The Avengers (2012)

Thor and Captain America

© Marvel

I gave The Avengers a second chance.

Yeah, that's right: second. I thought it was merely okay the first time around, but some smart people convinced me that I was missing something, so I did it again. Verdict? It's very good, but I wouldn't go further than that in part because you basically don't have the space to develop that many distinct characters in an ensemble piece whose main goal is kicking ass and in part because some characters, no matter who you get to play them, will never lend themselves to character development (yes, Hulk, we're talking about you). I'm going to skip talking about all the delicious Whedon-verse-ism, though, because that's been done, and better, in about 1 million other places.

I was, however, thoroughly enthralled by what they had going on with Captain America, right down to the make-up and wardrobe choices. He's so alien to them; so different in his approach to how and Why We Fight that ends up standing out far more than the actual aliens. If he seemed (intentionally, I would wager) flat in Captain America, then he comes into sharp relief here. He never needed as much push as the rest of them to do the right thing, but he needs a lot of help to figure out what the right thing is these days (or if it even matters). Plus he gets to be part of one of my fave visual gags. Well played, Chris Evans.

Well played to . . . pretty much everyone, let's be honest. I love The Hemsworth (though I seriously considered calling in a Wig Cop on that thing) (also, he got to deliver what might have been my actual favourite joke of the movie, so good for him); I love The Buffalo and his Peter Falk impersonation; I love, love, love Robert Downey Jr. (especially as Tony Stark); I don't understand why people have a problem with ScarJo in the role; I especially don't understand why people have a problem with Jeremy Renner (it's not his fault his character was in a coma for half the running time). Besides, if anyone was having a breakout movie, it was Tom Hiddleston, so clearly relishing the narrow pettiness of his particular goal. Will we ever not fall for that? Solid B+.

P.S. I do feel bad for Cobie Smoulders, as I don't think anyone had a kind word to say about her in the role or even about the role's existence. Probably because it was flatter than flat.

P.P.S Those aren't shawarmas.

It's Complicated, Sherlock Holmes, Before Sunset, The Book of Eli: Movies on a Plane

On one hand, selecting your own movie from a fairly well stocked list makes plane travel that much more enjoyable. On the other hand, that teeny screen six inches from your face changes your perspective, doesn't it?

It's Complicated (2009)

I don't ever think I've seen Meryl Streep this sexy before. She's certainly having the time of her life (to be honest, she seems to be having the time of her life all the time lately. It's great to be Meryl Streep these days), and Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin are right there with her for the most part. Too bad the movie is endlessly distracting with it's "oh, look at the problems of these affluent white people" attitude. I mean, that's all Nancy Meyers movies, but I am telling you it stands out more starkly this time around. You've "earned" a reno to make your massive, gorgeous house even more massive and gorgeous? Seriously, every one's like, "I'm so happy you're getting the reno you've always wanted," and, while I get that a perfect kitchen is the great white whale for a chef or baker, could we cool it with the cooing for a minute? Wouldn't it be hilarious if Meyers were to one day find out that people who work at say, NGOs, never make all that much money? She should write a romantic comedy about them. They need love, too. B-

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

A RE-view! We haven't had one of those in forever. It mostly held up the way I remembered it, but I did find it even more slow moving this time around. How long does it take to get to the plot? Also, I'm not sure how I feel about using the same tricks twice in the one movie (both Holmes planning out an attack in slow-mo, then we see it in real time, and when he pulls off some feat, and we go back to see how he got there). Still, the slow pace gave me more time to appreciate Hans Zimmer's score and the dinner at the Royale. I love that Law is styled after Tsar Nicholas II in that scene. B

Before Sunset (2004)

I can hardly believe that the movie keeps affecting me the same way, but it does: such exquisite agony. By now I know the rhythms and what conversations to expect, and it works for the film. I find myself nearly breathless in anticipation for Jesse to tell Celine he was there or for her to reveal that she thinks all her relationships since have paled in comparison to their one night. And then, there they are in her apartment, one waltz later and Nina Simone on the soundtrack. He is going to miss his plane. It's been six years. Is that enough time to start work on a sequel? A+

The Book of Eli (2010)

It's tough to say because I didn't finish this one, but I'm going to say it anyway: there is a zero percent chance that God wants to you to cross the country killing people when they threaten you but stand by while others are attacked, Eli. Thanks for coming out.

And since we're here, check out my Canadian Cinema Canon on The Trotsky.

The Short Take: Neglect 2009 - Part III

Dinner = eaten. Saved by the Bell = watched.

The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009)

The movie is overall too shaggy to amount to much, though it does deliver excellent doses of George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, Stephen Root, Stephen Lang, Robert Patrick, Glenn Morshower*, and Kevin Spacey. Yes, Ewan McGregor also in this movie, but his whole point is react like Clooney is kind of bananas and eventually sort of fall in love with him, i.e. to be the audience. It's not exactly demanding. But Clooney dancing or Spacey inducing a terrible trip? That's good stuff. B

*Has he graduated from Hey! It's That Guy! College? I see him in stuff all the time now.

2012 (2009)

2012 is a) bloated, b) so boring that I went to the bathroom for something to do, and c) ridiculous. I sort of love how cheesy it is. It hits absolutely every trope you could possibly think of and then floods them. People have a right to fight for their survival, Chiwetel Ejiofor? Against a worldwide deluge? Okay, we'll get right on that. I mean, John Cusack's son's name is Noah, for pity's sake. D

Gamer (2009)

Cool trailer, endlessly gross and terrible movie. Doesn't even have the good sense to let the bottom fall out and embrace how truly terrible it is. Michael C. Hall sure seemed to be having fun, though. D

Moon (2009)

It's funny that someone didn't think to multiply Sam Rockwell or make Kevin Spacey a disembodied voice sooner. Those are both exactly the right choices to make. It's not a perfect movie, but it's haunting and beautiful and occasionally very funny. It bodes well for Duncan Jones' career. B+

9 (2009)

A very cool looking movie that isn't that exciting to watch. Shane Acker expanded it from his award-winning short, but the story almost seems better suited to a graphic novel than a feature film. Both the philosophic arguments and pulse-pounding chases that make up the movie make for amusing diversions, but it culminates in a rickety finish. B

The Time Traveller's Wife (2009)

Read my Book vs. Film. Better yet, read the book.

The Soloist (2009)

I never thought of Robert Downey Jr. as an actor in need of direction, and I'm not entirely convinced that that's the problem here. His character is ill-defined, but I doubt we should lay that at the feet of Downey exclusively. I'd sooner say that the problem is director Joe Wright, specifically the relationship between Wright and the material. He also made the lush, passionate, tragic Atonement, so it's not like he can't direct. But he doesn't know what to do here. He puts Jamie Foxx in a room with real life afflicted people. He attempts to show make music looks/feels like to Nathaniel through colour. None of it sticks. I do like that the movie makes it clear that Steve can't ever "fix" Nathaniel, that things just aren't like that, but I'm not sure you should hang a movie about the relationship between a journalist and a schizophrenic musician on the strength of any one's narration even if it is Downey. C

Time to move to couch.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Despite my feelings about The Lovely Bones' failings, I wish more adaptations were as freewheeling as this one. Sherlock Holmes, as you know him, probably isn't close to what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote anyway. Deerstalker and calabash pipe? Never. Boxing? Why yes, Watson did describe Holmes as an "expert" boxer.

It seems as though screenwriters Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham, and Simon Kinberg combed through Doyle's stories for the best quips and least used traits (beyond the obvious, of course) and tried to tackle the character from a fresh angle. Since they have Robert Downey Jr. in the role, it worked. I hope nothing ever happens to that wildly expressive face. How does he get emotions to travel as currents under the surface of his skin? He can hold an expression for a ghost of a second, and you feel it yet never feel the work. It's extraordinary.

But I think my feelings about Downey are (too?) well documented at this point (no, seriously. He makes a basket case whose neuroses are only held at bay by mysteries and cocaine look like fun), so let's move on to Jude Law, as this movie made me like him again. This is the first role I've seen him in since . . . forever? that didn't rely on or even make reference to his looks as a part of his character. Instead they slapped a mustache on there and let him go to town, and it's lovely town to visit. His Watson is lithe, elegant, and precise but with a rough and dangerous edge. Watching the two of them together -- arguing over a vest, walking through evidence, or even sitting at home with their shirt sleeves rolled up -- casts such warmth that it's hard not to want to curl up in their scenes.

Despite their chemistry, the movie isn't all fun, games, and hotties. It's slow to get moving, a farting dog is used as a punchline, Mark Strong is underused, and Kelly Reilly has too much dark eye make up on (what? A lot of dark eye make up on light-haired ladies makes me think the character is evil because you see two black pits where the eyes should be, and Mary isn't evil). While the movie is more interested in building a franchise than telling the story at hand at certain points, the plot is decent, and director Guy Ritchie obviously put the emphasis on fun. It worked. Now if I can only find an opportunity to remark, "Now that we have a firm grasp of the obvious" or yell, "No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not!", that would be ideal. B+

Sidebar: Down with advertising campaign! Pretty much every scene you've sees of Rachel McAdams in the ads is not in the movie. She's great in the scenes she does get, but that's not the point.

"They never have rat exhibits in the zoo. I could start a new trend!"

I normally find a quote that utilizes the month's theme, but it turns out that "liberation" quotes didn't go that well with my latest (Cult)ure article. It's a handy checklist to the trends behind the movies that defined the decade. It will also help explain why your favourite movies from 2000-2009 didn't make anyone's top of the decade list.

Also, I believe I forgot to tell you about the interview I did with writer-director David J. Garfield last month. Enjoy!

Pop Culture Round Up: May 16-29

I was going to post some of these last week, but I realized that I only have five links and promptly lost the other ones I was going to add. They were about Chace Crawford and Footloose and how I am totally going to see that now. I think you can imagine the missing words.

This prompted a lengthy discussion as to whether or not he looked more or less vampirific. Guess which side I came down on?

Read my Sherlock Holmes trailer-related thoughts.

Get distracted my reading my blog. It's good for you.

The great IMAX swindle continues apace.

I guess I won't watch it after all.

This week in excellent news for lazy people: Perfectionism Linked to Early Death.

Hmm. I have mixed feelings about him.

I watched the mini-season and quite liked it, though I thought more Homicide than Hill Street Blues.

The original rake?

How else will you know that you're better than everyone else? On the other hand, it is free.

Dude has either not read the book or is desperate to film a sex scene.

I am morbidly fascinated and hope Perry can fit in a cameo.

I would read this.

I got all excited that they are making a movie, then sad that it's not with Edgar Wright, then excited about the comedy powerhouse.

I believe he also later wore an eye patch.

"Loving music, to a critic, cannot simply mean bestowing praise." It also means burns!

And, apropos of nothing, vampire abs.

Pop Culture Round Up: April 4 - 17

I had one ready for last Friday, but I didn't have time to publish. Ah, well, I'll do better soon.

Are there still young critics? Okay, I know the answer to that, so I hope the answer is soon.

This is going to be great.

I haven't made up my mind if that's kind of awesome or just Neil LaBute's woman-hating fault.

Didn't we learn anything from Eternal Sunshine?

YAY! I will happily stay home Saturday nights for The Piemaker.

Number 10's probably my favourite even though I'm pretty sure it takes place over one day.

Mapping the Cultural Buzz: How Cool Is That?

It's like Golden Girls starring men.

I think it makes us feel like we're all hanging in there, and we're all in it together.

Heh. Yup, that's all.

I rocked it, and so can you. It may surprise you to learn that I rocked this one even harder.

I hope Harry Hamlin gets a cameo.

I am so confused by this news. It seems antithetical.

It's kind of Apocalyptic, but I like it.

More returned art!

I believe it.

We should should what, exactly? Stop making disaster movies in order to protect children's imaginations? Your point is beyond me, Lisa Kennedy.

Aw, yeah. Covering his werewolf and now his vampire bases. I hope zombies are up soon.

You're not the only ones left wondering what this means for next season.

“I’m reading it going, ‘Really, we’re going to put fucking shark in Jason’s spine and he thinks it’s going to work?’ ”

"The story is allegedly a loose retelling of the 16th U.S. president's life story — embellished with the notion that he is also a highly skilled vampire slayer." Yes. I love it.

While I'm pretty sure that Julian would be dead, I'd still watch it.

"Turns out, Milton was more rebellious and politically left than I realized. He was a risk-taker. He was arrested and imprisoned. Thanks, in part, to Andrew Marvell, he barely escaped a death sentence." Dudes, Milton. Milton. Can you believe it?

Hip-hop theatre! That excites me.

It's the movie choices that save it.

I don't know how they do it, but the tie-in products continue to be genius.

Pop Culture Round Up: January 24 - 30

Who, pray tell, is being mocked? Your career?

What the? I don't care if Jennifer Saunders is involved, this thing is fishy. When my friend introduced me to the show, she told me that it was about a pair of aging hippies and trying to be career women but still hippies. Plus they're alcoholics. Does America find functional alcoholics funny?

Criticism in crisis reactions: Oh, no! I'm lazy!

They hired a new critic? Insanity!

For every action . . .

And a criticism defense!

"Film critics and scholars have a tumultuous relationship with a system that is meant to help guide readers but may also encourage some to skip the review entirely."

"The intellectual author's copious diaries record her struggles with a domineering father, her stultifying stint in the court of George III, her controversial marriage to a Catholic escapee from the French Revolution." Saucy stuff!

Ooo, another door! A flood door, but still.

"The most brilliant thing to happen to Jane Austen’s novels since … well, ever." I must have this book.

Don Draper makes ice cream!

That's too bad.

What, what?! This just might be awesome.

Holy Moses. Mind you, if I had that actor in the role, I might be wary of including an certain predilection as well.

This hurts a little.

Yes! I have been saying this for years.

Hmm. Good question. I'm pretty sure awesome movie is still the answer.

Heh. Although what he says is, "You followin' me, camera guy?", which is even better.

"As the number of possessions grew, so did the concept of ‘taste’, a subtle and elusive yardstick by which people advertised their social position and sensibilities."

"Comics actually are jazz." I can't say that occurred to me before.

I can't imagine one actor who could play him, much less two.

Hey, they did something nice!

Aww, don't take away old peoples' TVs!

SAG winners.

PGA winners.

It can't be that bad, can it?

Dear Academy,

Was 2008 that bad a year for movies? I've suspected it was for a while, and your nominations this morning only confirm that theory. Little seems unexpected and a lot seems overlooked, which I suppose is your stock in trade, but c'mon. Fortunately I don't think you'll ever disappoint me quite as much as you did when you failed to recognize Children of Men as one of the single greatest movies ever, but let's talk about what you're doing here.

I've yet to see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but I doubt that it's 13 nominations good. David Fincher's last movie, Zodiac, was possibly that good, and you paid it no mind. Are you trying to make up for that?

It's nice to see character actors Richard Jenkins and Melissa Leo get a Q-rating boost from their respective nods, and it's nice for you to throw hardest working actor in Hollywood Robert Downey Jr. a bone.

Less nice are the lack of nominations for the following: The Dark Knight for best picture, Christopher Nolan for director, Jonathan and Christopher Nolan for screenplay; In Bruges for anything other than screenplay; acting nods for Slumdog Millionaire; Bruce Springsteen for song; Rosemaire Dewitt or Debra Winger for supporting actress, Jonathan Demme for director, Rachel Getting Married for best picture.

Much like the middling melodramas you've insisted on celebrating, your nominations feel less than inspired. Most people would tell me that you're like that every year. When is it going to stop?

Heart,

April

P.S. I am going to go hang out with Dana and Troy.

"What you see are the things in its path -- objects and particles and dust --, and you see them because they reflect the light."

Want to reflect on the year that was in cinema? Let me help you out with my list of things to remember in my latest Culture article.

Over in the advice column, Miss Smartypants tackles Twilight Moms, Canadian spelling, and job opportunities. Keep sending your questions to advice@culturemagazine.ca.

Casino Royale (2006)

I finally pulled the DVD off the shelf, so it must be time for a RE-view!

This was definitely a different sort of Bond and a thug, no doubt, but I found it sort of hilarious how everyone focused on the bodies he piled up and ignored that he was (maybe) a computer hacking super-genius as well. He broke into M's computer, her home, and her identity ('cause he knows her real name, see?)!

The only person who seems to care about these things is M herself, as she works in this strange vacuum/non-vacuum situation. Non-vacuum: co-writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and (shudder) Paul Haggis put a lot of effort into showing us that MI6 is infinitely more connected to the British government than what was shown in the past (M attends meetings and answers to the Prime Minister, apparently). Vacuum: none of these people seem all that real. Few of them have names, much less characteristics, that would help them stick in your memory after you see the film. They blend together and disappear.

It gives the movie a streamlined appearance when it is anything but. Which is not to say that it's bloated, exactly. It tells one story, and it tells it very well, which is more than Bond movies have offered in a long time. Both Jeffrey Wright and Mads Mikkelsen are welcome presences, and, from the trailer, it looks like Bond is still pretty focused on Vesper's death, so it's best not to forget about that one.

Only I kind of want to. It's not that I don't like Eva Green generally or in the movie, but Bond-in-love sequence drags and drags. And it's not even that long. I suspect Bond getting his revenge on will be infinitely more exciting to watch. Until then, I'll tentatively stick with my original A-.

P.S. Does anyone else find themselves missing Miss Moneypenny? I really like Craig and Dench's interactions. Thanks to Gwenyth Paltrow's fantastic turn as Pepper, the Moneypenny to Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark, though, I find myself wondering what Bond's long suffering secretary is up to. Mailing out child support payments?

P.P.S How long do you think an actor of Craig's calibre will stay tied down to the role?

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Premise: First time director Damien Cockburn (the peerless Steven Coogan) can't control his diva cast of action star Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), award winner Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.), and comedian Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), so Four Leaf Tayback (a never funnier Nick Nolte), author of the book Tropic Thunder, convinces him to put his stars and two supporting players, rapper mogul Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson) and bit player Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel), out in the jungle to shoot the movie guerrilla style. Things go south pretty quickly.

It's a Jack Black double bill!

Oh, co-writer-director-producer-star Stiller, how do we get you to make more movies like this? Stop making sequels to those not-particularly-funny-in-the-first-place Focker movies, and just make more movies exactly as outrageous as this one. Mind you, seven years have lapsed between this and the highly quotable Zoolander. Allow me to revise: if it takes another seven years to get a parody of this quality, one that is this smart, silly, and fun, we'll wait.

Yes, parody. Don't bother calling it a satire 'cause it's not a satire. Satires have bite, and this movie only has bite if you are a) Russell Crowe or b) Tom Cruise, and he is obviously not bothered by it. And, while we're here, let's get this out of the way: Is it offensive? No. I'm not a member of a group that would be offended by it, but let me explain. The Simple Jack stuff is representative of a certain kind of Oscar-baiting and within the movie it is meant to be offensive, which is why it shouldn't be considered offensive outside the movie. The fact that Tugg made Simple Jack is supposed to make him look bad, so pointing to it outside the movie and saying, "That looks bad" is redundant.

As for the blackface, same deal. It's suppose to highlight that doing this sort of thing is stupid and offensive, so saying, "Hey! That's stupid and offensive!" accomplishes the same goal. Besides, Downey is doing the most hilarious parody of Method-actors like Russell Crowe (with a touch of Adrian Brody thrown in for good measure) ever. The throw away clip of Lazarus on Inside the Actors Studio is worth the price of admission alone. Downey's trademark multi-current emotional acting is suspended in favour of a more deadpan delivery, but I think we can live with it. It's worth it to see Downey and Stiller try to out crazy each other with Black's manic energy surging in the background.

Let's move on to what's really important here: When did Baruchel get so adorable? He was always adorable (nervous about grabbing the hydro wires on PMK? Adorable! Punching Lloyd in the ear 'cause he doesn't know how to fight? Adorable!), but now he's super adorable, like, boyfriend adorable. When did this happen? Maybe it helps that of the five, he's the audience surrogate. Okay, his fantastic comedic timing helps, too.

Fine, I'll tell you what you really want to know: will Tom Cruise's cameo save his career? Probably not (there a moments when he's a little too scarily committed), but it should because it is hands down the funniest thing he has ever done. It's a shame he never had the chance to be on Extras. And to those in the theatre who gasped when his name was revealed in the credits (yeah, I heard you): are you best friends with Anthony Lane? Not only does Tom Cruise still resemble Tom Cruise, but he also sounds like Tom Cruise. He has a very distinctive voice.

The details are what makes this one near-constantly hilarious from the three fake trailers that precede the movie (I would so see Satan's Alley*) to the exposition via Maria Menounos to Tyra Banks. Co-writers Stiller, Justin Theroux, and Etan Cohen have an excellent ear and eye for fitting in the visual references and double speak that makes this inside-Hollywood picture nothing short of a treat. A-

*When did Tobey Maguire start looking like Wentworth Miller, though? Well, like Michael Scofield?

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Story: After five years in hiding, an on-the-run Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) heads back to Culver University, site of his gamma radiation poisoning, to gather data that may help him find a cure. His plan puts him in Betty's (Liv Tyler) path and gets General Ross' (William Hurt) attention. Ross brings Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) onto his team to help bring Bruce in and is so impressed that he decides it might be time to revive the ol' super solider experiment.

Full disclosure: I never saw Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk. You no doubt already know that this movie isn't supposed to be particularly related to that one, although there are little bits here and there that suggest that having knowledge of the ins and outs of that movie wouldn't hurt. I've wanted to see the other version for some time now, especially given its latter day critical revival, but I've never quite gotten around to it. Now that I've seen this one, I just might.

Which isn't too say that this one is bad. It's not at all. I do wonder what kind of movie it would have been if Norton had been allowed to edit as well as do extensive, uncredited re-writes. Then he went a pitched what I now consider a classic Norton public pissy fit.* I suppose it's no different than an Alan Smithee film.

*He's the kind of guy that I like, but I wonder if he must difficult to get along with in real life. I don't mean to unfairly malign his character. He seems the it's-so-hard-to-be-this-smart sort, but I can't tell to what extent that comment should be sarcastic and to what extent it should be serious. Dude, maybe it is really hard to be Edward Norton.

I begrudge this movie for being so tight lipped. Banner's initial exposure, first Hulk attack, and subsequent life on the run are over and done with inside of an opening credits montage. We get a few snippets of exposition here and there, and it's obvious at several points that they are being deliberate obtuse in order to furnish further sequels. It wasn't even in the usual way, where something is left dangling shortly before the climax, and all of us who have seen a movie before know that that's going to be the basis of the sequel (although that happened as well), but several times in each of the acts did conversations and ideas worth exploring come to abrupt end instead of a conclusion. More true to life, I suppose, but this movie could have been improved by following even one of them through. Mostly I would one day like to know how Banner could be so stupid as to not realize what he was really working on and to test it on himself without having first tested it on, say, some sort of laboratory animal or similar.

Not that Norton makes Banner seem stupid. As Bruce, he's hemmed in on all sides by something he can't control and doesn't wish to, and Norton makes that play heartbreakingly without ever once being two-dimensional. Inside of Bruce is something that wants out, and he wants out of that contract, and neither one of them knows how to make that work.

Hurt is wonderfully gruff and arrogant as the General, and Roth makes a fantastic villain, largely because there's nothing all that villainous about Blonsky. He's a lifelong solider who wants to solider better. But it's really Tyler who shines as the fearless and devoted Dr. Elizabeth Ross. More so than anyone I've seen before, she creates a completely believable and touching relationship with mostly CGI creation. It's something other actors would do well to study.

Louis Leterrier's direction, while not particularly personalized, gets the job done. That's the movie in a nutshell. It gets the job done, doesn't screw anything up, and gives you more to go on in the future. Mind you, I could be biased because I'm pretty sure that anything with a Tony Stark cameo is going to look good to me. B

"So here's some advice I wish I would have got when I was your age: Live every week like it's shark week."

Hey, remember that time when you were like, "Hey, guys, don't you think Actor X is so hot?" and your friends were like, "Ew, dude." That time sucked. I know the feeling. Check it out five times over in my latest Culture article.

Also, sure, I talk a good game when it comes to movies, but what else can I do for you? Glad you asked. Starting this month, I will take on your problems, issues, and grammatical confusion in brand new advice column. Boy-girl stuff? I've got an opinion about it. Forgot what happened in that movie that time? I’ll figure it out. Can’t remember if “between you and me” or “between you and I” is grammatically correct? I’ll tell you, and I’ll probably make fun of you. Just don’t come at me with that damn “try and [verb]” construction. You either try or you do. Not both. It really gets my goat. Send your issues to advice@culturemagazine.ca, and check back in the Advice Tab.

Also also, since we are here, let's do some other little housekeeping things. I did go see Iron Man again, and it was just as awesome the second time around. The second act drags a bit the second time, but I still think the first is one of the best I've seen, so the grade stands. I've been thinking some more about Robert Downey Jr., and I think that perhaps his yell is akin to Joaquin Phoenix's whisper. You know how Phoenix plays all this different characters who mumble, smooth talk, and yell, but only once or twice a picture does he drop down to a whisper? And you just know that whatever is said in the whisper is the best insight you are going to get into the character, so you hotly anticipate it and keep it close in your mind for the rest of the film. RDJ's yell, specifically of another character's name, is like that in that it has the power to change your mind. Again, I know I sound crazy re: RDJ (although Sarah agreed with me about the thing we never heard!), but I'll tell you this. I've watched movies before. Like the rest of you, I've got a pretty good sense of what characters will live or die when it comes down to it. Still, even when I am assured of the outcome, RDJ's yell can make me think that that person might be in mortal danger after all. That's good stuff.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Premise: After a small time heist goes wrong, Harry (Robert Downey Jr.) accidentally stumbles into an audition and gets shipped out to L.A. to screen test for a movie about a heist gone wrong. His producer (Larry Miller) hooks Harry up with Perry (Val Kilmer) for some detective lessons. Then the bodies start piling up, and Harry's childhood crush (Michelle Monaghan) shows up in need of a real detective.

I realize that I am a little late to this party. I recall positive reviews when this movie was released November 2005, but I don't remember what stopped me from seeing it at the time. I just skipped through my archives for that month, and I can see only one real distraction. Maybe no one else was interested? Maybe it didn't open here? Actually, that's a distinct possibility.

And why haven't I see it since? Dunno, really. I have a feeling that I forgot all about it. Then Iron Man kindly reminded me that I love Downey Jr., and Scott Tobias did his part, reminding me that this movie exists and that I should see it. So I did. I didn't Zip it and wait for the next few years for it to arrive. I walked down to the video station, directly to the Ks, and picked it up.

Thank goodness I did. I can't believe I've been going through the last few years without ending conversations with, "What do I know? I suck the heads off fish!"

I can't believe I haven't been enjoying Kilmer and Downey in concert this whole time. Harry pretty much spends the entire movie freaking out and trying to seem like he is not freaking out. This is fun enough to begin with, thanks to Downey, but it's downright hilarious as he becomes more and more accustomed to his new, bullet riddled life. It's the kind of character and performance that could only, it has been shown, be balanced by Kilmer as Gay Perry (just go with it). Although he is smart and sarcastic, there's an extent to which Perry never gives you the full story, and he never will, so you just have to take everything he says at face value. It's oddly freeing.

Naturally I have to thank former golden boy writer and first time director Shane Black for all of this. Where would we be without him? No one does action buddy comedies better, and it turns out that we really did need his barbed, meta-take on his own experiences in the genre. It's insider-y without going too far down the rabbit hole, but it's greatest success is the way that, even when you are provided with a somewhat unreliable narrator, you are still expected to keep up and follow along. It's a nice change.

Also, props to John Ottoman's sleek, playful score, and to whoever I have to thank for the animated opening sequence. A

Iron Man (2008)

Premise: Womanizing billionaire arms dealer Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) builds a suit out of scrap after he's kidnapped in Afghanistan* by a multi-national group of terrorists. After his escape, Tony seeks to perfect the suit and right the wrongs he realizes were a result of the under the table dealings of his business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). Don't worry - Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard) and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) are along for the ride.

There's something about Tony Stark as a superhero. He's not your obvious choice. Sure, he's got the obligatory dead parents (cf the Waynes, the Els, the Parkers), but that's about it. He's not all tore up about it (at least not that we see this time around); it's not what's driving him. Instead he's a wildly successful middle aged man suddenly confronted with the reality that he is personally responsible for others' suffering, and he resolves to do something about it. That's brave and crazy.

Which is what makes Downey Jr. such a perfect fit for the role. For all the comic book movies I've seen over the years (and let's face it: I'm a bit of a comic book adaptation addict), I would probably still say that I think the Tobey Maguire/Peter Parker match up was the best I've seen. Peter's a confused and struggling young man, and Maguire brings all the necessary pathos to the role while still being able to lighten it up when necessary (see the "Rain Drops Keep Falling on my Head" montage in S2). But now that I have seen this, well, it just might be my favourite. He makes Tony complex without making him obvious; fun without being cartoony; angry without being self-righteous. It's a tall order not to take someone who could so easily be initially unlikable and give him a big, dramatic turn around. Instead, under Downey's care, he goes from being someone you wouldn't mind being friends with to . . . someone you wouldn't mind being friends with, only now he's got this cool suit. I know that must make it sound like the character doesn't undergo a change, but you would be wrong to think so. It's quite the opposite. He may change as a response to the external, but with Downey he makes the change entirely internal. He looks at himself and decides to do better first. Being better will have to follow. I could probably count on one hand the number of actors and actresses that could quickly bring all that to the screen with the same ease and grace, and some of them are dead.

Let me put it another way: right at the end, I heard him say something that he didn't say. Not to sound crazy or to put too fine a point on it, but, by the end of the movie, between his facial expression and mannerisms, and because he created a character that I could know so well so quickly, Downey had me hearing something that was never said. That's not talent. That's a gift.

And did I mention that he is really quite sexy while he's at it? He is. Mmrrow.

I got a little ramblely up there, didn't I? How's the rest of the movie, you say? Pretty darn good. I loved it. Directed by Jon Favreau from a screenplay by Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, and Matt Holloway, it starts with Abrams' favourite trope, but it excels from there on out. It spends what might seem like a lot of time on how Stark came to be in Afghanistan and then on his time there, but it ends up working for the film. It's never boring. In fact, it keeps moving quickly, so you don't have time to think about it too much. It introduces a lot of characters and locations in short succession without feeling that you've caught the exposition express (okay, it might feel that way a little bit at the awards show). You meet and find reasons to like Rhodie and Pepper pretty quickly, and, well, then we're off to the races.

And what a race it is. I'm pretty sure that the only other directorial effort of Favreau's that I have seen is an episode of Undeclared. I like him. He's got a good sense of how to pace the film, keeping it fun to watch while sprinkling in enough details for future installments (I saw evidence for at least nine more), and he gives his actors room to breathe. Of course, when you've got an exemplary cast such as his, how could you go wrong? Howard looks like he is having more fun than he's had in ages; Bridges is fantastic, as always; and Paltrow is fresh and just a little bit spunky. The chemistry between Paltrow and Downey is so sweet. He knows if he finally breaks through he'll risk losing her forever, but he just keeps chipping away anyway.

If you add to that Ramin Djawadi's lovely melody for them, then you're done for. Djawadi's electric guitar driven score is exciting, sexy, and fun without ever calling attention to itself, based, or so I've heard, entirely on Downey's moods in the scenes as Stark. It was in his scenes with Paltrow that I noticed how much I was digging the score, and I found myself glad to hear that theme come back again, although it wasn't in any way obstrusive. It was just plain good.

After I saw the movie, I thought I would probably give something in the B range. Now, for the life of me, I can't remember why I would grade it so low. Sure, it's not brilliant. Certain scenes probably won't be keeping me up at night years from now. But why rate entertainment so low? Why doesn't wanting to see something again and again count for more? Isn't Downey's performance alone enough to rate something better? You know what? At least for now, I think it is. A-**

*I believe in the original series it was the Vietnam war. I think moving it forward to now was the right choice.

**I do have plans to see this again soon, so this grade is subject to revisal upon subsequent viewings.

Zodiac (2007)

Premise: In the late 1960s and early 1970s a serial killer known only as Zodiac terrorized the Bay area. Fancying himself a Jack the Ripper sort, he communicated to the papers through letters and ciphers. Although crime beat writer Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr.) covers the story for the San Fransisco Chronicle, editorial cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is drawn into the case through his love of puzzles. Meanwhile, detectives Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and Bill Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) attempt to sort fact from fiction as they come together with officers (Elias Coteas, Donal Logue) from smaller towns were Zodiac has hit.

Let the 2007 viewing season begin!

Subject matter aside, I was falling all over myself to get to the theatre to see this one. Downey, Jr., Gyllenhaal, and Ruffalo? How could I resist?

Of the three Gyllenhaal is ostensible the protagonist. He's the first of the three we see, and, as the Zodiac killings subsided, the focus shifts to Graysmith's continued search as he compiles the book on the subject. That book, of course, being the basis of writer James Vanderbilt and director David Fincher's fine work. Perhaps for the first time in a long time, I was struck by just how young Gyllenhaal looks. The others are aged as time goes by with grey added to their hair, but Gyllenhaal looks the same throughout, a youthful vibe clinging to him. Nonetheless, he possesses a growing talent, making the "aw, shucks" that seems to hang about him a weapon, disarming the viewer as well as the other characters. As dangerous as his obsession becomes, Gyllenhaal makes Graysmith a likable protagonist even when he appears to be losing the battle.

Downey, Jr. remains among the best in my mind, if for nothing else than his ability to play to conflicting emotions simultaneously. Avery's telling Graysmith to get away, but you can see he really wants to help the kid if you look closely. I enjoy the way he uses the physicality of his characters, rolling sideways out of a chair instead of standing up, carefully pushing a letter around a table with the eraser end of a pencil, blocking the path of a cab with his jerky steps. I don't know how he does it - I never feel like he is calling attention to himself with actorly tics, and I never fail to notice just how he does something.

As for my dear Ruffalo, what can I say? To a certain extent, Toschi becomes the most effete character he has ever played in a series of fairly languid (but well done) roles. He does great work as the cop in the midst of this madness. The voice seems a little higher, the pants a lot tighter, but the heart is definitely in the right place. I loved the way he just couldn't resist assisting Graysmith, even after the whole thing blew right up in his face. His dedication, far beyond his reward, was not only the character's touchstone but the movie's.

The only criticism I can think of for Vanderbilt and Fincher's taught, smart, and witty (albeit shockingly violent) thriller is that it drags a little as it shifts gears from the murders to Graysmith's research. Just for a bit at the top of the act, but not so much that you are thrown out of the film. Fincher starts in on you again with the tension, and you forget what you were on about.

Okay, two complaints: whatever they had on Edwards' head. Dude looked Kevin Costner in the wrong lighting. Nice work from him, though.

Other than those two things, exactly what a thriller should be. Creepy, sparingly violent, tense. Kept me up that night. A

A Scanner Darkly (2006)

Brief: A scanner (Keanu Reeves) known only to his superiors as "Fred" infiltrates a group of Substance D addicts and dealers (Winona Ryder, Robert Downey Jr., Woody Harrelson, and Rory Cochrane) in order to locate the source of the dangerous drug. Fred is asked to closely monitor one member of the group, Bob Arctor, i.e. himself.

Allow me to sum up the reaction of one Elfin April and her viewing partner, Emily, following our screening of said film: What? And also, What?

It should be noted that I've never read the Philip K. Dick's novel based on his own drug experiences, and I suppose if I already knew the plot I may have been able to follow it a little better. As it was, there were about three false endings: the first two made the entire movie make no sense, the third explained the other two, and then the fourth, the actual end of the movie, put all the pieces back together, but a lot of it still went over my head.

First off, rotoscoping still looks cool. It has a way of enhancing the image despite the fact that less is in focus than with traditional camera work. Plus, and maybe this was just me, sometimes the animators leave a little something in, like not colouring over a plant on a desk or an ashtray on a coffee table. I liked that.

Also, Richard Linklater still rocks. Even when he's commercial, he brings an outsider's perspective, a sort of slow charm to his work. His direction has a disarming intelligence to it. Although a lot of the subject matter went over my head, it still had an affect on me, which is more important.

Some stuff I've read talked about how Dick's work is more/just as relevant now. In terms of surveillance, I see the connection. In terms of pretty much anything else, not so much. For instance, and I'm about to give a lot away here, they manufacture the drug, and they regulate the rehabilitative therary. Only the effects are permenant, and they use the worst cases to reproduce more drugs, and the government controls the whole thing or at least acquiesces to it. I feel like this is a metaphor or extended parable, but what's the reference to? Some other kind of drug? I guess it could be, but I think anyone would be hard-pressed to prove that the government manufactures, say, heroin, gets people addicted to it, and then enslaves them. So, death because that's what they call D in the movie? Um, I don't think that's it either. This sucks. I feel like there's more to this movie, but I just can't cut through the fog.

I'm not exceptionally bright by any measure, but I usually get movies. I didn't get this. Maybe I will if I see it a few more times, but, if I don't? Then I am going to have to suspect that the problem lies within the film instead of myself. B+

The Very Short Take

A challenge: to write no more than one paragraph plus a one sentence plot summary on each of the seven (7!) recently viewed titles that will follow.

Chaplin (1992)

Summary: British vaudeville perfomer Charlie Chaplin (Robert Downey, Jr.) moves to America, becomes film sensation, marries a bunch of different women (Milla Jovovich, Deborah Moore, Diane Lane, Moira Kelly), purports to have a "wild side."

I think that we supposed to think that he had a wild side because of his many ladies, but I found that bit hard to swallow since he married them all. Sure, if he had slept around, I would have agreed, but it hardly seems all that wild to divorce people who, say, fake pregnanices to trap you into marrying them. Downey Jr is fantastic as always and wonderfully likeable as the Tramp. Overall, kind of long and not always that interesting. Well, I liked Kevin Kline as Doug Fairbanks. B

And since I'm already on to Kline . . .

The Big Chill (1983)

Summary: Seven college friends (Kevin Kline, Glenn Close, Tom Berenger, Jeff Goldblum, William Hurt, Mary Kay Place, and JoBeth Williams) gather together for the weekend following the death of their friend Alex.

Fantastic soundtrack! Too bad the movie isn't very good at all. Everyone gets together to bitch and moan about how none of their lives are what they thought they would be 20 years after they graduated from college. Of course they're not. At least these people have the good sense to recognize that the fact that they can get together again after long separations and still feel this natural with each other is something special. Sure, the cast gives off a great feeling of lived-in intimacy, but the plot pushes those feelings so far beyond the bounds of sanity that I balked. Ah, well, still gives off enough warm fuzzies to be tolerable. B

Behind the Red Door (2002)

Summary: A dying man (Kiefer Sutherland) cons his sister (Kyra Sedgwick) into caring for him in his final days, while facing their violent past.

Stockard Channing's also along for the ride. You know, there are these movies where the performers outshine their material by far. This is one of those movies. It's not very good, although I'm always ready to throw myself in with the three leads. Too bad the pacing couldn't have been picked up to make the plot seem more interesting. C

Speaking of such movies . . .

It's All About Love (2003)

Summary: John (Joaquin Phoenix) flies into New York in order to finalize his divorce from famous figure skater Elena (Claire Danes), only to discover that her life may be in peril.

Once you've seen one movie with subplots about flying Ugandans and snow in July, you've seen 'em all. Even Sean Penn's teeny cameo was wasted. Simultaneously being about nothing and making no sense in a mean feat, but writer/director Thomas Vinterberg pulls it off. I think he was trying to say something about disconnection and loneliness, but the execution was hidden. D

Should I have a deep, burning desire to see Phoenix, Danes, and Penn on the screen together again, I think I'd rather watch their three scenes in . . .

U Turn (1997)

Summary: A drifter (Sean Penn) accidentally rolls into a crazy/backwards small town, his car is taken hostage by an insane mechanic (Billy Bob Thornton), and a husband (Nick Nolte) and wife (Jennifer Lopez) each hire him to kill the other.

I certainly hope Phoenix and Danes are happy with themselves. Their three scenes were the only things that kept me from going out, locating director Oliver Stone, and kicking him repeatedly. You, sir, are the most overrated director whose "art" I have ever had to suffer through. Get over yourself. Quick. The 30 seconds in the movie after Penn beats up Phoenix where Phoenix informs Danes that he "had to defend [her] honour, baby" and then Danes yells at Penn's retreating back, "YOU KILLED HIM!" are the only reasons I won't fail this movie. D-

Bottle Rocket (1997)

Summary: Once Anthony (Luke Wilson) is released from the mental institution, he, Dignan (Owen Wilson) and Bob (Robert Musgrave) form criminal gang, are forced to go on the lam, and eventually hook up with Mr. Henry (James Caan) and his superior gang.

You know, when I was first watching Wes Anderson's feature length debut, I found it more inspired but less assured than the work that followed. Thinking back on it, it's a lot funnier than I gave it credit for at the time, but I'd prefer watching something like Rushmore. I like Anderson much more once he's perfected creating this insular worlds that seem impossible but manage to be believable. B+

Pretty Persuasion (2005)

Summary: 15 year-old Kimberly Joyce (Evan Rachel Wood) brings chaos to her high school and creates a media frenzy when she and two friends (Elizabeth Harnois, Adi Schnall) accuse their English and drama teacher (Ron Livingston) of sexual assault.

By far the best of the bunch. Wood continues to prove herself as one of the best actresses ever, delightful here as a manipulative teenaged hellion, and she inspires great work in everyone who surrounds her. It's too bad they pushed it too far at the end. B+

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Premise: In 1953, journalist and host of CBS’s “See It Now”, Edward R. Murrow (David Strathairn), together with his producer, Fred Friendly (George Clooney), and rag-tag team decide to take the bullhorn against Senator Joseph McCarthy (himself)’s red scare.

Okay, so the team’s not really rag-tag. I just liked the way that sounded. I also acknowledge that Murrow and his crew were neither the first nor the last to attack McCarthyism.

Maybe I’m a little bit biased because this movie is so obviously aimed at my bleeding liberal heart. Maybe I’m a bit biased because the Bytowne has decided to crank it up several notches to get me back in the fold. And maybe, just maybe, I was seduced by the spontaneous applause at the end of the film from in the packed cinema because it’s just been too damn long since a movie made anyone want to stand up and cheer.

Even so, I’ve been racking my brain since I saw it on Friday, and I still cannot come up with a single thing I didn’t like about this sparkling gem.

Sure, the sight of a smoky, darkly lit room where reporters discuss the day’s papers from across the country to suss out what news is worth mention on television that week sends my heart into quasi-orgasmic fits of glee because it matches my image of what newsrooms looked like back when the news really mattered. Quite obviously, it matched director/co-writer/producer/supporting player Clooney’s image as well.

I’m going to have to send him a little note thanking him for his decision, circa 1998, to stop sucking and rock has hard as his old school matinee idol good looks, talent, and pitch perfect combo of smarm/charm would let him.

Perhaps the success of this movie is wrapped up in the casting of Strathairn has the euphonically named Murrow. He’s a slight man, not all that well known, and certainly not go-to Hollywood leading man. And yet, there he is: pitch perfect. Cigarette smoke slowly curling away from his perfect placed hand, beautiful three piece (!) suits, power, passion, regret, resignation, humility, confidence, and sympathy. Anyone else would need a three page monologue to get what Strathairn gets out of a single tilt of his head. The way he can never quite look the camera in the eye as he wished them good luck is filled with the knowledge that it will never be enough. Strathairn’s Murrow knows right well that he could be ruining the careers and lives of the men in the room with him when he decides to take on the Senator, and, no matter how passionately they throw themselves into the task, he can never quite get that guilty look out of his eye. I could go on and on about every single gesture and line, Strathairn was that good.

Some people felt that the subplot about the secretly married Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson (a fact that could get them fired at the time) was a bit tacked on. Nothing involving the two of them could ever be wrong, I say.

Not everyone was into the interspersed jazz numbers. I came to the somewhat befuddling conclusion that George Clooney is jazz. I know, I know, it makes no sense in the clear light of day. I still can’t shake the idea that there is some parallel between George Clooney/film and Miles Davis/jazz. Plus, I found it a refreshing alternative to a traditional score full of emotional violins and triumphant trumpets.

Why have Senator McCarthy play himself, people have asked. Clooney and co-writer Grant Heslov are simply doing exactly what Murrow, et al. did fifty years ago: letting the Senator damn himself with his own words.

Most of all, why does a movie set half a century in the past have more relevance today than anything else I have seen this year? Because back then the news mattered. It meant something. It stood up to the government instead of playing its lap dog. Bill O’Reilly may net two million viewers a night, but he represents one incredibly biased part of the spectrum.

I was talking with my grandmother within hours of my screening, and I told her what movie I had just seen. She told me that back then, when television networks still acknowledged this new medium as an educational tool, news anchors weren’t all part of a bland, indiscernible passel nor did they occupy the loathsome celebrity realm of “personality.” Back then, back when the news really mattered, the anchors on these shows were people to be respected and admired. They were heroes.

George Clooney, for telling a bittersweet true story, and for attacking the embedded quality of news outlets today, you are my hero. A+