shiftyeyeddog

War, Inc. wants to be a political satire. War, Inc. also wants to be Grosse Point Blank 2. More accurately, it feels like it's a political satire that they realized needed to be redressed as a GPB-like film if it were to be at all marketable. The result: they failed on both counts.

Cusack has his moments, but even he can't save this from being probably the most disappointing film of the year for me. I really wanted to like this movie. But in the end, it was just forgettable. It's too bad really. This is the kind of role I enjoy Cusack most in, and failures like this will only drive him away from trying again in the future.

The script is a mess, the production feels half-assed, and the pathetic direction was the nail in the coffin. I looked up the director and found out his previous credits are limited to episodes of tv shows like "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" and the PBS Kids show "Fetch!" His lack of useful experience shows.

One side note: I have to give Ben Kingsley credit for trying to vary his roles in recent years, rather than settle into the same stuffy roles he could easily sleep his way through, but his choices in doing so are a disaster - this, Thunderbirds, Bloodrayne, Suspect Zero... time to fire your agent, Ben.

I Could Never Be Your Woman is the first film directed by Amy Heckerling (Clueless) in like 7 years. I ended up unexpectedly loving Clueless back then, and this film definitely has that same vibe, as well as many of the same cast members, including Rudd, Stacey Dash, and Wallace Shawn. The movie was a light, fun romantic comedy that I enjoyed quite a bit (though I could have done without Tracy Ullman's "Mother Nature"). Michelle Pfeiffer makes a nice return from her movie hiatus in the lead here, after easing back in with her smaller supporting role in Hairspray earlier this summer. Her daughter is played by Saoirse Ronan, a talented young woman who is gonna be breaking out in a big way in the next year with this and roles in several other really big-name films. But the real star here is definitely Paul Rudd, who has proved to be one of the funniest guys around right now. Between this, his involvement with the Apatow crowd, his participation in all manner of projects by alumni of The State, and the rest of his work, he definitely knows how to find good projects and surround himself with equally talented people.

Iron Man. Who'd have thought?

Quite simply one of the best superhero flicks ever made, and a strong contender for the top spot. I honestly don't know if I can pinpoint a single flaw in the film, except that I wish it was even longer. Not only does it succeed as a comic book adaptation, it succeeds as just a great movie. Probably the most fun flick I've seen in a good two years or more.
So how did this movie get it right when so many others get it all wrong? It certainly isn't just the character. Iron Man is a second-tier Marvel character that never really caught my eye much or gained the general public's love. I believe it was two factors: casting and respect for the material.

First and foremost, I can't imagine anyone but Robert Downey Jr. playing this role. He owns it so completely and is such a perfect fit that I have to wonder how much of the script was completely re-written for him or was improvised. His brand of humor and wit, along with his great range as an actor allow him to convey the whole arc of Tony Stark's story, and to make it entertaining every step of the way. I am especially impressed at the studio's decision to *gasp* actually cast an appropriate actor over 40 years old, rather than change him to a 20-something pretty-boy just to bring in the teen box office.

While so many other comic book flicks treat their material (and audiences) condescendingly, or just as a silly story that can be used to show off cool effects or action scenes, Iron Man instead respects that it can be just as good or respectable as any other film. Nothing is over-the-top or forced. The story is much more grounded in reality than most superhero genre films - There are no "superpowers", just technological genius and talent. It's taken to extreme degrees, for sure, but never feels far-fetched or silly. The film also shows you can include comedy without it being blatant comic relief, full of forced silliness and one-liners. No the laughter here is genuine, and lots of it. I laughed more in this film than I have in any actual comedy film in a long time.

Recent superhero flicks like Batman Begins and Superman Returns were well made, exciting, and dramatic, but lacked the fun factor. The overall tone of those films is so dour that repeated viewings are a bit of a chore. Then others like the Fantastic Four came out and went in the too far in the other direction, being cheesy and dumb. Iron Man got back to the tone of the first two Superman films and found the perfect balance of drama and comedy.

I could go on about every aspect of the film - the supporting players, score, effects... but I'll just say it all clicked. The rest of the summer's flicks are going to have a lot to live up to. I suspect this is the movie people will go back and see again and again, as other summer fare fades away. Just plain fun.

Apparently fantasy continues to not be my genre. zzzzzzz......

Yeah, I watched it. What can I say? It was free. Anyway, I would have given this flick 2.5 stars, as it's a fairly mediocre, even for a romantic comedy.
...But it loses a full star because it confirms my feeling that I really dont like Katherine Heigl. I don't think she's a good actress, I don't think she is at all likeable, I don't think she's even the slightest bit attractive, and I am baffled at her recent success.
...But then it gains that star back because it also stars James Marsden, who is on a real hot streak and is finally getting some roles that give him a chance to shine.

The problem with doing movies like this, with simultaneous/intersecting storylines, is that no matter how you handle it, you're going to put off some viewers. If you handle it Pulp Fiction-style, intercutting and jumping around in the chronology, you run risk of confusing more casual moviegoers. If done like Vantage Point, where you repeatedly watch a 15-minute segment and then rewind and watch it again and again from different perspectives, it feels repetitive, and by end it can feel like you only watched a 45-minute movie. In my theater I heard several people getting annoyed with constant "rewinding" after about the third time.


The problem here is that while it was a nice gimmick, the different perspectives didn't serve any real purpose in the end that a more linear version wouldn't have. You spend the whole film watching different people seeing different pieces of the puzzle, but those pieces are never put together by anyone to solve the crime. In the end, all the main players just seem to end up in the same spots through mere coincidence. Throw in some serious predictability and you have a decent flick with a good cast, but one that falls short of expectations.