Review: THE AVENGERS

So, by now it's safe to say that half the world (and then some) has seen The Avengers. And it is easy to see why: up until now every superhero movie has tried to bank-off audience’s inner child and repressed id. Broad emotions and large explosions are fun to watch; it is the same root emotion with which children bash action figures, have snowball fights, and play with NERF guns. However, no film has yet captured the childish enjoyment of bashing action figures against each other in the way The Avengers does. Long awaited, since Samuel L. Jackson’s cameo at the end of Iron Man, The Avengers assembles a good array of Marvel characters into one film: Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Black Widow, Hawkeye and Nick Fury; it gives them a worthy villain: Loki and the Chitauri, and then proceeds to wreck havoc over a CGI Midtown Manhattan. What more can we ask for?

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolves?

In today’s world, or at least in Hollywood, movies are made by large studios. These studios along with many other non-filmic companies form conglomerates called corporations. In a previous entry, About the Indie Film, I spoke about the difficulties in labeling a film as independent. The economic gears and systems of today’s world are so intrinsically complicated that the only way to survive is to conglomerate into a corporation. Is there anything wrong with this? Definitely not, if a good film has to sacrifice the honor of being called Indie for it to still exist I’ll call it a studio film just so I can see it. Plus without the money coming from corporations, we wouldn’t see Iron Man kick the shit out of the Iron Monger this past summer. (Although, I could have saved myself from watching the Hulk and Abomination make loud noises in the rooftops of New York). We would also not have a franchise like Batman, which has given us two continuities to choose from: Nolan’s physiological thrillers or the highly stylistic Burton/Schumacher pieces of the last decade. What about Wall-E? Without the Disney Empire there is no way we could enjoy animated films like Wall-E or Bolt. Nevertheless something has been lost. For every one new original piece we are getting a dozen rehashes of old stuff, and the value of a lot of previous originality has been lost.

Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Wall-E; these are all great studio films, and they could have not been made unless a studio had done them. It is when a studio steps out of its territory when problems start arising. Several films come out every year that studios should not be releasing. This year was no exception. here are a few.

Anticipating the success of Juno, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist had to be produced. Both films offer an Indie feel to their audiences, and in the past only a small independent crew would have ever ventured into producing a film about teenage pregnancy or about “wild night” in the music scene of New Jersey. The problem here is that instead of being made by an underground group of people who probably suffered the hardships of both situations, such movies are being written by office desk writers who know little of either situation. Yes, a former prostitute wrote Juno; but street touch did not go past script level. Lots of money went into the production of both movies but they were marketed as independent films. Instead of getting the fruitful flavor of an Indie film we were expecting when we walked in we walked out with a bland taste of wanabe quirkiness. Nevertheless, both films were enjoyable up to a point, and who knows maybe in the future we will see a good product come out of this new Indie looking style. However there is one new style, corporations have created this year, which I could live without: the color saturated neuron-popping mesh that was Speed Racer

Speed Racer's plot, if you could find any, dealt around a family that wanted to keep a small home owned business a family home owned business. There used to be a time when films with such plots were created by small family owned business, and thus meant something. It was a small statement of , “stick it to the Man” but not anymore. Speed Racer was created for the sole reason to make money of nostalgic baby boomers to take themselves and their kids to see a rehash of an old and not very good cartoon. Corporations have begun to exploit and make profit from what once defined a product anti-corporate.

Similarly, our enjoyment of high-end art works has been blended down and spoon-fed to the masses. Call me an elitist, but it's true. A couple of decades back, an incredibly blood-filled musical was made, by who was then considered one of theater’s most avant-garde writers. I’m talking about "Sweeney Todd" by Steven Sondheim, based of an incredibly obscure novel/play of the same name. The musical was of course praised by art critics and was soon moved up into becoming something a little bit more commercial: a Broadway musical. Three decades later and the show is revived as a Hollywood Holiday movie by no other than Tim Burton. Is there a problem with this? Well the film was indeed a beautiful film but something on it felt terribly wrong. First of all it lacks the unique Timburtoness of other Burton films, and at the same time it lacks the obscurity of an intended only for theater buffs movie. It just lags in the middle quite not being anything. Like other things corporations have stolen from us, it lacks flavor.

EDITORIAL: Marvel's Movie Magic: Is Everyone On The Same Page?

Marvel comics is easily the most successful company that ever went from making comic books, to then producing movies about them. In the past few years alone we have seen amazing movies such as Spiderman 1&2, Iron Man, X-men 1&2, Blade 1&2, and The Punisher (among others).

But like any film 'series' they have also had their less popular films, Ghostrider, Hulk, X3, Spiderman 3, Daredevil, and Fantastic Four (among others).

But that seems to be a good track record. Now, here is my problem.

Marvel does not seem to treat film as different art from the art of comic books. This is their downfall, because the two forms of expression are very different. Here are the two comic book tenants, that I think should not apply to their film counterparts.

1. When an artist leaves... get a new artist! The character will change a bit, but everyone knows that it is the same guy.

When a characters artist changes in a comic book, people either like or dislike the new designs, but eventually they get over it and keep reading. The art may have changed, but the character is the same and it is good enough for the readers.

In a film though, if an actor leaves and is recast after making one popular film already as the character, people will have a lot more trouble accepting the new actor in the sequel.

In Iron Man, Terrance Howard played Jim Rhodes, Tony Starks best friend, with many hints that he will return as another hero in the sequel. Ironically, he won't. Well, Rhodes will, but Howard has been recast with Don Cheadle.

Edward Norton already said he will not be reprising his role as Bruce Banner in the upcoming avengers movie, making one wonder how they will recast a lead character with out everyone complaining about continuity.

Back in 2004, The Punisher was played by Thomas Jane, and now in the sequel, he is being played by Ray Stevenson. Once again, the lead actor quit and someone new came on.

Now, sure, if it was animated, nobody would care. Lots of people can do the same character voices, and pull of the character convincingly, but when it is a full actor who must bring his character to life, every actor will do it differently. I can guarantee that each of these new actors will not play the character in the same way as the first actor originated the role.

Bringing me to...

2. Don't make a film with a sequel in mind.

Why? Because unexpected stuff may happen! If any of these films were made to be standalone films, then there would not be an issue. If they just planned on making a Hulk movie, and then later the producer said "let's make a sequel", and the lead actor said 'I don't want to...' then they could just drop the film and move on to the next one... because face it... Marvel has tons of characters, and would probably love to make a film for each and every one.

But... if you really want to make a sequel... then you need to GUARANTEE that all the original actors (unless they are incapacitated) will be in it. How? By outlining how long you want the franchise to run and then getting all the actors to sign 'multiple film agreements' before starting the first film.

I like Marvel films, but I wish each one didn't have to be it's own trilogy. The first (and usually the second) ones are usually great, but by the third they just push the stuff way to far in a bad direction. I don't want Spiderman 4 after seeing Spiderman 3, as much as I loved the first two, and I don't want to see an avengers movie with half a cast from the prequel, and half 'all new replacements'.

What do you think?

Is Replacing Actors for Sequels a Good Idea?

It was reported last week that Terrence Howard would be replaced by Don Cheadle in the highly anticipated sequel to the summer blockbuster Iron Man. Reportedly, it was due to Howard's demand for higher pay for the role. Knowing how War Machine was teased in the film made it seem like there was going to be some more development in the Jim Rhodes character. It is unfortunate for a franchise that is destined to make a lot of money to not want to put out for a little bit of continuity in a film.

This goes for all sequels that get recast, and not just Iron Man. Several that come to mind immediately are Marvel, so that's convenient. As you may have heard, Thomas Jane is not returning for The Punisher: War Zone and Ed Norton doesn't want to reprise his role as the Incredible Hulk for a possible sequel or The Avengers. Jane didn't like waiting for the project to start shooting and Ed Norton hasn't given a reason, but it is most likely due to the changes he made to the script of The Incredible Hulk being edited out of the theatrical cut.

People making choices to compromise the quality/success of a film takes it away from the consumer and makes the imaginary world that a film creates a lot more realistic. When Iron Man II comes out and you see Tony Stark talking to Jim Rhodes, won't it be weird seeing him talk to a physically different person than the one he was talking to a day/week/month/year ago? Recasting makes the audience aware of the fourth wall and consequently, makes it easier for an audience to be taken out of a movie.

Also, don't get me wrong, the actors used to replace the leaving ones usually do a good enough job, but it's not the character from the previous films. A few months ago, Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was released without Rachel Weiss. They did something kind of smart in the film to address it. At the beginning of the film, one of Maria Bello's first lines, referencing a character based on her the she wrote in books titled "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns", was, "Honestly I can say that she's a completely different person." Now that seemed to be the studio telling the audience about the change, but that didn't change that the new Mummy film was bad.

To any Hollywood types reading this blog, please listen to my plea. If you go the extra mile in keeping the original talent used, not only will the profits grow, but it will be more likely to maintain a franchise.

-Mark

Recapping Marvel's Summer 'Block Busters'

Summer is over, and everyone is back to school and back to work (even though business does not take a summer break), so I think a short re-cap of the MARVEL films that were anticipated should be discussed and see if they live up to what they we're expected to be.



IRON MAN

Robert Downey Jr. plays the newest Marvel Comics hero to hit the big screen - IRON MAN. Downey Jr. gives a fantastic performance as the new hero, surprising many, and setting a new standard for the Marvel films. Also, this film is the first film produces entirely by the new Marvel Studios.

The plot was nicely handled, and the change of Jarvis from a human to a robot system was well received. Jeff Bridges played a good villain who had reason for his motives, and Gwenyth Paltrow and Downey Jr. had fantastic chemistry that made the man and woman relationship fun and believable, with out the tacky standard of 'love story'. Samuel L Jackson after the credits was a good nod to the character of Nick Fury, and indeed a nice touch.

Even so... the Video Game was terrible, and one of the worst that has been made in years.

But- Did IRON MAN live up to its expectations? ABSOLUTELY


The Incredible Hulk



A few years ago, Ang Lee directed a film called 'HULK' starring Eric Bana, that wasn't exactly a hit. It went far too deep into an existential journey of family reconciliation, loss, acceptance, and hulk dogs. But - just because that one wasn't a hit, does not mean that this one is awesome by default.

Here are the problems with it. The Hulk is never running away from the action, as the Hulk is normally supposed to do. He has no idea who this villain is, why he is fighting him or if he should be. Also, the action was weak, his head was too small, and there was an absurdly weak love story. One fantastic shot, however, was of him and Liv Tyler sitting on some rocks in the canyon in the rain at night. That was good filmmaking. However, the rest is just a cat and mouse, pointless chase that ends with a lame and weak outcome.

Norton did a good job with his performance as Bruce Banner/ Hulk, and Tim Roth did a nice job as well, it's nice to see him on the big screen again. However it is a shame that most story and character development were glazed over. But- apparently 70 minutes of footage were cut, and I will certainly re-judge the movie when I have a chance to check out the DVD and see it in what should be its fullest form.

Even so... The Video Game was fantastic. Lots of fun, roaming the cities in a free-form world, doing things the Hulk does that are fun in games but don't satisfy at all in movie form.

But - Did THE INCREDIBLE HULK live up to its expectations? NOT AT ALL




With a reboot of 'The Punisher' franchise coming soon, as well as sequels to most previous Marvel films, and more avengers movies on the way, it looks like Marvel has a chance to make some more good things on the grill. Lets hope they don't get spoiled with the success of Iron Man and think anything they do is golden. Movies take work to make them good. Even if you already wrote the storyboard 50 years ago.

Review: IRON MAN

Lets have a quick chat about Iron Man, eh?

To take a moderatly unknown superhero and create a new franchise is a grand idea that should be tried more often. Iron Man is exactly that. By taking a superhero that everyone and their mothers do not know all about, creates the chance for a story that can thrill and achieve great heights with out everyone whining that it does not flawlessly follow the comic book story arch.