The Daily Munchies: "Moon"

Posted Luke

Finally a science fiction movie that does not have stupid robots and beautiful girls running around with the sole and only purpose is getting butts in the sites.


“Moon” is directed by Duncan Jones which has been over shadowed by his father David Bowie – until now. Duncan Jones creating a will passed, creative, thought provoking and engaging debut effort premiered at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival. The star of the film is the superb Sam Rockwell, playing the character Sam Bell. He works for Lunar Industries, a giant fuel company that provides power for much of the earth. Sam Bell is signed for a three year contract where he is a sole employee located on of course on our Moon. His primary job responsibility is to harvest helium-3 to send back to Earth for vast amounts of energy. His only “friend” on the Moon is intelligent robot voiced by Kevin Spacey named Gerty. When Sam Bell meets another character looking and having the name Sam Bell, begins the drama as the pass picks up quickly. Not to give any clues, however the twist and turns the film brings upon different moral troubles involving conspiracy, cloning and life itself.

For anyone, where you enjoy or dislike science fiction, “Moon” is an extremely well made film, with great camera use to bringing back miniature landscape of the “Moon” with only a five million dollar budget looking like Peter Jackson’s WETA had a hand in it. However, the film is made great by the spectacular endeavor turned in by Sam Rockwell. His performance might be the best of his career, which includes fine performances such as fellow indie darling 2008 “Choke”. Some people have claimed it is slow and nothing happened. Those are the people that think Michael Bay is an elite filmmaker. Give this film a chance; you will be happy you did.

Read more!

R.I.P.: John Hughes

I have a confession to make: I actually haven’t seen the majority of John Hughes’ work. That’s right: no “Sixteen Candles”, “Weird Science”, “Some Kind of Wonderful”, and many more. Then again, the ones I did see couldn’t be more perfect indicators why this guy will hold his place as a god of the Teen Movie. “The Breakfast Club”. “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”. “Pretty in Pink”. Of course, I worshipped both “Home Alones” as a kid, but seeing those previous three films later on stuck with and affected me, often in ways I couldn’t quite get.

There’s an interesting, slow-burn kind of quality to his movies—the more you think about them, the more you digest the characters who probably aren’t even the stars, the more it moves you. I saw “Ferris Bueller” when I was 12, and I so badly wanted to be Matthew Broderick’s friend. I knew I could never be that cool, but, man, would it be awesome to have a guy like that backing me up when things got tough. The guy who’d remind me to not take myself too seriously, to go out and have some fun—to live. But here’s the thing: as much as I loved Ferris then, Cameron’s the one that fascinates me now. It’s really his journey in the movie, and watching that unfold, watching him gain the confidence to turn his life around, is perhaps the greatest pleasure of the wish-fulfillment-like classic.

And that’s Hughes’ genius. This guy understood teenagers—he made them heartbroken, hopeful, weird, foolish, funny, awkward—you know, real people, with believable issues…and they stood the test of time. Those movies weren’t shallow, one-joke premises—they didn’t reduce teens to horny, single-note caricatures. The writing was strong, funny, but with charm and heart that rarely felt tacked on. The problems in “The Breakfast Club” are still relevant, the romance in “Pretty in Pink” still incredibly sweet (Duckie will forever be one of my all-time favorites…but, yep, I was secretly rooting for Blaine), and Cameron in “Ferris Bueller” is still one of the best and most touching bits of character work that I’ve seen.

So, thank you, John Hughes—I can’t wait to watch the rest of your films, but the ones I was lucky to see still mean a lot. Maybe one day, I’ll have the guts to sing “Twist and Shout” and rock out the entire Chicago city parade! True, that might not happen (especially knowing me), but at least that moment is forever captured on the magic of film.

My thoughts go to his friends, family, and his many, many current and future fans.

"Breakfast Club" image courtesy of Universal Pictures.
Read more!

Weekend Bites: The Crazy Russian Falls for "(500) Days of Summer"

Rusty here. Sorry about the few updates over the last couple of days, but work got the best of all 3 of us. So, considering the fact that I was supposed to have this up on Monday...let's just call it a Mid-Week Bite and politely ignore the lateness. Either way, this is just too good a movie, so please go see it. Or, if you're brave and are willing to venture through my latest lengthy monstrosity, keep reading for my thoughts on one of the best and most romantic movies I've seen in a while...

Review: "(500) Days of Summer"

My Rating: 4 bites [out of 5]

Fair warning: this is about to get pretty mushy; I’m going to shower a lot of love on this wonderful little movie. So, with that, here’s a quick soundbite version before I ramble away: “(500) Days of Summer” is just a pure delight. It’s lovely without being too sweet, honest without being overly “dramatic”, and written, acted, and directed with absolute charm. I’m not giving it a perfect review based on pretty much one minor quibble, but this is a movie that will get heavy rotation on my poor, romance-ingesting DVD player, right alongside “Pride & Prejudice,” “Love Actually”, “When Harry Met Sally”, and (yep, the guilty pleasure that evolved into one of my favorites), “Wimbledon.”

To be upfront, I don’t share the common “guy” opinions on chick flicks. I wouldn’t have to be dragged to see one by someone I’m dating—in fact, I’m guessing it’ll be the other way around. I genuinely love movies about people in relatable, human situations, all presented with a good sense of humor and plenty of heart. That’s not to say that all of them are good—the typical Hollywood rom-com usually involves some gimmick (It’s all a bet! He’s only pretending to be gay!) that destroys any potential that movie would have to be a sweet, memorable romance.

We’re also treated to such familiar staples like the jackass boyfriend who abuses his girl, but for some reason she stays with him…and only in the end decides to finally go with Insert Charming Lead Here. Or, my personal favorite: Matthew McConaughey is some form of shirtless douchebag who must reform his ways and, of course, thus get the attractive blonde chick (who really should know better!) in the end. Not all of these are exactly terrible, but the corny plot mechanics and piled-on sappiness leave many such movies (if not most) cruising by purely on the likeability of its stars (“The Ugly Truth,” which I’ll review later this week, is a perfect example of that).

In terms of predictability, though, I honestly don’t mind movies being formulaic as long as the characters and their relationships are fresh, engaging, and well-written…and, in the end, I’m really a sucker for good, likeable people falling in love. Well, “(500) Days of Summer” meets that basic requirement, but also provides something funnier, and much more touching and relatable in the process.

The movie, as the narrator plainly tells us, is “a story of boy meets girl,” but, he is quick to point out, it’s “not a love story”. That’s a very accurate description: a “love story” would be selling the movie far too short. There are no bets here, no high-concept premises—it’s a simple, common story, one that most (if not all of us) have at one point experienced. This is, in fact, about a “boy,” Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a once promising architect and now greeting-card writer, and him falling head over heels for a “girl”, Summer (the lovely and radiant Zooey Deschanel), his office’s new secretary. It’s a premise we’ve seen a million times before, but, trust me, “(500) Days of Summer” will win you over before you know it.

The movie kicks in at Day 288 (it shuffles through most of the 500 days of their relationship), and, since the trailer already gave it away, Summer has just broken up with Tom. Tom, feeling lower than humanly possible, vows to win her back, because she’s not “any other girl…she’s Summer!” For him, she’s the One, for Tom is the type of guy who sincerely believes that—he’s not going to let his soul-mate go, at least not without a fight. And, from there, the film launches into retracing their relationship, but in a refreshingly loose, non-chronological order. And therein lies the film’s great hook. There’s a reason the movie starts with Tom—it’s his version of their relationship. These are his memories, his analyses, his quirks and pains that we’re experiencing. We’re not actually getting all 500 days, but we’re getting the days that matter to him—for better or for worse—these are the ones that truly stick out.

Now, I can’t take credit for this (since I read it an interview with Gordon-Levitt), but the film’s structure is so true to how we think that many people might not actually notice it. And he’s absolutely right—think about your important relationships, the ones that really mattered—it rarely goes straight to day one, right? By all means, it could, but, if you’re anything like me, the mind jumps around like crazy. You remember the first awkward joke, perhaps a moment later when you genuinely connected, which could then launch your train of thought straight through to the first signs of trouble. This movie (in perhaps a far more coherent manner) is that experience—in turns sweet and funny, and, in perfectly natural segueways, quite poignant and heartbreaking when it needs to be.

But the real clincher for me was the characters. Here, we have two of our most talented and likeable young actors, but in characters that aren’t types—Tom and Summer are real people, with two quite different outlooks on relationships (which may or may not contribute to the developments that take place). Tom, especially, is the guy who’s born to believe that there’s that One Person out there for him. Probably from years of absorbing romantic movies and novels (and come on, he works for a greeting card company—the holy ground of mass-produced sappiness!), he’s been waiting for that one person—the girl of his dreams who will come in and make his life better, who will push and inspire him to be the very best version of himself. How do I know this (or at least think I do)? Because I am Tom, at least in all these respects. We’re both (often clueless) hopeless romantics—it goes with the territory to examine every new girl like your potential future partner for life.

One of the many things this movie gets right is the small character details. Tom, quite handsome and charming, is still rather awkward, with a great tendency to play things kind of safe. As such, his initial flirtation with Deschanel is perfectly awkward and sweet, with just the right degree of humor and believable behavior. This aspect of his personality, in particular, really hit home for me. I don’t want to drive away all you readers with long, sarcastic stories of my ridiculous life experiences, but Tom and I probably share way too many corny wooing tactics. For my favorite example: Tom knows Summer’s a fan of rock band, The Smiths, so he makes sure to play one of their songs loudly—you know, just to get her to come over and talk to him. Brilliant, right (in all its pathetic glory)? And, yep, I did that too—a couple years back, with me crazy about a neighbor of mine, I made sure to play movies that she liked, just so she could pass by and it’ll get her attention. Foolproof, right? (Except for the fool actually doing this) Hell, I liked a girl recently, but when it came time to step up and ask her out properly, I totally chickened out. Instead, I kept pushing for us to play some tennis…and only then would I unleash my awesome asking-her-out skills. Oy… Tom and I have sadly too much in common (although I’d guess his success rate is slightly higher)—not my main reason for liking the film, but definitely some bonus, well-written icing on the cake.

Summer, on the other hand, is, simply put, that Dream Girl (at least she’s mine, so I greatly sympathize with Tom)—she’s challenging, funny, beautiful (but in a believable way), sweet (but doesn’t take crap from people)—she’s the kind of girl who’s cool to hang out with at a bar, but, just the same, she can romance the socks off you with a dance at a wedding. However, there’s one big kicker: she’s not interested in “relationships”—she’s uncomfortable with labels, and repeatedly refers to Tom as her “friend,” albeit an extremely close, boyfriend-ish kind. That’s one of the biggest conflicts in the film; Tom, that earnest believer in “True Love Conquering All” tries to change her, while Summer tries to figure out how she feels in what is obviously something great (though not necessarily perfect).

As for Tom and Summer's actual relationship, in all of its 500 sometimes-messy days, the film, from its clever direction and constantly sharp script (by relatively new duo of Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber), refuses to take any easy ways out. Yes, Tom and Summer are extremely compatible—they make each other laugh, their eccentricities match perfectly, their mutual “couple” vibe is infectious, and, really, they just look great together (Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt have an easy, likeable chemistry—I’d love to see them work together again). But perhaps it’s not enough. We know Summer slips away from Tom, and the fact that Tom can’t do anything about it breaks him down completely. There’s thus a real emotional honesty here that’s rarely seen, at least in popular Hollywood films. The film’s smart enough to ask: what happens when one person is completely in love, while the other person…well, really likes the other a lot? I’ve been more-or-less on both sides of that equation, and, to put it as crudely as possible, it sucks either way. Someone’s going to get hurt, and, in this case, Tom goes through an entire journey in understanding why he and Summer can or can’t be together. He comes out a slightly different person, but whether it’s for the best, or how it affects them as a couple…well, you’ll just have to see and find out. I won’t reveal the ending here, but suffice to say that it is happy in its own way, and very right for the characters and their places in life.

And in all my rambling, I still haven’t gotten to the many other great things about this film. For starters, there’s the superb all-around character work. Kudos to the writing and the casting, but every minor character feels like a believable person in this world. Best of all, Tom’s friends actually act and sound like real friends—they don’t deliver punch lines and plot points, but rather try their best to support their friend in what is obviously the greatest (and soon-to-be most heartbreaking) thing that ever happened to him. There’s also a charming relationship between Tom and his very wise, very supportive 12-year-old sister. He comes to her for advice, and she delivers it—honest-to-goodness great advice, unhampered by our “adult” habits of sugarcoating the truth to make the other person feel better. It’s a lovely touch, amidst a film filled with many of them.

I mentioned the actors briefly in the beginning, but Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel again demonstrate why they’re some of our best young actors. Gordon-Levitt, especially, has been doing solid character work for years (if you haven’t already, check out his knockout performance in “The Lookout”), but, here, he’s relaxed and very loveable—the character might very well be a grown-up, slightly more rounded version of his character in “10 Things I Hate About You". I can’t wait to see him as the villain in this weekend’s “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra”.

Deschanel does fine work here as well. It’s hard not be smitten with Summer—that smile, that quick wit, and, man, oh, man, those eyes. In “Almost Famous,” I remember Cameron Crowe just did a full-on, loving camera zoom on her face, and I don’t blame him. Those eyes are so expressive, so alluring, so full of unspoken feelings—it works beautifully for Summer, who, unlike Tom, doesn’t give out her heart for a lifetime commitment…at least not right away.

If I have any complaint with the film, it’s that Summer is actually a little less developed than I would have liked. The writing is still strong, and Deschanel is a capable enough actress to make even the silent moments resonate, but, in the end, her character remains slightly a mystery—her motivations not always clear. Remember how this movie is pretty much Tom’s perspective? That could very well be why Summer is somewhat elusive. It is all Tom’s impressions, and Tom never understood a few very crucial things about Summer. Would it cheapen the movie if Deschanel had a clear perspective as well? To give her a more concrete point of view? I honestly don’t know, but that’s the one area of the movie where I felt it was lacking. It could be a complaint that will minimize the more I see this, but, as of now, Summer was the sole element of the film that I wanted more of.

First-time feature director Marc Webb (currently circling a “Jesus Christ Superstar” remake), who has a long and pretty distinguished track record in directing music videos for the likes of Green Day and others, makes an assured debut here. A lot of former music-video directors tend to play down substance with as much style and flash as possible, but Webb shows a pretty admirable restraint. That’s actually saying something in a movie as stylized as this one—among many things, we have an impromptu musical number and split-screen “expectations” versus “reality” footage (when Tom expected to sweep Summer off her feet, but ended up failing miserably)—but all that flash works perfectly for the story and the feelings expressed. Webb’s added touches all feel organic to the emotions at play, from the euphoria of love in its early stages to the downright depression when all of Tom’s hopes and dreams and great visions of love fall apart. Webb also works very well with his actors, especially noticed by the nice underplaying of Tom’s friends, who are obviously meant to be comic relief, but never come off as overbearing or annoying. I think he’s got a very interesting career ahead of him, and, after this, I’m incredibly curious to see how he’ll take on my favorite rock opera.

This was another way-too-long long review, but I can’t stress enough that this is a wonderful film. It’s infinitely better than your “average” date film—it digs deeper, and comes out far more truthful and enjoyable. Go see it—you won’t be disappointed. Or, if you’re anything like me, just buy it on DVD—you’ll probably end up seeing it repeatedly anyway, savoring each experience. True, I’ve only seen it once, so I can’t be sure...but it feels like a keeper. My “Love Actually” and “Pride & Prejudice” DVDs...you officially have competition.

Image courtesy of Fox Searchlight.

Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "Funny People"

Something new we're going to introduce is "The Daily Munchies." It's not a full on review or commentary, but more of a blurb, a random thought to be expanded on, or a mini-blog post, if you will.

So without further adieu...


I had the opportunity to check out the newest creation from the "Apatow House" this weekend: Funny People.



And I know that it's been getting a lot of mixed reviews, so allow me to just add to the confusion. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. Like all of Apatow's films, it was a great combo of Humor and genuine Humanity. It wasn't just about raunch and slapstick comedy, but more about capturing the visceral human emotions behind the characters.

So here's the short version:
- It was great seeing Adam Sandler not being "Adam Sandler."
- My brother said it best: The film makes you feel introspective about how to treat friends and family.
- "Funny People" is the perfect title because it encapsulates the movie as a whole. It's funny and it's about people. Period.

So go check it out for yourselves and make your own opinions. But as far as I'm concerned, I recommend Funny People with no reservations.

Peace.

Posted by Ace.
Read more!

Weekend Bites: The Crazy Russian takes on “Harry Potter”

Privet from the Crazy Russian! This is a bit belated, but in honor of the film’s IMAX 3D release (and the fact that I wrote this way before we launched the blog), I figured it was the perfect excuse to post it (and, really, Ace and Luke owe me a lengthy Potter post…one of many more to come!). So, bear with me, people, for a long (looong) look at the excellent new Harry Potter flick.

Review: “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”

My Rating: 3 1/2 bites [out of 5]

It’s too easy to give me a “Harry Potter” movie. Over the years, I tried to downplay my crazy love of J.K. Rowling’s boy wizard hero, but, in the end, I simply can’t (it’s just not worth it—the Potter obsession is just too big a part of me!). Harry Potter was and always will be the very reason I love to read—it was these books that first sparked my imagination, and every book and film release since the summer where I first discovered it was a major event for me. On the page, the series is pure, simple magic—one of the best recent examples of intelligent, imaginative storytelling. And, so far, the screen versions have all captured Rowling’s vision, managing to become (flaws and all) strong, stand-alone entities in their own right.

With that, as you probably guessed, I loved “The Half-Blood Prince,” although with some reservations. Series-wise, for me, this is near the top of the heap, underneath the brilliant “Prisoner of Azkaban,” and slightly edged out by “Order of the Phoenix.”

But, first, the positive stuff. I’m going to avoid major spoilers for non-Potterheads and newbies (but, come on, it’s high time you jumped on that bandwagon—you’re only denying yourself something awesome!), so work with me for the broad strokes. The sixth novel may just be my favorite, but it’s probably also the trickiest to adapt. Harry Potter matures greatly (as he should, for a boy like Harry experienced far too much pain and tragedy to live the normal life he dreams of) and starts to slowly understand there’s a greater destiny in store for him—that inevitable confrontation with the Dark Lord, Voldermort. Professor Dumbledore, perenially wise and always planning something, makes it his personal mission to set Harry on this path—but, of course, he knows far more than he lets on.

The book walks us through lengthy sessions of Harry and Dumbledore sifting through different memories of Voldermort, trying desperately to find a weakness within the Dark Lord. And there’s the catch: a good chunk of the “Half-Blood Prince” novel is dedicated to flashbacks (via people’s memories, made interactive through the magic of Dumbledore’s special Pensieve) and, to put it simply, not much actually happens, Voldermort-rising/fighting-forces-of-evil-wise. In fact, extended sequences in the novel just had Dumbledore and Harry sitting and talking about Voldermort’s history—riveting stuff on the page, but could you imagine that on screen? For me, though, that’s what made the novel so wonderful: Rowling raised her game as a storyteller, presenting a mature portrait of evil and its motivations (for, really, Voldermort was the character with the most development) and a much stronger focus on the burgeoning and awfully funny and endearing relationships, particularly between Harry’s closest friends, Ron and Hermione.

So how does the film fare? Well, ace “Potter” screenwriter Steve Kloves (every movie but the 5th one) proves up to the challenge (as always): as a time concession no doubt, most of the flashbacks were tossed out, but the engaging teen romance, with all its high emotions and stolen stares and awkward feelings is put straight to the forefront. Harry’s best friend, Ron, says at one point, right before fainting: “these girls…they’re going to kill me, Harry.” It’s a great indicator of the film: this is by far the funniest “Potter” yet. Sure, the film never forgets that these are dark, “mad times”—Voldermort’s armies are spreading, their havoc and murder toll steadily rising (they even attack Ron’s house, the Burrow, in an added scene for the movie), but Rowling was smart to keep those details as more of a looming presence (until the book’s climax, that is), and, like life inevitably gives way to, everyday things like secret crushes, friends, and, well, “snogging” (that’d be making out for all us non-Brits) take up all of our attention. Fortunately, following the book’s lead, the film deals with these teen emotions and raging hormones honestly, and, in many ways, quite poignantly. There’s one particular scene with Harry and Hermione—a quiet, intimate scene where they talk on the staircase—it’s a bit expanded from the book, and it’s just lovely—you’ll see what I mean in the final film. Returning director David Yates isn’t afraid to push these kids (or, really now, young adults), and, in turn, all three leads—Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (the ginger-haired, wisecrack-prone Ron Weasley), and Emma Watson (the bright and Muggle-born Hermione Granger)—prove once again that their acting is on the same plane as their great adult co-stars.

On the Hogwarts front, Jim Broadbent joins the already stellar cast as Professor Slughorn, a jolly, loveable man (but somewhat conceited and obsessed with the wealthy and powerful), who nonetheless holds a dark secret that could reveal crucial information for Harry and Dumbledore. Slughorn was a lively, memorable character on the page, and Broadbent, always delightful, brings him to life like I imagined, although with a much greater (and sadder) humanity. This is a guy you think you know right away, what with that cheerful laugh, and Broadbent’s endearingly large eyes, but the film carefully picks apart those layers, bringing out something borderline tragic. It’s another very positive feature of the series—the “Potter” movies aren’t afraid to slow down, to dig deeper, show some genuine emotion—in the summer of the mindless action/giant robot-assault of “Transformers,” it’s really quite refreshing…and very much appreciated.

As said before, though, I think this one falls just short of the series’ high marks of “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix.”

Look no further than the title, and you’ll find my biggest problem. In the story, Harry finds a mysterious old Potions book, signed and belonging to someone called “The Half-Blood Prince.” I get that important chunks of the novel had to be cut out (by all means I support it—it goes with the adaptation territory), but that entire thread is just not given the weight it deserves, particularly since it leads to a terrific, dramatic revelation of the Prince’s identity; here, it ends up seeming more perfunctory than the mad, fiery passion witnessed form the book. (You honestly get the sense that if the filmmakers weren’t stuck with “Half-Blood Prince” in the title, they would’ve gladly got rid of it). Trust is major theme in this movie—throughout the course of this story, Harry begins to realize what’s in store for him, and who he places his trust in is vital in the events to come. We know he has Ron and Hermione, but there’s a seeming betrayal near the end, which, while well-staged, is just not as emphasized as it should have been; a greater focus on the Half-Blood Prince would’ve given the movie a stronger thematic backbone, and transition very well to what’s in store for “Deathly Hallows”. Considering how zippy the 2 ½ hour run time is, an extra twenty minutes or so would’ve been just the trick for the sake of clarity and drama.

And, of course, much like the book, the movie still feels like an elaborate set-up for the final chapter. This wasn’t so much a problem with the book, but rather a downside, particularly since all of us insane readers knew we had to wait at least a year longer to find out what happens. While this movie can mostly stand on its own, deprived of many of the book’s added details, it can’t escape the feeling of treading water. Even the ending isn’t really a stopping point—it’s just a quiet cliffhanger before the final movie, which, judging by what this film left unsaid, will have a lot of concepts to fully explain to the audience.

And, on that note, here's a quick confession: I actually wrote a much more positive review of “Half-Blood Prince” initially. But, after a few more viewings, and some time to settle, I finally figured out why this film didn’t blow me away like the 3rd and 5th ones of the series did. “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix” were confident, streamlined entries that had to sacrifice important details from the novel for the sake of a clear narrative on film. Both of them put Harry’s emotional journey—his maturation and growing confidence as a wizard—straight to the forefront, and it worked amazingly (for me, at least). Here, the filmmakers try this to the extent that they can, but to prepare audiences for “Deathly Hollows” next year, this film has a great deal of set-up it needed to accomplish. Which, inevitably, leads to a sort of awkward give-and-take between the great relationship and character elements it wants to squeeze in, and the vast amount of exposition for the final two films—we thus got good bits of both, but, in the end, neither the character arcs nor the necessary backstory were really given the exposure they deserved. As such, things like the poor, very ignored Half-Blood Prince got shortchanged, as does Harry’s slow embrace of his great destiny, and the Harry-Ginny flirtation and brief relationship (although, to be fair, I really liked the changes to that last area). The final product still works very well—it’s, as always, entertaining, engaging, and very well-made, but I think a stronger balance of all these story elements would have been possible, and, for me, would have raised this film even higher in the Potter series ranking.

My gripes aside, this is still a very good film. One of the great things about the entire franchise is that there’s never really a bad movie. True, the omissions from the novel are sometimes very disappointing, but the stories (and all that credit really goes to J.K. Rowling) are always solid, and the filmmakers always find some choice beautiful, emotional or, hell, just plain exciting moments to walk away with (case in point: Harry’s flight on the Hippogriff in the 3rd film, Dumbledore’s duel with Voldermort in the 5th, and, as weird as it sounds, that scene on the staircase with Hermione and Harry, as well as a tribute to a character’s death, in this film).

All of the returning vets, like Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Helena Bonham Carter, and MVPs this time around, Michael Gambon (as Dumbledore) and the amazing Alan Rickman (as Professor Snape, relishing each and every one of his twisted, delectable line readings) still find the right balance of pathos and humor to bring to their roles. And, as I mentioned earlier, all three leads are wonderful—selling us on their friendship, but with Grint and Watson getting more to do than in the last movie, “Order of the Phoenix”—Grint has some great comedy bits and very believably portrays romantic cluelessness, while Watson gets some touching moments, nicely conveying Hermione’s heartbreak. Finally, a special shout-out to Tom Felton, who, without giving too much away, finally gets to show more shades of Draco Malfoy than the pompous, sneering bully, and he proves himself a very capable actor (not to mention a far more interesting character).

I was very impressed with Yates’ work on “Order of the Phoenix”—it was a more self-assured and overall stronger entry than Mike Newell’s “Goblet of Fire”, and Yates displayed a real grasp of the character of Harry and a comfort with Rowling’s world. Here, he continues to show that he’s a good fit for the franchise; the actors respond well to him, and visually, it’s likely the most gorgeous film since “Prisoner of Azkaban.” We’re in for very good things as Yates takes on the two “Deathly Hallows” films.

There’s really much to like in the new “Harry Potter,” as my unnecessarily rambly and wordy review hopefully pointed out. Obvious confession: this franchise means a lot to me, and, on the viewer’s part alone, despite all minor problems, it’s so rewarding to see Warner Bros. take such good care of it. Very few studios have maintained this level of quality over six consecutive films (let alone gone this far for a large, interconnected story), and I’m positive that in 2011, when all is said and done and oodles more box-office records are broken, this is a series (just like the books) that will remain and continue to be important for many years to come.

Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

Read more!

Luke "Mexajew" Lopez Top 10 Comic Con Moments

Posted by Luke

1. The twenty-five minutes of clips from James Cameron’s groundbreaking epic Avatar absolutely blew my mind. Believe the hype. It’s going to reign as king at the box office on December 18th and for many weeks after. I will be there; if you are wise you will too.

2. Yep, give me shit. Still, the Iron Man 2 panel was amazing! The buzz of the crowd, the wonderful trailer, clever jokes, and singing Happy Birthday to Jon Favreau’s eight-year- old son. Of course, Mr. Downey being Mr. Downey worked the crowd like no other. Man crush.

3. While they did not show clips, seeing Peter Jackson and James Cameron talk about the vision for and expectation of film in the future from Tintin to The Hobbit was remarkable. Their thoughtful ideas and the passion they display for their craft was so uplifting; it drives me to excel. OK, I am a bit corny, I know. By the way, Peter Jackson looks like a young Spielberg since he lost them sixty pounds filming King Kong.

4. Mila Kunis > Megan Fox.

5. Gary Oldman announcing that Christopher Nolan’s next Batman film will probably start filming at the end of the year. Warner Bros. didn’t like that. How about this, perhaps Johnny Depp and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the two villains? I’m sure you can guess which character each would play.

6. Denzel Washington’s comment during in a Q&A promoting his next sci-fic film, Book of Eli: after a hyped fanboy yelled, “you the man Denzel,” Mr. Washington replied like no other, saying “You my n---a.” Straight out of Training Day.

7. Simply Lost Panel was great – Last Season Summer 2010.

8. Seeing my baby-bro Shark Boy in the Twilight Sage: New Moon panel lighting up the stage. During the panel they showed a clip where he takes off his shirt and tells the crazy girls it’s “all for you.” It was like John Lennon but with no talent. However, I can probably say he is Vinny Chase and I’m just loser Drama.

9. Seeing tremendously sexy women dressed to perfection as iconic female Disney characters. I really preferred cute Snow White to foxy Jasmine. I LIKE!

10. Much needed bromance with Crazy Russian and Average Asian Man. 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!