So what's the point of having a good thing if you can't fuck it up?
That seems to be what Marvel is aiming to do with their current negotiations. The story I'm referring to is found here. Don't worry if you didn't read the whole thing. The gist of it is that Marvel doesn't give a shit about any of the actors they have playing their super human team that has raked in a few billion dollars for them thus far. All except for Robert Downey Jr. that is. And in his defense, he is the one who got this ball rolling with Iron Man. I highly doubt the movie and character would of had the same success without him in the now iconic role. He's also proven that he can make money on his own terms with the impressive run that Iron Man 3 is currently having. So it's not shocking that he's the only one of the bunch that Marvel seems to have any urgency to get back.
After the success of The Avengers they shouldn't be putting all their money on one person though. If The Avengers has shown us anything, it's that the fans are open to the ensemble cast idea and aren't tied down to one particular character. The only stand outs in The Avengers for myself were the Hulk and Loki. They stole the show on their own, but the rest worked best when they had another Avenger to banter with. It has spread to much more than just Iron Man at this point. If Downey Jr. doesn't show up for a few movies I don't think it's going to be the end of the world at this point.
I also don't get why it seems that the other main actors are falling in line behind Robert and letting him do the talking. I get that he's a bit of a proven box office draw at this point but if he was such a stand up guy then why isn't he willing to take a bit of a pay cut from his alleged $50-80 million he made from The Avengers so that everybody else can get a bit of a bump in pay? Doesn't sound to me like he has any of their interests in mind while negotiating. It's easy for him to say at this point that he won't come back unless the others get a pay increase, when he's made it public knowledge that he doesn't even want to play the Iron Man character much longer. If they don't take him back then he gets to do other things (which is what he seems to want). If they take him back then he's getting a solid payday for another role in a movie that's still two years away and possibly an even bigger payday (for what I assume would be a much smaller role) in a movie that's four-six years away. Assuming they only snag him for the next two Avenger movies and no more Iron Man.
I think Marvel is looking at this all the wrong way and are missing huge story-line opportunities. I don't read comic books but I know enough about them to tell you that a huge part of comic books is life and death. Superheros have been killed off and brought back plenty of times. Either through some fictional form of resurrection or by having new characters step into iconic roles. It all goes with the draw that anybody can be a superhero. So why doesn't Marvel go this route? If Chris Hemsworth doesn't want to come back without a good payday, then suck it up. Give him his payday but write his death into the script of the next Thor movie or the next Avengers movie. Let him die in some epic fashion that will fuel a story arc for another few movies. Give them something to fight for. And then bring him back in some Asgardian fashion in a few years with a new actor in the role. I think this life and death would help move this whole Marvel universe along, keep it fresh and invigorated, and give it a lifespan rivaled only by the Bond franchise.
Obviously not all characters can be written back in with a simple godly resurrection but I would even be ok with just saying goodbye to some characters. It's a very robust comic book universe out there. I think a well done Ant Man could be a worthy replacement for Iron Man.
***************
Thankfully I managed to get caught up with my Eberts Top 10 list this week. It's taking me a very long time to watch 10 movies, I know. But bear with me. Only Vertigo and Tree of Life left for this week. Once again here's a quick summary:
Aguirre, Wrath of God
The hardest on the list to find and understandably so. Odd could be an appropriate word to describe this German film from the 1970's. What starts as an odd journey for riches through Peru, turns into an incredibly captivating descent into madness.
Apocalypse Now
Another of the films I've already seen. This is another look at the slow descent madness and may be one of my favorites. Brando is so amazing in the minimal amount of screen time he has here and Martin Sheen is equally as impressive. A younger version of myself would have probably been bored with this movie. Current me loves it.
Tokyo Story
Let down your guard. Realize that movies are about telling a story. Spectacle and excitement aren't always required. If you can do that then Tokyo Story will be one of the best and truest forms of visual storytelling there is. Not a wasted shot. No filler whatsoever. Never have I seen a movie where the story is so simply laid out in front of me but still had my full attention.
La Dolce Vita
From Italy (not France, my bad) and the first film I've seen from Federico Fellini. Not a movie you want to watch tired. I feel like some of the movie was lost on me with the dialogue, which doesn't always translate well when it's being dished out quickly, and also being a little tired when I watched it. It did leave me wanting to watch it again though and seek out more of Fellini's work.
***************
Once again I only managed to squeeze in one new release this week. Not that I was too busy this week, just that I was still kind of broke from the move. There really hasn't been much to get excited about anyway. Pain and Gain, Olympus Has Fallen and Oblivion were the only ones last week that I was interested in seeing. None of those had me running to spend money on them either. Gatsby came out on Friday so I'll be seeing that sometime this week hopefully. And this coming Friday the new Star Trek is here so the reviews should be picking up a bit. Anyway, on to my thoughts on Oblivion, the only one I saw this week.
Oblivion 6/10
I love sci-fi. It's safe to say at this point it's my favorite genre of movie. I love getting lost in thoughts of what could be. Films are an excellent way to lose yourself. A good film will make you let go of your worries and sink into it. Science fiction movies can pull this off best because they bring you places and show you things that you normally don't see. You can let go of reason. I've never held anything against a sci-fi film for stretching the limits of what's actually possible. I just let it be. If it's good it will own my attention in awe and wonder for the time I'm watching. Even if it's bad it can still present great ideas and gorgeous imagery that you don't see anywhere else.
Oblivion manages to evoke some of that awe but unfortunately the sacrifice of box office success by attaching Tom Cruise to the project dwindles it down into something that's good, but just a hint of what it could have been.
Where it works is in the world and mythology it builds. The post-apocalyptic world that Joseph Kosinksi brings to life (in his graphic novel first and then translated it to the screen himself) is so enthralling, I was amazed by that alone. It's a desolate wasteland, which isn't a completely original idea at this point, that's brought to life beautifully. At one point we follow along as one of the characters zips along on a futuristic motorcycle through the still showing suspension cables of a long buried bridge and it just looks amazing. The whole world is created so elegantly that it makes me happy that CGI has gotten to the point it has.
The technology here is great too. It's futuristic but it's not all shiny with that new car smell still lingering around. It's worn, which is fitting since the movies follows a maintenance crew of sorts, and things break. It adds a level of realism to ideas that aren't quite in the realm of possible right now. It's also nice that they never shove it in your face. There's no elaborate displays of what can be done or no gimmicky ways of introducing them. It's all presented in a very matter-of-fact manner, as if this has been regular life for the characters and we're just stopping by to have a look. It's how science fiction should be handled at all times.
The plot is where the movie starts to hit snags. The idea and reasoning for the post apocalyptic world we're witnessing is pretty standard fare but it does offer an interesting twist on the scenario. I won't go into too many details but it keeps twisting. Sometimes for the better, but mostly for the worst. I can't say I hated the plot but I feel it would have benefited more if it didn't hold it's cards so close to it's chest. The build up is done poorly enough that you can see everything coming before the story thinks it's actually time to let you in. It spends so much time trying to trick you that it forgets to stop and think about where it's going.
The worst part of the movie for me was in the casting. I could forgive the weak plot under the right circumstances and still consider this a great sci-fi film. But someone went and cast Tom Cruise and ruined the chances of that happening. Now I don't hate Tom Cruise, but he really bothers me. Mostly it's his need to own the screen whenever he's in frame (which happens to be a lot). He can't just play subtle or let the story take over. He needs to impose his short stature in wherever he can and make everything he's in his own vessel. I understand the studio wanting a name such as Cruises involved with a project like this to give it some star power and help with box office number. It's hard enough for sci-fi films to be widely accepted when you're title doesn't begin with the word "Star". But I whole heartily think that casting a lesser known actor in the main role, someone who's not going to try to steal every scene, would have worked out much better.
The rest of the cast and crew are okay but nothing amazing. The best would go to Melissa Leo in her small role in the film. Morgan Freeman is great as ever but he actually has very little screen time which bummed me out a little. But with the movie dominated by Tom Cruise's presence nobody really gets any opportunity to stand out here.
In conclusion, I did enjoy the movie but it was mostly a case of me letting my mind wander and imagine what could have been. The world created is amazing and I really was in awe of some of the scenes and imagery present here. The story isn't going to win you over and neither are the characters. Unless you are a Tom Cruise fan of course. But if you are a fan of sci-fi then I would recommend it for the tech and beautiful world created alone. Just don't expect to be blown away by some mind bending plot.
Oblivion 6/10
I love sci-fi. It's safe to say at this point it's my favorite genre of movie. I love getting lost in thoughts of what could be. Films are an excellent way to lose yourself. A good film will make you let go of your worries and sink into it. Science fiction movies can pull this off best because they bring you places and show you things that you normally don't see. You can let go of reason. I've never held anything against a sci-fi film for stretching the limits of what's actually possible. I just let it be. If it's good it will own my attention in awe and wonder for the time I'm watching. Even if it's bad it can still present great ideas and gorgeous imagery that you don't see anywhere else.
Oblivion manages to evoke some of that awe but unfortunately the sacrifice of box office success by attaching Tom Cruise to the project dwindles it down into something that's good, but just a hint of what it could have been.
Where it works is in the world and mythology it builds. The post-apocalyptic world that Joseph Kosinksi brings to life (in his graphic novel first and then translated it to the screen himself) is so enthralling, I was amazed by that alone. It's a desolate wasteland, which isn't a completely original idea at this point, that's brought to life beautifully. At one point we follow along as one of the characters zips along on a futuristic motorcycle through the still showing suspension cables of a long buried bridge and it just looks amazing. The whole world is created so elegantly that it makes me happy that CGI has gotten to the point it has.
The technology here is great too. It's futuristic but it's not all shiny with that new car smell still lingering around. It's worn, which is fitting since the movies follows a maintenance crew of sorts, and things break. It adds a level of realism to ideas that aren't quite in the realm of possible right now. It's also nice that they never shove it in your face. There's no elaborate displays of what can be done or no gimmicky ways of introducing them. It's all presented in a very matter-of-fact manner, as if this has been regular life for the characters and we're just stopping by to have a look. It's how science fiction should be handled at all times.
The plot is where the movie starts to hit snags. The idea and reasoning for the post apocalyptic world we're witnessing is pretty standard fare but it does offer an interesting twist on the scenario. I won't go into too many details but it keeps twisting. Sometimes for the better, but mostly for the worst. I can't say I hated the plot but I feel it would have benefited more if it didn't hold it's cards so close to it's chest. The build up is done poorly enough that you can see everything coming before the story thinks it's actually time to let you in. It spends so much time trying to trick you that it forgets to stop and think about where it's going.
The worst part of the movie for me was in the casting. I could forgive the weak plot under the right circumstances and still consider this a great sci-fi film. But someone went and cast Tom Cruise and ruined the chances of that happening. Now I don't hate Tom Cruise, but he really bothers me. Mostly it's his need to own the screen whenever he's in frame (which happens to be a lot). He can't just play subtle or let the story take over. He needs to impose his short stature in wherever he can and make everything he's in his own vessel. I understand the studio wanting a name such as Cruises involved with a project like this to give it some star power and help with box office number. It's hard enough for sci-fi films to be widely accepted when you're title doesn't begin with the word "Star". But I whole heartily think that casting a lesser known actor in the main role, someone who's not going to try to steal every scene, would have worked out much better.
The rest of the cast and crew are okay but nothing amazing. The best would go to Melissa Leo in her small role in the film. Morgan Freeman is great as ever but he actually has very little screen time which bummed me out a little. But with the movie dominated by Tom Cruise's presence nobody really gets any opportunity to stand out here.
In conclusion, I did enjoy the movie but it was mostly a case of me letting my mind wander and imagine what could have been. The world created is amazing and I really was in awe of some of the scenes and imagery present here. The story isn't going to win you over and neither are the characters. Unless you are a Tom Cruise fan of course. But if you are a fan of sci-fi then I would recommend it for the tech and beautiful world created alone. Just don't expect to be blown away by some mind bending plot.
***************
And that's it again for another late blog post. Chances are next weeks won't be on time either as it is the long weekend coming up and I plan on heading out of town for some good ol' fashioned drankin in the woods. But I do plan on having Eberts Top 10 list finished this week and hopefully have reviews for The Great Gatsby and Start Trek up as well.
I'm also looking for feedback on the reviews I have posted thus far. I'll state again that this is all still a learning curve and I'm trying to figure this out as I go along, but I do feel like I start to ramble too much when I start writing a review. What do you think? Am I giving too much information? Too little?
I think I need to come up with a set format to stick to that I can apply to any film I review. Something on the shorter side as well. I recently read an article by Film Crit Hulk over at Badass Digest regarding reviews and it fits nicely into my feelings for movie trailers as well. That article can be found right here. It's had some influence on me as I write these reviews and I'm trying to come up with a style that really gives you nothing in forms of spoiler material as you watch movies.
And yes that is a writer that goes by the name Film Crit Hulk on a website with Badass in the title. And yes he is awesome. I highly recommend reading some of his stuff.
Thanks again for stopping by folks! Cheers!
No comments:
Post a Comment