that direction, though perhaps it’s time to finally take on the Mandarin, Iron Man’s chief nemesis, who I’m guessing the filmmakers avoided because he skews toward the supernatural, in direct contrast to the more-or-less reality-based world Stark inhabits (then again, this should be easier to tackle once the Norse God of Thunder, Thor, is introduced into the Marvel universe next summer).

In another seemingly unfinished idea, I never bought the film’s suggestion that Iron Man brought about global (or, at the very least, American) peace. I’m sure he would put a major dent in crime, but to stop it all completely is just wishful thinking, and almost seemed like a ploy by the filmmakers to avoid any expensive action scenes. Just the same, the quote that opened my review could have taken the sequel down a very interesting, darker path, but the results of Stark’s first clash with Whiplash are shown on a minimal scale, hardly the “blood in the water” scenario cooked up by Ivan Vanko. Once the chinks in Iron man’s armor were shown – once you could see that he is not infallible by any means – that should have led to some sort of loss of public faith. A bit of context would have greatly helped, both before the movie got under way (ie, Iron Man stopping a robbery, foiling a terrorist attack, etc – anything just to show that he’s still at work making this world safe) and after the confrontation with the chief villain (ie, people distancing themselves from him, losing their trust in Tony Stark’s ability to maintain their safety).

This next part will be a bit SPOILER-y, so feel free to skip over it if you still want to be surprised when you see the movie. I need to mention it because one the film’s big reveals is also one of its chief script problems.

Finally, perhaps my biggest gripe is the lack of a concrete theme. This film brings out a few – Stark’s mortality, the greater superhero universe of The Avengers and what that means for Iron Man, and, most notably, the relationships between brilliant fathers and their sons. The latter is the most problematic: Stark is facing off with Vanko because of his father’s supposed mistreatment of Vanko’s, and yet no real substance is added to this part of the film. In fact, the entire section dealing with Stark’s father seems like a throwaway compared to the rest of the events transpiring here. (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT) Why exactly would Howard Stark’s great ambitions for Tony revolve around the discovery of a new element, one that just happens to power up his suit? If it’s important for later films in the Iron Man series, then, by all means, I respect that. Judging by this specific film, though, that just seemed awfully convenient, and, sadly, rather pointless (although major bonus points for casting Mad Men’s John Slattery as Howard Stark—I’d watch Roger Sterling in anything!). The fathers plotline is forgotten by the end, and when Vanko and Stark duke it out in the climax, it felt like it was happening because the audience had to be "wowed" with some stuff exploding, and not the culmination of two flawed sons fighting for the legacies of their fathers. Same with The Avengers set-up (which, to be fair, was awesome in so many geeky ways) and Tony’s health crisis – none of these ideas is given the attention they deserve, and each up being under-served. The first film knew exactly what it wanted to do – show the transformation of Tony Stark, the brilliant, boozy, womanizing rascal into a hero worth celebrating – with the invention of the suit symbolizing Stark’s own evolution into a man who deserves to keep living. Here, the story introduces so many things for Stark to experience that it dilutes the power of its arguably strongest element – Stark’s drink-fueled breakdown (a nod to the legendary comic-book arc, “Demon in a Bottle”) and coming to grips with his own potential demise. It’s too bad -- perhaps a little more screen time to work with - or a few more drafts of the script - could have made this more focused and direct, trimming the elements that weren’t entirely necessary (as much as I love Samuel L. Jackson and his organization, S.H.I.E.L.D., it didn’t need to play such a prominent role in this sequel…besides providing Avengers hints, of course) and pumping up the ones that would truly resonate with audiences.

End of MAJOR SPOILERS…

One final quibble: when Don Cheadle stepped in to replace Terrence Howard after the latter’s scuffle with Marvel, I was actually enthusiastic. I liked Howard very much in the original (particularly his chemistry with Robert Downey Jr. and that great, now-ironic moment when he looked at the Iron Man armor and said: “Next time, baby!”), but, honestly, I find Cheadle to be a stronger actor and – judging by the Ocean’s movies – funnier and quicker on his feet when it comes to improvising. Here, though, most likely due to the underdeveloped script, his Rhodey comes off stiff and surprisingly bland. If I didn’t know Stark and Rhodey were best friends from the first movie, I wouldn’t have believed it here; it probably would have made more sense to fight for Terrance Howard to stay for continuity’s (and chemistry’s) sake, especially if the character was going to be shortchanged to make room for some new players. The first film gave us a memorable friendship between these two guys. I’ve seen pairs like this before – the troublemaker and the straight arrow – two unlikely pals who, for reasons we can’t quite see, bring out the best in one another. Unfortunately, here they come off like two causal acquaintances, and, while Downey and Cheadle finally have some good moments near the end, they get so little time to interact that Cheadle’s re-casting – and, really the whole War Machine subplot (being the suit that Rhodey wears to help out Iron Man) – lacks the punch that it needed to become a vital part of this second film. (All that aside, I'm sure that Don Cheadle, easily one of our best actors, will improve once his character gets a meatier, more carefully-written role to play in the next sequel).

I know that sounds like a lot of complaints, but I really did want to love this movie (which is probably why this review took so long—I wanted to figure out exactly why I couldn’t embrace it, despite its many good qualities). The Iron Man movies are completely unlike all other superhero films out there – Christopher Nolan's new Batman series takes the cake for sheer dramatic depth and power, but these films are hilarious, intelligent, and just plain fun, albeit in a clever way that justifies all the explosions and special effects. And, however jumbled the story may be, Downey Jr. still holds it all together in another remarkable performance. It’s amazing that, in addition to just how funny he is in what will probably become his signature role, how much depth Downey brings to the role, how he really makes you feel for the moments where Stark feels his life slipping away, or how much he genuinely cares for Pepper, despite his own super-articulate, talkative ways getting in the way of showing that. When I saw the first film, I thought Tony Stark was the best original movie creation since Captain Jack Sparrow, and I stand by that. We rarely get to see such a perfect match-up of actor and character, and, with Downey in the role, Stark will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving. The rest of the cast does fine work as well, with special mention going to Jon Favreau as Stark’s go-to driver/bodyguard, Happy Hogan (also the film’s director, who probably couldn’t resist amping up his screen time and getting in on the fun) and franchise newbie (SPOILER ALERT) Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman/Russian super-spy (love that my people finally get something cool!), The Black Widow. Johansson really surprised me with how naturally she fit into this world…and how incredibly badass she was in her standout action sequence. If she’s getting set up for her own Black Widow movie, then that sounds like the right way to go (and with the Wonder Woman movie stuck in development hell, isn’t it about time that we get a kickass-female superhero movie?).

So, in the end, stay for these characters and stay for that killer dialogue, not to mention the superb Monaco Grand Prix action sequence that stands as the most thrilling part of the film. And, of course, get ready to geek out over the abundant Marvel superhero references. Catch the Captain America nod, the huge Thor foreshadowing for next summer, and learn exactly when Iron Man 2 fits into the timeframe established by the ending of The Incredible Hulk. (Stick around for the after-credits scene too, although it’s not nearly as cool as the introduction of Nicky Fury at the close of the first Iron Man). Iron Man 2 has its share of problems, all of them likely stemming from not having enough time to fine-tine this screenplay. And yet it’s not a disposable, empty Hollywood blow-‘em-up movie either. I’d suggest catching it in theaters anyway, just with your expectations in check for what will probably not equal the first film’s more assured storytelling and many charms. With Iron Man 3 most likely coming after The Avengers team-up in 2012, I think that should give the filmmakers ample time to cook up something more interesting. Hopefully, in the next go-around, we’ll be in for a more worthy chapter in the always-welcome exploits of Mr. Tony Stark.

And, to close this off, here are some of my favorite lines from the movie (but avoid at all costs if you want to hear these for the first time in the theater!)…

Pepper Potts: "You were dying? And you didn’t tell me?!"
Tony Stark: (resolutely) "I was going to make you an omelet and tell you all about it!"

Tony Stark (to Nicky Fury): "Wait, I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot. Do I address the patch or the eye?"

S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson: "We need you."
Tony Stark: "More than you know."
S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson: (not missing a beat) "Not that much."

Tony Stark (referencing Senator Stern and the Senate Committee): "I tried playing ball with these ass-clowns!"

P.S. If anyone has the time and/or crazy interest, check out my coverage of the first Iron Man 2 footage ever screened at last year's Comic-Con. It was one of my very first pieces for this blog, and, in retrospect, it might be fun to compare my initial (very, very giddy) impression with how the final movie stacked up.
Read more!

Chris Evans as Captain America? I like it!

- Posted by Rusty


Source: HitFIx

For anyone who might have followed this, the Captain America casting was a whirlwind of news for the last few weeks. Everyone from The Office’s John Krasinski (an interesting choice, even if it didn’t pan out) to Gossip Girl's Chace Crawford (no comment) were brought in for screen tests and auditions. I can understand that, for, after all, this was a monumentally tricky piece of casting. The man chosen to don the red-and-blue tights and shield doesn’t just have to carry his own franchise, but will eventually have to lead Marvels superhero team-up, The Avengers, in 2012. So, we’re looking for someone with a great deal of charm and screen presence, as well as some substantial talent to back that up if he’s expected to hold any authority over the likes of Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man. Well, lo and behold, the part ended up going to comic-book-movie vet and one of my favorite rising stars, Chris Evans. Job well done, Marvel; I think this casting is spot-on. [more thoughts after the jump]

You probably know Chris Evans best as Johnny Storm/The Human Torch from the Fantastic Four movies (where he was easily the best thing about both films, especially the terrible first one), and he has another comic-book stint coming up as a mercenary in April’s adaptation of the graphic novel, The Losers. Evans also showed impressive dramatic chops in Danny Boyle’s Sunshine, and even brought some believability to the goofy premise of Cellular and the cop cliché overload of Street Kings. The guy has talent and charisma to burn (by all means, he was even good in the flawed superhero-wannabe, Push, opposite Dakota Fanning), and, more than anything, I could see him holding his own against Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth’s Thor, and Edward Norton’s Hulk (presuming Norton could work out his creative issues with Marvel).

As for the superhero himself, that’s where I’ll turn to you guys. My entire knowledge of Captain America comes from a few episodes of the 1990’s Spider-Man cartoon series and a lengthy Wikipedia search. A brief summary: Steve Rogers, an enthusiastic army weakling, signs up for the hush-hush Super Solider experiment (it was a notable plot point in Edward Norton’s The Incredible Hulk), thereby transforming himself into the perfect soldier, and an enduring superhero favorite. I know there are many fans of the comic (I just spoke to this great, geeky guy I know the other day about Cap), and the character is certainly regarded as more than the boring, patriotic do-gooder that he might come across as. The armor is definitely iconic (even comic-book newbies like me could recognize him), and I’m mighty curious to see a WWII period superhero film, as this one promises to be. It sounds like a strong package; complete with Evans in the lead, Hugo Weaving (The Matrix's Agent Smith and Elrond from The Lord of the Rings!) on bad guy duty as Cap’s nemesis, The Nazi-affiliated Red Skull, and director Joe Johnston behind the camera (let’s ignore his Wolfman remake, since he also made the great October Sky and Viggo Mortensen-starrer, Hidalgo), this could be the perfect launching pad for both an interesting new franchise and Marvel’s epic crossover plans.

Bring on the Avengers in 2012!


What do you guys think? Any Captain America fans out there? Is Chris Evans a suitable choice to wear the flag-decorated armor?

Images courtesy of Marvel Comics.
Read more!

News Bites: "Spider-Man" franchise to be rebooted! No more Raimi and Maguire...is this really a bad thing?

- Posted by Rusty


Source: Entertainment Weekly

As you could tell by the headline, I'm not too sad about this. In fact, I think this might be just what the franchise needs... [much more thoughts and Spider-Man news after the jump]

Spider-Man 4 has been in the news for a while now. I wrote a piece on the Venom potential spin-off movie a while ago (still in development, from what I've read), and, back then, Spider-Man 4 was just in the screenplay phase. Then it changed writers. And again. And, slowly but surely, I got the sense that franchise director Sam Raimi and Sony Pictures weren't seeing eye to eye on this. It's well-known that Raimi was strongarmed into including Venom in Spider-Man 3, and the results were pretty obvious--it was a useless compromise, one that shortchanged the entire film and further jumbled the story. Actually, all of Spider-Man 3 had an ideas-by-committee feel to it--it was a messy, overstuffed-with-villains narrative, and it was all the more disappointing following the triumph that was Spider-Man 2. So, in a way, kudos to Sam Raimi for getting out of what must have felt like Spider-Man 3 redux in the development phase.

So, what are we left with, now that Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire are officially out? What sounds like a very good idea. Sony already has a script for a reboot by James Vanderbilt (who wrote the phenomenal Zodiac for David Fincher), which will start everything from scratch. Relaunch the character, send Peter Parker back to high school, and jump-start what should be a fresh take on the Spider-Man world. I like it. I honestly do. I applaud Raimi for not letting another mess happen, and I'm not at all opposed to a new direction for the series, if that's what must happen. I loved Raimi's first two films--they had a bright, infectious energy, and, in Maguire, a pitch-perfect nerdy Peter Parker. I'm sure they'll both do fine, going on to do better, probably more interesting things. Raimi is now free to tackle his in-development World of Warcraft project (which sounds amazing), while Maguire, free from the webslinger's demanding shooting schedule, could now do more smaller-scale films (like Brothers, which is currently in release) and passion projects.

As for Spider-Man the character, he'll live on just fine. It was inevitable that he'd continue without this current filmmaking team--he's too important for Sony, and much too beloved and universally recognized to stay out of multiplexes. And, now that there's a chance, the aspect of the character I'd most like to see again is the smartass Peter Parker. Remember him? That sarcastic bastard who came alive under the mask, the one so perfectly brought to life in the 1990's FOX Kids animated series (the series' title card is my picture on top). It always felt like a natural thing for Peter--he was dweeby on the outside, but the mask gave him the confidence to unleash a much more amusing and honest side of him. True, I never read the comic books, so I can't be sure how close that skews to the original incarnation, but I was crazy for the series (which still holds up), and that show gave Peter more edge, and the whole world of villains and arch-enemies much more danger. If a new series of films can recapture that spirit and tone, the results could be incredibly entertaining--maybe even more so than the films we already had. Sony's press release says it's aiming for a "grittier" tone--while that word is overused post-Bourne, greater stakes could just what the doctor ordered for the franchise.

So, all in all, I think this is promising news. We're also in for lots of casting announcements, director appointments, and, of course, footage in the coming months, especially if Sony still hopes to make that 2011 release (a little bit doubtful, since lots of articles are tossing around 2012 guesses). Raimi and Maguire will be remembered for a great launch and one of the best sequels ever made. In time, people will probably forget all about the misfire of Spider-Man 3, particualrly if the new, rebooted film series is worthwhile. Well, best of luck, folks at Sony. Now all you gotta do is find the perfect lead (cough*Adam Brody!*cough) for Peter Parker...

What do you guys think of this news? Happy/disappointed that our original Spider-Man series is over? And who would you want to play Peter Parker when the new series takes off?

Images courtesy of Buena Vista Pictures and Marvel Comics.
Read more!

Food 4 Thought: Do we need a "Venom" movie??

- Posted by Rusty


Source: Hollywood Reporter Heat Vision Blog
(Found via Comingsoon.net)

Remember Topher Grace’s Venom in Spider Man 3? Better yet, just remember Spider-Man 3? What a huge misstep that film was, especially following the actually pretty great Spider-Man 2. The emo-Peter Parker (that’d be his “dark” alter-ego), the extra-whiny Mary Jane (poor, poor Kirsten Dunst…who, at one point, got mad that Peter went off to save people instead of staying and discussing her bad review), the overall pretty useless Sandman, and the list goes on and on.

But I thought the biggest misstep of all was its treatment of Venom...

A fan favorite for years, Venom dominated the 90’s Spider-Man cartoon series (my big intro to the Marvel universe)—he was the villain on that show. And you could see why: as Eddie Brock, a jealous co-worker transformed by an alien symbiote suit, he was everything that Peter was not—just as powerful (if not more so), but ruthless and unmerciful. A beast driven purely on vengeance, and one who utterly destroys the “with great power, comes great responsibility” mantra of Peter’s Uncle Ben.

So, how could the film mess him up so badly? How did it manage to turn one of the most compulsively watchable (and pretty damn interesting) baddies in Spider-Man’s library into a second banana villain? I read somewhere that Sam Raimi was forced to include him by Sony…and it shows—he’s a blip in that movie’s messy story. The storyline (with its themes of revenge and the darkness in all of us) could have worked if he was the primary bad guy, but, since Sandman took that slot, Venom ended up being the guy who just happened to wait in one convenient street corner, snarl a few times, and say: “Hey, we both want Spider-Man dead. Let’s kill him together!” A real wasted opportunity; although, to his credit, Topher Grace did a better job than expected. I like Grace a lot (see his work in Traffic, In Good Company, and That 70’s Show to see the range of what this guy could do), and while he wasn’t the beefy Eddie Brock from the comics, I liked his version as the scrawny weasel.

Think Sony could reignite that potential with the just-announced, now-moving-forward Venom spin-off? I’m guessing not…but I am interested in what they’ll come up with. I heard rumors about this for a couple of years now; now, news broke that Seabiscuit, Dave, and Pleasantville writer-director Gary Ross is bringing our favorite angry alien symbiote to life.

I think it’s a case of good and bad news. Yes, this could be the chance to do the character justice, and Ross is a dependably good writer who’s more than up to the task (he’s polishing the Spider-Man 4 script too). His involvement also gives the project some credibility, making it look less like a cash-in on a popular brand (and, come on, have you seen the amount of Venom logo T-shirts?? Ah, one of these days I'll finally buy it and wear my geek flag proudly...). It’s also a chance to reboot—start from scratch, and give us the Venom that’s not just some petty little punk obsessed with Peter Parker’s lab partner (who actually convinced himself that they were a “couple” after one cup of coffee).


Now here’s the bad: it’s his own movie, which probably means, minus all traces of Spider-Man (save for maybe a cameo by Tobey Maguire), Venom would become the hero of his own story. He is a tragic hero, and, for anyone who remembers, the 90’s cartoon even had an arc when he used his powers for good to save the woman he loves. I’m guessing we’ll see something similar here: he’ll be evil at first, but (most likely after hurting someone he cares about) he’ll learn to fight the evil alien brain (the costume is actually a living organism), and turn those powers against an even bigger bad guy. Voila, a new franchise is born—another dark, broody hero to fit nicely into the post-Dark Knight superhero mold. And once all the groundwork is laid, who says he can’t team up (or face off against) Spider-Man sometime in the future? Will this Venom be played by Topher Grace? Probably not—the beauty of the alien symbiote is that it can attach to anyone, and maybe Sony won’t even go with Eddie Brock for this go-around.

I’m not crazy about this idea; I’m not even sure if we need a Venom spin-off altogether, since there are better comic-book characters out here who still don’t have their own movie. And the 15 minutes of him in Spider-Man 3 didn’t exactly scream like there was a fascinating, untold story for a full-length movie; did anybody really come out of the theater and say: “Man, I'd love to spend more time with Topher…”?. Mostly, I would have rather seen Venom as the main villain in a Spider-Man movie. (Ever wish studios could just ignore a movie in a franchise and re-do it with the same team? I would totally forgive 20th Century Fox if they pretended X-Men 3 didn’t happen, and just made that movie over again). I keep thinking that Sony just messed up their chance, and this will turn into another expensive, pointless ride.

As always, we’ll just have to see. I respect Gary Ross a lot (Dave is a favorite of my family), and I certainly love the Venom character—there is a ton more they could do with him. Let’s see if they could put together something interesting here. Even better, let’s hope they redeem the Spider-Man franchise in whole—I’m sure a lot is riding on Spider-Man 4 to get Peter Parker’s world back on track, and I hope Sam Raimi recharged those creative juices with Drag Me to Hell (which I’m looking forward to finally catching on DVD).

I know I’ll see both that and Venom anyway—let’s just hope they’re both good.

What do you guys think of the Venom movie news? And who would you like to see Spider-Man take on in Spider-Man 4?

My pick would be Carnage—if you thought Venom was bad, wait until you see this guy. At least somewhere deep down, beneath all that alien slime, Brock has a heart; Cassidy, the serial killer who inherits another symbiote, is all-out, unhinged madness. With no humanity whatsoever, this guy just wants blood—he thrives on killing, making him more powerful and uncontrollable than Venom could ever be. He'd be an amazing match for Spidey (and the effects to bring him to life should be fantastic)—check him out in the picture below (he's the red, splotchy one on the left)—he definitely has potential as a big-screen villain.


Images courtesy of Marvel Comics, Marvel Entertainment, and Sony Pictures.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Disney Buys Marvel?!

- Posted by Rusty


Source: Variety
(Found via Cinematical)

Um, did anyone see this coming? It was all over the news on Monday, so I’m sorry for the late comment…but we just have to mention this. Check out Variety for the whole story, but, yep, as it now stands, Disney bought Marvel Entertainment—that source of so much comic-book superhero goodness, like Spider-Man, Iron Man, X-Men, Captain America, Fantastic Four, and much, much more—for the huge chunk of change of $4 billion. This was completely out of the blue, especially since Marvel, which started independently financing their own films (beginning with 2008's “Iron Man”), seemed to be doing great on their own. These guys have four more films planned for the next 3 years (“Iron Man 2,” “Thor,” “Captain America,” and the extremely anticipated cross-over superhero team-up, “The Avengers”), and after that…well, it looks like Disney will oversee the next round of Marvel heroes to hit the screen.

The online world’s filled with opinions right now, and a lot of these guys know way more than me… but, in all honesty, this could be a very good thing. I’m a positive person in general, but I think this will turn out well for both parties. Marvel could gain the cushy support of the House of Mouse, while the Disney brand will inherit edgier, more adult-skewing fare than, say, Hannah Montana.

This really reminds me of a few years back, when Disney finally bought Pixar for a similar amount, and then placed Pixar head genius John Lasseter as the Creative Director of the whole Disney Animation wing. From that deal, Pixar got to have autonomy and creative freedom, while gaining Disney’s epic marketing power to back them up—a perfect match between talent and resources.


I think something similar will happen here. Marvel will likely continue to operate independently (while brainstorming with Disney), and then have Disney to supply the advertising and product-spin-off onslaught. Can you picture that? Disney Channel, ABC, Happy Meals, Disneyland rides—the possibilities are endless, and if Marvel continues to make great films like “Iron Man,” it’ll be very much worth it. Plus, could we get a Pixar/Marvel movie down the line? (Especially since Pixar’s Fantastic Four-inspired “The Incredibles” was infinitely better than that superhero team’s own movie) Ah, that would be insanely awesome…

I have a lot of faith in Disney (after all, they gave me two of my favorite movies with “Aladdin” and the first “Pirates of the Caribbean”, not to mention the countless cartoons I grew up on)—they’ve had their stumbles, but when they’re firing on all creative cylinders, it’s a constant treat for us viewers. Considering how many Marvel Comics characters exist that have yet to be adapted (probably upwards of 4,000), this could be a very interesting new partnership down the line.

In the meanwhile, we’ll have “Iron Man 2” hitting theaters next year (with a trailer sometime in the next few months), “Thor” and “Captain America” in 2011, and the Downey Jr.-led “The Avengers” blasting away in 2012.

What do you guys think? Could Disney and Marvel become the new Disney/Pixar-like powerhouse? Or does this merger of the family-friendly empire and badass superheroes have disaster written all over it? Guess we'll just have to wait and see...

Images courtesy of Marvel and Walt Disney Pictures.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "Wolverine 2" is a Go...and with a Much Better Writer!

- Posted by Rusty

This summer's "Wolverine" movie was, uh, to put it as nicely as possible, not quite good. For what it was worth, minus the pretty terrible, underdeveloped script, I had a good time watching it, mainly because Liev Schriber running on all fours like a dog was one of the funniest moments of the summer. Plus, Gambit's my favorite X-Man, so if "Wolverine's" legacy is the introduction of Taylor Kitsch as the Cajun card-thrower, I could live with that.

Still, Wolverine is a great character...and he deserves a much better movie. Hugh Jackman owns this role, and despite the film around him, he was consistently good in "Wolverine." Jackman also has a ton of good will behind him, and he could do wonders for the character with solid material to back him up (remember "X2"?). So, if he wants to strap on the adamantium claws again, I'll be right there on opening day.

Which is good news, since "Wolverine 2" is now officially a go, and 20th Century Fox brought in Christopher McQuarrie to write the new draft (check out The Hollywood Reporter for the whole story) - this version will feature Frank Miller's famous story arc of Wolverine's time in Japan. McQuarrie is a genuinely talented writer ("The Usual Suspects," the unofficial first draft of "X-Men", "Valkyrie"), and also best buds with director Bryan Singer, who, to this day, gave us the best showcases for Wolverine (and the rest of the X-Men). Hmm...with Singer temporarily available, you think he might jump back onto the mutant bandwagon? Either way, some good news on the "Wolverine" front - let's keep it coming.

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox. Read more!

Comic-Con Madness: Double Dose of Downey ("Iron Man 2")

Rusty here, with the final part of this set. So, before I start rambling too much, let’s dive in…

"Iron Man"

“I am Iron Man”

What a killer final line. That’s Tony Stark nicely summed up in that one moment. That charming, horny, brilliant, semi-weasely billionaire embraces the chance to step up, to finally mean something to someone besides himself. Just watch that final press conference scene—look how disheartened Stark was when he wasn’t accused of being a “superhero.” He’s loving this moment—he’s on top of the world. Well, great…now the sequel can come and knock him down a few pegs or two (like it should).

Like (I’m sure) many of you, I loved “Iron Man.” Director Jon Favreau managed to make a superhero film that wasn’t corny (like some other Marvel movies that shall go unnamed) nor intensely dramatic, but rather one that proudly fell into its own distinct category—a sharp, endlessly clever, and still emotionally involving entry into the superhero canon. Stark isn’t Batman, but nor is he trying to be. You can watch “The Dark Knight” in amazement and awe—“Iron man” watches like a fun night with some great friends (albeit very exciting, ass-kicking ones). Robert Downey Jr. was perfect in a role that now seems tailor-made, and the film seemed to adjust to his style—loose and fun for the most part, but believably dramatic at the turn of a hat. Villain-wise, it was kind of weak and predictable, but that didn’t matter, since the character work was dead-on, and the film’s terrific sense of humor (and solid action) more than compensated for the lesser moments.

So now we’re at Part 2. About a year after the original came out, Director Jon Favreau (he’ll always be “so money” from “Swingers”), Downey, Marvel head honcho Kevin Feige, and newbie cast members Don Cheadle (replacing Terrance Howard from the first film), the great Sam Rockwell (as new villain and Tony Stark-like weapons-manufacturer, Justin Hammer), and Scarlett Johansson (joining the cast as Stark’s new assistant/Russian super spy, the Black Widow) all came to Comic-Con for the world-premiere footage of next summer’s extremely anticipated sequel.

And, simply put…it looked pretty awesome!

But, wait, let’s backtrack a bit. Marvel Pictures branched out a few years back and won back the rights to some of their greatest characters. In turn, as the first wave of their independently-produced films, we got “Iron Man” and Edward Norton’s excellent take on “The Incredible Hulk” (which I really hope gets a sequel too). But Marvel went a step further—for the first time that I’ve ever really seen this, they started combining their characters into one common universe. SPOILER ALERT: the ending shot of the “Incredible Hulk” had Downey Jr., fresh off the events of “Iron Man” (and possibly the sequel?), walk in to a bar to talk to the Hulk’s nemesis, General Ross, about forming a “special team”.

Yep, that’s nothing less than Marvel’s dream-team—the Avengers. But it wasn’t a hollow tease. Marvel has three more pictures planned after “Iron Man 2”—“Thor”, “Captain America,” and we better believe it: “The Avengers” in 2012, featuring those three heroes, and (hopefully) Edward Norton’s Hulk in some capacity. I was crazy about that scene in “The Incredible Hulk”. How rarely do you get to see characters from different movies interacting? How awesome would it be to see fine actors like Downey and Norton playing together (and the actors who’ll fill the costumes for Captain America and the might Nordic god, Thor), bringing real sincerity and talent to an epic superhero story?

And therein is the great challenge. Sequels are a tricky business to begin with. More often than not, “bigger and better” is taken too literally, and we end up getting more noise, explosions, and stuff looking “cool” than a continued arc of a character we love, than actual development for people we’ve come to care about. I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve lost track of how many times have I’ve been let down by Parts 2’s and 3’s, by filmmakers who seemed to forget what made their original films so great. Sure, it’s not exactly life-changing bits of depression, but we grow to care for all these larger-than-life people—they’re only worth revisiting if there’s more of their story to tell. It’s so much more rewarding to see them progress in new, relatable stories, as opposed to watching them fight more stuff and face bigger, more expensive special effects.

As such, “Iron Man 2” has to take Tony Stark someplace new, becoming its own story and a strong entry into the “Iron Man” series, all the while setting the ground work for his team-up with Marvel’s superheroic finest—a smooth transition into the geeky, ridiculous insanity that will be “The Avengers”—piece of cake, right?

Well, it’s too early to tell, but, from the looks of it, Favreau, Downey, and co. at the very least will give us something interesting, new, and very, very fun to watch. This sequel looks to pick up hot on the heels of “Iron Man”’s brilliant closing line. The world now knows he’s Iron Man, so how does Stark deal with that? With the pressure, with the attention, with his own not-exactly-perfect-or-moral lifestyle? It’s a great launching pad, and it’ll be cool to see where the filmmakers go with this. Will it live up to the first one? It’s impossible to make that call yet, but, in terms of what we saw, it should give the first film a good run for its money.

But let’s get to that footage…

Footage:

It all starts with Downey, half-dressed in the Iron-Man suit, sitting atop Randy’s Donuts in L.A. (you know, in the actual giant donut). In walks Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, in all his steely, eye-patched cool), who chides Downey for not joining his “special team”. Stark is still fast and quippy (his response to Fury: “This is confusing me. Which eye do I address?”)…but we can see that Stark is clearly struggling—the whole “everyone-knows-who-you-are” part of the job is getting to him, and he’s feeling low…we just don’t know exactly why. What exactly happened to put him here? Very cleverly not revealed. Nicely done, Mr. Favreau—you got me hooked already.

The next thing shown was an extended sequence. In some courtroom, with Gwyneth Paltrow’s Pepper Potts (his right-hand woman, conscience, and, as we obviously know, his true love) right behind him, Stark is facing down a committee of Senators, led by the deadpan Garry Schandling. They want this Iron Man armor, thinking it’s a weapon. But Stark, always one step ahead, mocks them all, and celebrates himself “officially privatizing world peace.” The court then calls Stark’s best friend, Jim Rhodes, to testify, launching into my favorite part of the footage.

In walks Cheadle, and bumps into Downey for a quick exchange. Most of us heard the messy business with Terrence Howard being replaced for the sequel. I thought he was very enjoyable in the original, and would’ve loved to see where he took his character (not to mention finally become Iron Man’s metal-clad, super-ally, War Machine). The recasting also really cheapens that great moment where Howard, watching Downey fly off into the sky, looks at his old armor, grins, and says “Next time, baby.” Well, not so much.

Still, as much as that news sucks, whether it was because of salary negations or bigger creative reasons (there was some rumor rumbling that Favreau wasn’t too happy with Howard’s performance), the change is done. Cheadle’s a fine actor, with a great sense of humor and strong presence, so we know the role is in good hands. But the footage took it a step further, in a tiny, perfectly executed moment.

As Rhodes walks to the testifying bench, he bumps into Stark, who can’t believe they dragged him into this. Rhodes, plainly and simply, just says: “Look, it’s me. I’m here. Let’s get over it and move on.” I love moments like that—it works for the story and the character relationships, but simultaneously comments on things outside of the movie. It’s quick and subtle, but it’s absolutely right. Yeah, it’s disappointing Howard couldn’t finish the role he originated, but there’s nothing we can do now. Let’s just accept it and move on. Cheadle will do right by the fans, and I personally can’t wait to see what he does with the role.

After that, the footage launches into a series of quick sequences and images. We see bits of Scarlett Johansson, believably knocking down some bad guys as the Black Widow, Mickey Rourke, with a thick (and legitimate!) Russian accent, building a powered suit of his own, and a quick throwaway shot of Downey’s chest piece, with some kind of infection seemingly spreading from it. Finally, we see Mickey Rourke in full-on costume mode as Whiplash. Now, this is the picture they released a month back…

I wasn’t too impressed with it—it looks a little rough, cheaply made (maybe that’s the point?) and unexciting, but, man, just wait until you see those super-charged, electrified whips in action. It looks phenomenal, and Rourke looks like he’s relishing playing this type of character (as well as his own Hollywood comeback). He should make a good match, both physically and dramatically, for Downey’s Stark.

We see one more money shot of Iron Man flying around, evading explosions, and the screen goes black.

We think it’s over…but then the footage has one more surprise up its sleeve. A brand-new scene opens, with Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer walking in to meet Cheadle in an airplane hanger. Rockwell jokes around a bit (he should be great fun in this role), and offers Cheadle a variety of weapons he brought along.

“So, which ones will it be?” he asks him.

“I’ll take them all.” Rhodes replies, with absolute cool.

And the very next shot, we see Rhodes as War Machine, in total badass glory, shooting things left and right from his new, weapon-clad silver armor. For a movie that just finished filing last week, the effects look superb, and this shot of War Machine in particular had fans going crazy in the Convention Hall.

We got tons of juicy details, but the plot isn’t exactly clear yet. I like that—I actually want to be surprised come next May. We know Johansson’s character is Russian (with a name like Natasha Romanov, what else could she be?), so there could be some connection to Mickey Rourke’s Whiplash. Similarly, we heard Justin Hammer is the second villain, so there might be some shady dealings between him and Whiplash too. And I was most intrigued by that shot of Downey’s infected chest piece. I have no idea where they could take that story element, but it opens up some interesting possibilities.

All in all, it looks like the filmmakers have some excellent material for this sequel. I’m still going to be cautiously optimistic (“Spider-Man 3” had a fantastic trailer too…), but we’re definitely looking at one of next year’s biggest hits (and hopefully a deserving one too).

Panel:


As for the actual panel, it was everything you’d expect from these guys. Favreau was funny and informative (though very careful not to reveal anything substantial—he’s become a master of the tantalizing hint), Downey was his usual entertaining self, and Cheadle and Rockwell look like great additions to the cast.


Johansson was actually my biggest wild card for the new film. She can be so good with the right material (“Lost in Translation,” “Match Point”), but, for me, she’s been kind of hit-or-miss with her latest films (“The Island,” “The Other Boleyn Girl”). Still, the footage looks like she jumped for the chance to play the Black Widow, and Favreau even added how impressed he was when she dyed her hair red weeks before she even got the part. We also found out that she won’t have to do the Russian accent—definitely good news all-around, since it would’ve been ridiculously distracting. (Really, Tony Stark would find nothing suspicious of someone as gorgeous as Johansson working for him, with a think Boris-and-Natasha accent to boot?) She’s a wonderful actress under the right circumstances, and it looks like she took this role seriously, with a good dash of fun as well in playing such a cool-chick character.

I loved some of their anecdotes, particularly Favreau’s story of how the Russian government was thrilled to offer Mickey Rourke a “research” stay in one of their prisons (looks like Whiplash did some time before he enters the story). Turns out, the first big import movie after Perestroika was “9 ½ Weeks,” and Rourke still holds a special place as an uber-sex symbol for my people. Downey had a good bit as well, when asked about working with Mickey Rourke, and he put it best as: “Man, and I thought I was eccentric.”


My personal favorite thing, though, was Cheadle’s response to this question:

“What do you like better, playing a good guy in “Iron Man 2,” or a villain in “Meteor Man”?

Cheadle paused, and then, with perfect timing:

“Yeah, I don’t know what that second movie is.”

The footage was then played again to the crowd’s overwhelming cheers, and the panel members thanked the crowd, with a genuine reminder that it was Comic-Con and the fans that broke the original “Iron Man” from a big question mark to one of the most anticipated movies (and biggest hits) of last summer.

Overall, easily one of the best panels of the convention (although, I agree with Ace—the “Chuck” panel wins it by a nose). Whether the sequel’s any good really remains to be seen, but it looks like the cast and crew sincerely tried to make this one as worthy (if not better) than the original movie.

May 7, 2010? We’ll see you then, Mr. Stark.

You are Iron Man, indeed.

Images courtesy of Marvel Pictures and Paramount Pictures.
Read more!