Perhaps it was a blessing that the resounding opinions I had heard about Iron Man 3 were negative ones because I was not nearly as disappointed in the third film in the series as I had anticipated being. Hearing from everyone you know who saw a film that it sucked will do that. Of course, when I first found out that Shane Black had been brought in to write (credited with Drew Pearce) and direct this one, I was excited, so there was only so much tempering of expectations possible by way of negative chatter.
While Iron Man 3 was far from a perfect event flick, it actually achieved a better narrative balance than the previous two installments. It's easy to gloss over these points, but the first two Iron Man flicks sputtered toward their respective conclusions, and the villains were far from well-drawn. Their pacing was sorely lacking, and each narrative lacked a cohesion and direction that inhibited the ultimate success of each film. Iron Man 3 may have been somewhat lacking a bit in the huge action set pieces, but what was lacking in the area of genre-prescribed bombast was compensated for in pathos, snappy dialogue, and a more personally affective narrative. Tony Stark's struggles were at least as much internal and psychological as they were conflict put upon him by antagonists, and Black's entrant into the franchise deftly shifted back and forth between the two, maintaining strong pacing that walked the fine line between being deliberate enough to still tell a nuanced, personal story and moving along just quickly enough to not give cause to look at your watch.
Of the films in the series, this one gave Robert Downey, Jr. the most room to stretch out and exercise his deft acting chops. Tony Stark is run through an emotional gamut in this film, and we get to see Downey knock it all the fuck out of the park. The audience is also treated to a film in which Tony Stark is rarely actually in the suit as Iron Man, a problem for some but frankly those scenes are less compelling to me than if we are treated to Stark himself having to work through problems, at least in part because the Iron Man action scenes are so inorganic. Gwyneth Paltrow, Rebecca Hall, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, and especially Ben Kingsley are all serviceable at the very least, but Iron Man 3 is the Robert Downey, Jr. show, make no mistake of that. Thanks to Black's flair for writing magnetic but struggling action heroes, we get to see Tony Stark and Robert Downey, Jr. at their best in the series.
Look, I've written a lot about Tuff Turf. Strangely, and not entirely because of the film itself, a solid majority of the traffic here at Inconsiderate Prick has been because of a piece I wrote on one of my first childhood crushes (temporally misplaced as it may have been), Kim Richards, being thrust back into my life. That seminal piece of IP lore can be found here.
Regardless of how hot Kim Richards was circa 1984 [insert obligatory Kim Richards photo that drove traffic now]
Tuff Turf itself must be seen. It's got James Spader as the new kid kicked out of prep school, a bicycle-riding, leather-jacket-wearing youth in revolt with what could easily be termed a death wish who sleeps with a dart gun and wants to steal away the school street tough's girlfriend, played by the estimable Kim Richards. It's got Robert Downey (before he added the Junior) as Spader's best friend, who happens to play drums shirtless with sunglasses hanging round his neck--oh, you 1980s--in the Jim Carroll Band. Yes, that's Jim Carroll of Basketball Diaries fame. Really, all you should need to know is it's got this scene in it.
About two weeks ago, I was a little down on Joss Whedon following my tepid response to The Cabin in the Woods, a film that he co-wrote with former Buffy scribe Drew Goddard. Today, I couldn't be more pleased with Joss Whedon.
It is with little hesitation that I say The Avengers is the best movie I've seen in this young year, and there has not been another one close.
Having written the screenplay and directed the film (with Zak Penn sharing a "Story by" credit), Joss Whedon took his first big shot at directing a big-budget feature*, and he fucking crushed it. Of all of the Marvel movies, this is the best. It's better than Spider-Man 2 and X-2. It's better than either of the Iron Man flicks.
*The budget for Serenity was just $40 million compared to the reported $220 million that The Avengers cost.
What Joss Whedon has done is crafted the most complete film of the Marvel adaptations. I suppose some of this owes to the fact that a lot of the origin legwork was done on the primary characters. After two Iron Man films, two somewhat related/muddled Hulk films, a Thor film, and a Captain America one, the origins of each of the main characters has pretty much been told. Sure, there's the matter of bringing them all together, which does require a good deal of exposition, but most moviegoers--even the non-comic book reading ones--knew the characters individually coming into the film. That said, there is just enough development of characters within the construct of the film as it stands to not turn off those who have seen the films while still establishing the characters for the viewer who may not be familiar with any of the characters, with Whedon having successfully toed that fine line.
The bulk of Whedon's success comes in his feel for each character. His strengths have always lain in his firm grasp of character motivation and development. While these characters already come developed for the most part, Whedon knows these characters so well that it's hard to fathom someone else taking a run at this film and being as successful. His grasp on Bruce Banner, Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, and Thor is always evident. Moreover his love for these characters is ever-present. It is this love of character when combined with his sharp wit that brings this film to the levels it reaches. If ever there were trepidation about whether Whedon was best suited for this venture, every time Downey opens his mouth it is obvious that Whedon should be penning Tony Stark's dialogue and that this is the stage Whedon should be working on. More so than in either of the other films in which the Hulk was present, here he is finally drawn up in a way that gets to the heart of what makes the character interesting. Perhaps some of this owes to Mark Ruffalo's natural affability combined with his ability to approach the role without ego, but for once, the Hulk and his human counterpart Bruce Banner are penned in an engaging, and shockingly funny way.
Speaking of funny, holy shit is this movie funny. Downey's rapier wit is utilized at full blast. There are physical gags that read neither broad nor campy. There are countless character-driven jokes. There were moments when--in the very real need to cut tension--the crowd is left roaring with laughter. Whedon's work here is top-notch.
As for the glitz and glamour of the action film, it is at attention and is equipped with all the bells and whistles. When the lens isn't trained on Scarlett Johansson's bodacious curves (this is the best she's looked in quite some time, and at no point did she irritate me, a small feat), it is framing some pretty spectacular action sequences. Sure, there's a reliance upon CGI that leaves some of the shots ever so slightly cold, but at this point that's almost to be expected. The climactic battle scene over New York City used CGI heavily, but it didn't feel like the film suffered for it. That battle sequence was breathtakingly choreographed, and its grandiosity befit the scale it was trying to achieve.
I could continue to heap praise on the movie--I haven't even mentioned Chris Evans or Jeremy Renner or Clark Gregg or the improved Chris Hemsworth--but it would simply be more of the same. The Avengers, in a word, was awesome.
While it wasn't for everybody, I actually liked the first installment in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes series. The energy between the three lead actors--Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, and Rachel McAdams--was intoxicating, and their banter was engaging.
Unfortunately, nearly everything that worked in the first one is absent from Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. The witty banter is largely missing. The chemistry between Downey and McAdams is gone because she is taken out of the picture in the first ten minutes. She is replaced with the leaden Noomi Rapace, whose Roma fortune teller brings little to the tale. The dialogue between the rakish Holmes and Watson lacks the verve that was present in the first.
And despite the fact that he's finally facing off against the supervillain, Dr. James Moriarty (played effectively by Jared Harris), the action sequences, especially the one in the woods, are so obfuscated by Guy Ritchie's infatuation with that herky-jerky, computer-generated, stop-and-start editing of action set pieces as to have been rendered completely unintelligible.
If you liked the first one, this is quite a let-down. If you didn't, you'd like it even less.
Despite initial enthusiasm when first hearing of the pairing of Zach Galifianakis and Robert Downey, Jr., it took nearly a month to get out and see this one. TSLF and I finally took in Due Date Thursday afternoon. Heading down for the first showing at the Downtown Alamo, we were the only people in the theater. I thought this was the only time that's happened for me at any of the Alamo Drafthouse locations, but apparently we were the only ones there when we went to Jumper (fuck that movie). Where the first time we were the only ones in the theater was fitting, this time wasn't.
Now, that isn't to say that Due Date was great. My expectations were actually fairly low for the film considering the pairing of Galifianakis and Downey, and I'm not sure it met those tempered hopes. Ultimately, Due Date suffers from the fact that it is a lesser version of a better film in Planes, Trains & Automobiles. Given the obvious similarities between the two and the fact that I've seen the John Hughes classic about 30 times, it seems almost impossible to separate the two when viewing Due Date for the first time.
In both, you have the high-strung business men trying to get home for an important family event (here, the titularly implied birth of a child rather than Thanksgiving) whose paths cross with a bumbling dimwit who seems to be able to do little else than inflict damage on their traveling partner. After Galifianakis's long overdue breakout in his last teaming with director Todd Phillips, The Hangover, the bar may have been set unreasonably high. He definitely excels operating from the fringe, and he is on the fringe again here. Unfortunately, Alan, his character from The Hangover, was significantly more likable than Ethan Tremblay. Ethan is also significantly less endearing than John Candy's Del Griffith. Where Del is really the heart and soul of Planes, Trains & Automobiles, Ethan Tremblay never feels like anything more than a caricature. Sure, his dad just died, but it feels like that was shoehorned in to the film to give the character depth artificially. There is also the fact that at the end of the day, Del was just a widower trying to get by as a road salesman while Ethan hopes to be an actor. There is an element of working class appeal that Del has that simply is not there with Ethan. That isn't to say there isn't appeal to what Ethan is seeking out to do, but he is essentially seeking celebrity and his goal is to be on Two and a Half Men (no offense, JonCryer). While that dream may be as much a product of this time as anything else, it is less sympathetic than Del's trade nonetheless.
Now, while I was able to see where detractors were coming from on The Hangover, it worked for me. Maybe it was that it seemed to signify a graduation of Todd Phillips to slightly more adult comedies. Despite the fact that Phillips is almost ten years older than I am, it seems like he has evolved from doing undergrad comedies (Road Trip) to delaying adulthood comedies (Old School) to pre-nuptial fare (The Hangover) to pre-parenthood films. Now, yes, I'm cherry-picking a bit here (I ignored Starsky & Hutch and School for Scoundrels during this time-line), but there seems to be a very clear movement here. In many respects, Due Date is his most adult work to date; it just isn't his funniest. In fact, it is pretty derivative. It basically operates on the principle that if you just take everything a little bit further than it went in Planes, Trains & Automobiles it will be even funnier than that. That principle is sadly misguided in this case.
As for Downey, he is very good. There is no surprise here. He plays the straight man to Galifianakis's buffoon well, much like Steve Martin did in 1987. Any of the shortcomings of the film do not come down on him, so don't worry about that.
Maybe it is that Phillips has decided to step out from the group comedies he has done before. With a smaller cast of primary characters, so much more of what has to happen is related to developing characters. Without depth, the shortcomings of a lack of development becomes all the more glaring. If you think about The Hangover, only one character markedly changes throughout the course of the film. With two primary characters, when only one character changes, what was the point of the buddy flick in the first place? Ethan Tremblay is essentially the same character that he was at the beginning of the film as he is at the end. Sure, his dream is realized, but it doesn't seem like there is any growth.
It occurs to me that I've spent a lot of time bashing this film. It isn't actually that bad. There are things to like about it. Despite the narrative weaknesses, Downey and Galifianakis are solid. It is also nice to see a re-teaming of Downey and his Kiss Kiss Bang Bang love interest, the beautiful Iowan, Michelle Monaghan. Danny McBride is great in his cameo (something that should come as no surprise to anyone). RZA and Jamie Foxx are both very funny as well. And despite the film's script-related issues, I do think that Phillips has a good eye, something that is not all that common amongst comedic directors.
In the end, what matters the most in a comedy is probably whether or not it delivers the laughs. Perhaps I wasn't in the ideal environment to be able to rule on this matter, but much like the narrative issues I have with the film, it was just kind of average in this department. I suppose this is the most apt description of this film: Average.
If I'm not mistaken, this is actually the first time in the history of Inconsiderate Prick that I'll have ended up writing about the sequel to a movie that I have also written about. In that regard, I suppose this is a milestone of sorts. To celebrate this, I have treated myself to a bowl of Honey Nut in honor of Omar. Now I'm going to drop a dramatic deuce and engage in a self high-five*.
*All right, I just spent about ten minutes trying to find a video to no avail. The video was that of the short-lived mid-'90s Fox sitcom "Too Something," a show I can't say I ever actually remember having seen, but I do remember the promo that Fox surely ran about 10,000 times leading up to its lackluster premiere. Weirdly, the concept of the self high-five was emblazoned into my memory then and its execution still kind of amuses me. Unfortunately, there is no video that I can provide for you to lay down a framework for what I'm talking about. Now, as far as the experience of seeing Iron Man 2 was concerned, it was an engaging film that left me thinking, That was pretty good. That may not be the most glowing reaction, but given my feelings about much of the high-profile films what I've seen lately, I was mostly pleased.
As was the case with Sherlock Holmes and the first Iron Man, Robert Downey, Jr., makes this film work. Both of those films could have failed easily if not for the wiles and charms of Downey, just as Iron Man 2 could have. His cocksure bravado is precisely what this franchise needed. It fuels this sequel, infusing it with an energy that is needed as the film comes to its close slightly anti-climactically.
Yes, Iron Man 2 does kind of rush into and through its conclusion. Some complaints levied against the film and its according narrative shortcomings chalk them up to biting off too much in regards to foils for Tony Stark. I would hardly say that is the case. X-Men or Spider-Man 3 this film is not. Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko and Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer both add much more to the film than their possible division of dedicated screen-time to villainy could take away. Rockwell is especially solid as the slimy defense-contracting douche.
As was the case with the first Iron Man, the staging of the climactic end fight scene simply leaves a bit to be desired. For starters, much of the flight/pursuit action borders on unintelligible. Perhaps this can be attributed to my second row seat, but there were 10 - 15 second sequences at the end that were a blur as much as anything else. When War Machine and Iron Man finally face off against Whiplash, the fight seems to end almost as soon as it begins.
Luckily, Iron Man 2 is ultimately character-driven, and it works entirely in that regard. While Justin Theroux's (holy hell, did I think it was weird that Theroux was writing this movie) screenplay may be unbalanced from a narrative standpoint, it succeeds on the personal front, and Stark's dealing with his mortality works exceptionally well.
Ultimately, the film's shortcomings don't do enough to detract from one's enjoyment of the film, and it does leave you looking forward to the eventual foray into the Avengers series of films down the line.
It is nearly impossible to go into Sherlock Holmes without a healthy amount of trepidation given that Guy Ritchie is at the helm. Eleven years ago, he seemed to establish himself well with his great debut feature-length film, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. His second film, Snatch, was still a good time but was lacking in originality, as it was essentially mining the same territory with a higher budget and star-studded cast.
After that, he married Madonna, made the universally panned departure from form Swept Away, tucked his tail between his legs, went back to ripping off his own first film--only this time it was like the later Michael Keatons in Multiplicity and the virtually unreleasable Revolver and RockNRolla came out.
With the knowledge of his career path inescapably holding firm to my subconscious, I still held out hope for Sherlock Holmes to be good.
I am happy to say that my hope has been validated.
Perhaps it was that Ritchie, whose issues have never really been on the technical side of the directorial duties but rather on the storytelling side of things, has finally helmed a film that someone else wrote. The presence of other minds at work on the narrative end of things is welcome here and protects against a singularity of vision that had seemingly stagnated his growth as a filmmaker and resulted in a decade of disappointing output.
Perhaps it was that Ritchie surrounded himself with a fresh set of actors. In addition to the four collective Academy Award nominations of Jude Law and Robert Downey, Jr., the adorable firecracker Rachel McAdams graces the film with her presence. If she made ten movies a year, it still wouldn't be enough for my liking. Jude Law finally gets off the five year box office poison wave he had been riding and shows us what we had been missing out on while he went through his own career hiccup. And Downey? Well, by my count he's done at least seven solid-to-great movies in since 2005 (mostly great) and seems to be touched with quite the bit of good luck. Guy Ritchie could certainly have done worse than this cast, and I'll surely talk about this a little more as we go. Before we move further, here is the trailer to serve as a refresher:
Now, I'm just going to come out and say this: Of all of the big movies that came out last year, I'd have to say that Sherlock Holmes left me the most satisfied. It should be noted that I'm no Sherlock Holmes purist. I'm not some bizarre Holmes fanboy. I can only tell you what I liked.
Guy Ritchie has clearly surrounded himself with the right cast and crew to fully realize his vision for this film. As for that vision, he gives the audience a look at a very dirty London apparently right around the turn of the 20th Century. The London brought to the screen here is thoughtfully and meticulously conceived and spectacularly, fully realized.
From a camera work standpoint, Ritchie's signature, stop-and-start, rotationally-inclined edits are used sparingly and are not shoe-horned into sequences in which they are not appropriate. In fact, it is actually only incorporated when Holmes, who clearly processes things faster than the average fella, has slowed things down and worked out a plan of action that he is about to set off upon, so it actually fits fairly well within the context of the film. When those sequences replay in quick time, they work as well. For once, it seems as though these visual flairs are not just for show, but rather that they serve a function that is complimentary to the narrative.
As for the Holmes/Watson dynamic, there are certainly the undertones of sexual ambiguity, but the most important element of their relationship is strong. Watson is to Holmes as Wilson is to House. Here, they both happen to be badasses with an ability to fight, but unlike some of the hokier Sherlock Holmes films Watson is a man not to be trifled with.
I have heard some complain about the boxing sequence in the early goings as seeming like it was Ritchie trying to force a scene playing to his filmic wheelhouse into the film, but I beg to differ with that assertion. Throughout the film, it seems as though Holmes is seeking out adventure almost as much for the sport of it as anything else. As boxing was the sport of the time, it makes sense that the thrill-seeking Holmes would step into the ring to fight. Now, Holmes's* use of Brazilian jiu-jitsu may seem like it is potentially out of place, but barjitsu (jiu-jitsu for all intents and purposes) is apparently present in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Return of Sherlock Holmes.
*Fuck AP style. I'm using apostrophe-s when a singular noun ending in the letter 's' needs to be possessive.
Back to the acting, Downey has been rock-solid pretty much since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and has been otherworldly good in at least* three of his past four films. His turn as Sherlock Holmes fits in well amongst Tony Stark and Kirk Lazarus (which truly is amazing--I never think about how that is Downey in blackface). He perfectly embodies Holmes at his most incorrigible, brilliant, drug-addled, and inquisitive.
*I have not yet seen The Soloist. I suppose it, too, could contain a great Robert Downey, Jr., performance, but I can't say I'm insanely psyched about seeing that film.
Really, with Downey cast as the lead, it was going to take a minor disaster to have the film run off the tracks. Given Ritchie's ten-year track record, the likelihood of that minor disaster actually taking place was much, much higher. Luckily for all involved, disaster was averted. In fact, it was never even close to being disastrous. Instead, Guy Ritchie has an international hit on his hands, and Robert Downey, Jr., would seem to be the star of another lucrative film franchise.
Jon Favreau's entrance to the big-time as a director is a largely successful one. Continuing in a string of casting atypical leads in superhero fare, Favreau (looking quite a bit slimmer in the film than he has in years) sets the lens on Robert Downey, Jr. as his Tony Stark, and the results are fantastic. Downey seems to have been born to play the part of the reformed amoral rock-star scientist--well, maybe not the scientist part, but the rest would seem to have been almost tailor-made for him--and he takes the role and runs with it. His impish charm and razor-sharp wit prove to be capable of carrying the film almost entirely by themselves, and almost every moment Downey is on screen is captivating.
In support, the performances and roles are not as impressive. Where the character of Tony Stark is rich and complex, many of the other characters would have benefitted from a little more attention in the way of backstory and subplot. Obviously, in launching a franchise, there is a need for a fair amount of exposition to establish the hero, and a great degree of screen time is devoted to this. Moreover, with a run-time of just over two hours, there isn't a lot of room for exposition on secondary characters. Unfortunately, this means actors like Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jeff Bridges are left to play what amounts to cardboard cut-outs. To their credit, they do manage to breath life into Colonel Rhodes, Pepper Potts, and Obadiah Stane, respectively, and--but for an occasionally awkward interchange between Howard and Downey--they do manage to help carry the story. It just seems as though there could have been a little more going on with the supporting cast.
As for the other elements of the film, it is hard to find complaint. For a film that is largely devoted to designing weapon technology, it doesn't really drag at all. The fight choreography is generally pretty engaging. When Stark is in the suit, Favreau manages to keep the viewer involved with intercut shots of Downey's face inside the suit, something that allows the audience to remain involved with the hero, accomplishing what the Spider-Man franchise (to give just one example) has had problems achieving. And this may seem a trivial complaint about other films in this genre, but where other films ("Ghost Rider", "Batman Begins", "The Incredible Hulk", etc.) fail to have the actor's distinct voice while in hero-mode, Downey is the voice of Iron Man. Unfortunately, Bridges' voice is amplified, coming across as maybe the only major directorial misstep in the film.
Now to have read this review, one may think that my reaction was slightly better than tepid. The film was pretty good. It opens with action, and then takes a few steps back, which is an effective method of attack, although it may take just a little too long to get back to where the opening left off. Once he's in the caves of Afghanistan, the film maintains a steady course, and Faran Tahir's Raza is a particularly terrifying foil early on. Aside from the absence of really strong secondary characters and a little bit of fat in the rewind (oh, and Downey's interplay with his robotic aides occasionally approached Luke Skywalker/C-3PO/R2D2 territory), this film is damn good. Downey is triumphant, and the film is called "Iron Man", so that was really going to make or break the film. Anything that the film lacks as a whole, he more than makes up for, leaving the viewer largely sated.
