I was reading this short profile on Mike Binder, writer and director of Reign Over Me on EW.com this morning and I wanted to gouge my eyes out.
In the introductory paragraph, the article’s author Neil Drumming misidentifies Don Cheadle’s character as Alex Johnson (it’s Alan) and says Adam Sandler’s character loses his wife and two children in the 9/11 attack (he had three children). Do these writers even see the movies they’re profiling? Do they have editors? Hell, a quick search over at IMDB would have at least gotten the name of Cheadle’s character right! I thumbed around the site for a little while to see if I could send an e-mail to Drumming to point out his mistakes. I don’t know if that’s anal, obnoxious or both.
I don’t know. Maybe I shouldn’t complain. After all, I can barely spell. But on the other hand, I don’t have the resources of the mighty Time Warner empire behind me, either.
Related Posts ¬
Jul 8, 2009 | FUNNY PEOPLE RED BAND TRAILER |
Jul 2, 2003 | ENJOYABLE |
Jun 4, 2011 | X-MEN: FIRST CLASS – REVIEW |
“You’re analog players in a digital world.”
The line, delivered by Eddie Izzard’s character in reference to the suave criminal masterminds played by George Clooney and Brad Pitt. It is a declaration made by screenwriters Brian Koppleman and David Levien that is meant to crystallize the air of mythic cool surrounding Danny Ocean and his gang as a preface the third installment of what like to call “The Franchise That Should Not Be” – Ocean’s Thirteen.
I refer to the “Ocean’s” films as the franchise that should not be due to the fact that the original Ocean’s Eleven was a remake of a Rat Pack film from 1960 that wasn’t particularly well received. That is, not until decades later by people in denial over the Disney-fication of Las Vegas and who mourned the loss of brass balls cool in the era of free love. Yet, somehow, director Steven Soderberg brought something fresh to the screen and found cunning cipher’s to deliver his message of relaxed new millennium machismo in Clooney and Pitt. His take was an effervescent affair, mostly glossy, but entertainingly written with enough switchbacks to keep audiences engaged.
The cast’s affinity for one another showed up on screen – which I think is a large part of what pushed the first film over the fence. Inevitably, a sequel would be made. And while cast and crew took a few hits on the chin for having more fun making the movie than the audience watching it, I still found it a welcome addition.
But it’s almost beyond reason that a third film should be made. Each of the actors involved is too popular. Soderberg’s credibility as an indie-house darling stretched too thin. Could spending 4 months together on a set really be this much fun? Apparently so.
This time the crew is back to their own stomping grounds in Vegas. They’ve arrived to turn the screws on a land developer played with slithering tanorexic glee by Al Pacino. He’s muscled out his development partner, played by Elliott Gould, sending him into shock. The crew, gathered to his bed side, vow revenge. Instead of stealing huge sums of money or priceless pieces of art, it’s the crew’s goal to put enough of a sizable dent in Pacino’s grand opening that he’ll be forced off the board of his own corporation. I know – You haven’t heard about a plot this exciting since it turned out Episode I: The Phantom Menace was about the taxation of trade routes.
There are scams being run on this side where the crew is also trying to prevent Pacino from earning another Five Diamond hotel rating while also stealing a set of real diamonds Pacino buys for his wife each time one of his hotels reaches that milestone worth in excess of $250 million.
Like many of the “threequels” this summer, this is where Ocean’s Thirteen begins to fall apart. Too many plot points, too many scams, too many characters running around in what appears to be too short of a time frame and too many lingering questions that take you out of the action. Don’t even stop to think for a minute how much money it would take to cover all the travel, bribes and equipment Danny and his crew would need to run these scams and CERTAINLY don’t question where the crew could have gotten their hands on not one, but TWO of the drilling rigs that carved out The Chunnel. C’mon – it wouldn’t be cool…
It’s understandable why the filmmakers went this route. To combat the law of diminishing returns, you have to heap on the glamor, heap on the spectacle and heap on the courageousness. Ocean’s Thirteen does this spectacularly well. In fact, hats off to the art department on this film who created a fully-functional three story casino within a sound stage on the Warner Bros. lot. It looked perfectly in-step with modern Vegas with it’s aggressive use of red twinkling promise. Sets representing the different villas and suites within the hotel looked plush and decadent. The film looks amazing – bar none.
The performances, too, were well done. I still find myself wishing I could roll with the punches as well as Clooney does or wear a suit as sharply as Pitt. However, the boy’s club atmosphere is pervasive and the film could have benefited from the balance of a woman’s touch. Neither Julia Roberts’s or Catherine Zeta Jones’s characters make an appearance in the film and their lack of inclusion is treated almost dismissively. Ellen Barkin cuts a dramatic silhouette as Pacino’s right hand woman, but her role is quickly reduced to sexpot comic relief when Matt Damon, in character as the translator of a high roller, seduces her in the third act using powerful pheromones.
An alternate point of intrigue could have been explored when Vincent Cassel, the smarmy French cat burglar from the second film is introduced. But he’s wasted here, given almost no opportunity for dialogue and acting completely out of character for the sake of tying the two films together.
While Ocean’s Thirteen does a better job of tying up some of it’s more eliptical plot points than some of the other summer offerings, the final heist comes off feeling somewhat unfulfilling. There never really appears to be any threat of failure either from Pacino catching on, Cassel as the wild card, the authorities or even Andy Garcia’s character from the first movie who the crew turns to him for financing when they’ve run out of cash. More than anything, the biggest threat to the con are small management details. While the unintentional labor dispute Casey Affleck’s character instigates after infiltrating a dice manufacturer in Mexico is funny, is the any level of tension in whether or not the crew can reprogram a blackjack card shuffler?
Watching Ocean’s Thirteen, I was entertained. But afterwords, it felt strangely hollow – like I had been conned myself. The fact of the matter is without a sufficient villain for Ocean and his team to match wits against, there’s not much to admire in their adherence to the old “analog” ways of thievery. Like the actors and producers of the film, Danny’s crew has been in the game too long. They know all the angles and there aren’t any challenges left.
First things first. The Kickstarter fund raising campaign for Theater Hopper: Year Three. You know the drill. I really, really, REALLY need your support! We have less than a month to raise $2,000, so please pledge today!
As an extra incentive, I am giving away my DVD copy of Monsters, Inc. along with some custom artwork to one lucky person once we cross the $1,500 milestone and right now we’re $50 away from that goal! That means if you pledge $50 right now, you have a 1 in 40 chance of winning! Those are good odds!
If you would like to see what the finished artwork looks like, check out this update I posted on the Kickstarter campaign site. I also threw a camera over my shoulder and shot a time-lapse video of me creating the artwork. So, if nothing else, you can spend a couple of minutes watching that. I threw in some very relevant, very peppy music with the video to help keep you entertained!
Again, I can’t stress this enough, I REALLY need your support on this book. Even if it’s a dollar. If everyone who visits the site each day pledged one dollar, we’d have this campaign in the bag. Please pledge today!
Now, back to your regularly scheduled blog!
Yesterday, Paramount Pictures released the teaser poster and four publicity stills for Iron Man 2. If you haven’t seen them yet, let me get out of your way so you can take a look.
Niiiiiiiiice.
I’m loving this teaser poster. It’s such an improvement over the teaser poster for the original Iron Man. Which, if you remember, kept much of the armor in shadow to whet our appetites for what we would see on screen.
Well, now we have a pretty good idea what the armor looks like from the first movie, so why not put it front and center in glorious color on the second one?
Oh, what’s this? You’ve brought a friend? He’s a little bit shy, isn’t he? We’re only going to get to see the side of his face? That’s okay! I know who you are, War Machine, you rascal!
I can’t tell you how excited I am to see War Machine on the poster for this movie. It let’s you know right off the bat how prominently the character will be utilized in the second film. That’s good news for die-hard Iron Man fans like myself. I just hope the focus stays in that realm. Because, frankly, I’m a little worried that they might be packing too much into the sequel.
Between Scartlet Johansen as Black Widow, Mickey Rourke as Whiplash and Sam Rockwell as Tony Stark’s business rival Justin Hammer, I hope there is enough time left over for a big throw down between Iron Man and War Machine. This, of course, before the eventual team-up that takes down the big bad guy.
As a director, I think Jon Favreau has a pretty keen sense of what fans want to see. I’m optimistic. But Sam Ramii knocked it out of the park with Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 before the major let down that was Spider-Man 3. So anything is possible.
Paramount releasing these images now lends strong support to the rumor that the teaser trailer for Iron Man 2 will appear in front of Sherlock Holmes when the movie is released December 25. Things will be crazy for me around that time since the baby will be born on the 10th. But I’m hoping maybe Cami and I can leave the kids with grandma and grandpa for a couple of hours so we can sneak out to see it.
If we manage to do so, my next concern will not be succumbing to a lack of sleep in a darkened theater!
Speaking of the baby, as I said, she’ll be here in a little over a week. Obviously, we’re over the moon about it. Originally, the idea was that I would take all of December off to give us time to prepare and then (of course) attend to the baby once she’s born.
I have a bunch of guest strips ready to go, but I think I’m going to put off posting them for just a little while longer. We’re pretty much ready to go on the home front and it makes more sense to build in a little extra time off after she arrives. So look for those guest strips in the next couple of weeks!
In the meantime, let’s talk about Iron Man 2! Are you guys as excited for this film as I am? Since the movie doesn’t come out until May 7, how long do you think you’ll be able to tolerate the marketing push before going insane? Does anyone have the number for a psychologist that can help with unhealthy obsessions?
DISCUSS!
PREFACE: I originally wrote this review to Iron Man 2 back in May when the movie originally came out. However, I was also wrapping up one of my Masters courses at the same time and couldn’t finish the review when it would have been timely. So I just kind of tucked it away for a rainy day.
Considering that Iron Man 2 is now out on DVD and this week’s comic is late due to the fact that we moved into a new home last week, now seem liked a good time to dust it off and post it to the site.
I hope to have a new comic for you later in the week. But hopefully, until then, this review will tide you over. Thanks for your patience and understanding!
I had to watch Iron Man 2 twice before writing this review. As the die-hard Iron Man fan you know me to be, that should cause you some concern.
After watching the film the first time a week ago, I was undoubtedly entertained. But I left the theater questioning if I actually liked the film.
I enjoyed the movie much more the second time through. While it lacks the sense of discover and wonder of the first film, I still appreciate the final product. I like both films. They’re just different from each other.
First, let’s talk about the performances.
It should go without saying that Robert Downey Jr. owns this film six ways from Sunday. His improvisational style is loose, yet hyper-kinetic. You can’t help but watch the guy as he plays Stark as a genius whose mouth can’t keep up with his brain.
Compared to RDJ, however, the rest of the cast looks like stuttering wallpaper. Gwyneth Paltrow tries to match wits as Stark’s Girl Friday – Pepper Pots, but comes of like much more of a pecking hen then she did in the first movie.
Don Cheadle (stepping in for Terrance Howard) as Stark’s friend and confidant James “Rhodey” Rhodes isn’t given much to do except glower and become frustrated by Stark’s antics.
Similarly, Mickey Rourke – who plays the most tan Russian you’ve ever seen, the villain Ivan Vanko – is also curiously mute. His performance is relegated largely to sideways glances, the occasional chuckle and muttered Russian sentences.
Rourke tries to add texture to Vanko by giving him a parrot as a pet and an omnipresent toothpick on which to chew. He has also appeared to have stolen some of Viggo Mortensen’s character research from Eastern Promises, adorning Vanko with a tapestry of Russian prison tattoos. We’re supposed to believe this grimy ball of eccentricities is a brilliant engineer and physicist?
Lastly, Scarlet Johansson – as S.H.I.E.L.D. undercover operative Natasha Romanoff – sucks the life out of nearly every scene she’s in. Is Downey Jr. is 100% charm, Johansson is anti-charm. Like the rest, she’s given very few lines of dialogue, so she spends most of the time trying to pose like a bad-ass while clomping around in knee-high stilettos. It’s as awkward as it sounds
The only performer besides RDJ that looks like he’s having any fun is Sam Rockwell as Stark’s corporate rival, Justin Hammer. It is as if director Jon Favreau instructed Rockwell to do a bad Robert Downey Jr. impression and let him off the chain. He prances, he preens, he makes Hammer look like a wolf in sheep’s clothing trying WAY too hard to sell you something and ALL of it works. I’m curious how much of Rockwell’s performance was improvised considering how much of his performance mirrors Downey Jr. in its tone.
Ultimately, Iron Man 2’s biggest problem is its script by Justin Theroux. If not for the charm and improvisational skills of RDJ and Rockwell, one wonders if the film has anything original to say at all.
Sure, there are plot points that propel the movie forward – the US government wants to Tony to turn over the Iron Man technology, meanwhile, the RT unit in Tony’s chest is killing him. Ivan Vanko wants to avenge his father who once worked with Tony’s father. Pepper is appointed to CEO of Stark Industries and Rhodey steals the Mark II – but the script lacks the connective tissue to form a cohesive experience. Taken in chunks, Iron Man 2 is fascinating. Stitched together? Less so.
I presumed since the first movie was so successful that we might get to see more of the Iron Man armor in action, but that’s not entirely the case.
While the initial confrontation between Tony and Whiplash debuts the awesome suitcase armor, it’s on-screen briefly and is dismantled pretty quick. Fan favorite War Machine makes an appearance, but spends most of it standing around at the Stark Expo. When it DOES launch into action, Rhodey’s not even in control of it! The suit’s programming has been commandeered by Whiplash.
Free of Whiplash’s influence in the final confrontation, War Machine and Iron Man put the smack down on a platoon of robot drones. But this battle is effectively meaningless considering that these are robot drones we’re talking about and there’s nothing really at stake.
By the time Whiplash shows up in a more souped up version of his laser-whip rig, there’s barely any time left in the movie to showcase a proper fight. It’s edited horribly and over way too soon.
Something that any good superhero movie does is give the audience the sense of wonder and discovery of the protagonist discovering their powers. Sam Raimi did an excellent job of this in the first Spider-Man and Favreau did a great job as well in the first Iron Man.
Considering Stark’s penchant for upgrades, it would be very easy to reinsert that sense of wonder and discovery into a sequel – new technology, new features of the armor and so on. While the suitcase armor was a step in the right direction, they didn’t push the concept far enough. The third act feels like a huge step back.
Did I love Iron Man 2? Of course I did. But I’m also a crazed fan.
That said, I’m not so blinded by my undying admiration for the character that I can’t recognize that the film has problems. Whereas the first movie rocketed out of theaters with energy and a sense of purpose that breathed fresh air the super hero genre (“I am Iron Man.” – END CREDITS!), Iron Man 2 stagnates and doesn’t fulfill the promise of the first film.