There’s been a recent trend in the last five years or so in superhero filmmaking where directors feel the need to say their movie is cut from a different cloth. It’s not only a blockbuster, it’s just dressed up like one. Whether it was “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” as a ’70s-style paranoid thriller or (my personal favorite) James Mangold’s “Logan” as “an Ozu film with mutants,” the implication is that being a superhero movie on its face is shameful – or not enough.
This long-winded intro is just a set up to say that Peyton Reed’s “Ant-Man and the Wasp” finds success by being something besides a Marvel, only that something is a type of film that actually meshes quite well with a super suit. It’s a Paul Rudd movie! The star, who also shares a co-writing credit on the film, infuses his charming, witty energy into all facets of the project. Before the self-aware smugness of “Deadpool” and the commercially-motivated universe building of “The Avengers,” comic book movies could be like this. (You know, eons ago … like 2008 with the first “Iron Man.”)
“Ant-Man and the Wasp” is wonderfully self-contained, driven less by the need to connect to some grand five-picture arc and more by the immediate concerns of the story. Rudd’s Scott Lang wants to be cleared from his house arrest following the events of “Captain America: Civil War,” yet the urgent call of duty with Michael Douglas’ Hank Pym and Evangeline Lilly’s Wasp threatens to undo years of his patience in exile. As with many of these films, the real joy is in their group banter – especially whenever Scott lacks the knowledge or information that his counterparts possess.
Reed ditches some of the “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”-style cheekiness about size and scale that dominated the first “Ant-Man,” which might have been a holdover from Edgar Wright’s involvement with the series. The film compensates for the loss of that humor with more Rudd being Rudd, a welcome thing be it a Marvel movie or a David Wain romp. While it might not be enough to completely overcome a lackluster villain, relatively generic fight scenes, and total underuse of Michelle Pfeiffer, it’s still better than watching Marvel’s carousel of white guys named Chris play tough and moody. B /
“Ant-Man,” the final piece in Marvel’s so-called “Phase Two” of their Cinematic Universe, invites us all to do what I have done for the past five years: not to take any of this too seriously. With the constantly winking and self-effacing charm of Paul Rudd (and co-writer Adam McKay), the best Marvel movie in years is ironically the one that spits in the face of what the studio signifies.
This is the first film from the comic book behemoth since the original “Iron Man” back in 2008 that feels entirely sufficient as a film in its own right, not just a placeholder for the next super-sized sequel. Granted, some of that might be a response to its iffy economic viability at the green-lighting stage of the process (and some concerns over authorship following the departure of writer/director Edgar Wright and his screenwriting partner Joe Cornish). Nonetheless, “Ant-Man” earns a second installment by virtue of its tongue-in-cheek spirit and fun sense of scale.
Rather than set up some cataclysmic battle of the fates where the powers of good do battle with a terrifying evil that beams a big blue light up into the sky, “Ant-Man” builds up to a fight between two men for one important thing. This climax engages rather than numbs (as “Avengers” final acts tend to do) because it takes place on the human level where the rest of the film registers. It also helps that the final clash is essentially the only major one in the movie, going against Marvel’s general tendency to throw in a major action set piece every 30 minutes or so to placate the thrill-seekers in the audience.
And every time it seems like “Ant-Man” is turning into a conveyer belt of Marvel tropes, Paul Rudd’s humor kicks in to disrupt the moment and make a joke at the studio’s expense. He plays on admittedly shorter leash than someone like Judd Apatow or David Wain gives him, but his sardonic wit proves a welcome reprieve of Marvel’s faux gravitas that proves suffocating in their more commercial products.
There was a decent chunk at the beginning of “Haywire” when I was totally drawn in not by anything in the script or the story … but by Steven Soderbergh’s unique visual sensibilities. And all of a sudden, it actually begin to sink in that the director actually intends to retire from the craft of cinema and what a loss that could be to the film community.
Soderbergh’s canon of films ranges from the heist films of the “Oceans” series to the zany genre-bending intrigue tale of “The Informant!” to immensely moving biopics like “Erin Brockovich” to hyperlink cinema like “Traffic” to tense thrillers like “Contagion” and even into strange experimentation with whatever the heck “The Girlfriend Experience” was supposed to be. (Oh, and he also oversaw some movie about magic where Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey showed their butts.)
In just this one sequence where the protagonist of “Haywire,” played to dull effect by MMA fighter non-actress Gina Carano,” escapes from her captors, there are flashes of almost all of his different movies. They share a similar rhythm and vibe, achieved in a perfect harmony of cinematography, editing, and sound. It’s truly remarkable that across so many genres and types of filmmaking, something feels like it’s coming from a single mind.
Now just because he has unified conventions doesn’t mean that they always work or redeem an otherwise poor movie. Such is the case for “Haywire,” an action thriller that does some clever presentation and narrative organizing to brush up a conventional narrative. Perhaps the medium is the message for Soderbergh, and his mere repackaging of familiar elements is the point in and of itself. But the film just always feels like an all-too familiar experience.
Soderbergh does succeed in making it slick (for the ladies, he did get the eye candy of Michael Fassbender and Channing Tatum for brief scenes) and subversively political, though. Yet these victories seem small while watching and seem even smaller in retrospect. Watch some of Soderbergh’s elegant sequences that have the grace of a ballerina on YouTube some day and skip “Haywire.” It doesn’t go fully, well, haywire … but there’s got to be some new cinematic voice or story you can use your 90 minutes to hear and see. C+ /
I have no problem with Hollywood approaching the 2008 financial collapse; look no further than my “A” for Charles Ferguson’s documentary “Inside Job.” But it’s a slippery slope to walk on, and Oliver Stone’s slanted “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” does a total face-plant as its blatantly pointed activism destroys any legitimacy the movie might have. Compared to Ferguson’s fascinating investigation and research, Stone’s allegory is a cowardly and vicious attack on the system of greed that the original film highlighted in 1987.
There was no reason to resurrect Michael Douglas’ Oscar-winning character Gordon Gekko at all, and Stone’s haste to use him as an instrument in unleashing a tirade against Wall Street renders his transformation senseless. In the first film, he was a slimy representation of greed and excess, and an antagonist meant to be deplored. Yet in 2010, he has been conveniently reassigned to the voice of the writer and his liberal sensibilities. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this move just doesn’t work under the basic conventions of storytelling.
The movie’s main plot is mostly independent of Gekko, tying him in through a broken relationship with his daughter Winnie (Carey Mulligan). She’s engaged to Jake (Shia LaBeouf), a young upstart banker who gets caught up in the idea of creating something from nothing that he ultimately winds up without anything. After the suicide of his mentor, he finds himself reeling and very lost.
Sure, it has its entertaining moments, but the whole movie just reeks of a misplaced sense of political vindication. Stone doesn’t challenge, inform, or educate, and there’s nothing left for the audience to ponder. The deranged manifesto that is “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” is just a series of thinly veiled pot-shots on everyone involved in the financial meltdown, less based on the facts than on the opinions and convictions of its hardly neutral filmmakers. C- /
Michael Douglas, like most skilled actors, can deliver good performances in his sleep, but these types of actors are only exciting to watch when they try something different or really put in the work to elevate their performance. In “Solitary Man,” it seemed to me like Douglas was sleepwalking through the entire movie.
It’s really a shame because this could have been a great role for him. Fascinating performances often arise when actors take parts that reflect where they are in life, particularly at milestone ages. From child to teen, from youth to adulthood, from young to middle-aged, and for Douglas, from middle-aged to the age of mortality. The theme of confronting old age is particularly eerie to watch now given Douglas’ fight with cancer.
Yet while all the components are there, something just doesn’t add up. I wouldn’t attribute it all to Douglas; the film’s plot is pretty weak and the self-examination severely underdeveloped. This is such a rich topic, but the movie only brushes the surface. Douglas’ Ben Kalmen struggles with a lot of things: his loneliness, his infidelity, his fall from grace in business, his desire to stay young, among others.
The psychological struggle is all provided by Douglas, not at all by the script. Nowhere is there a great line for us to chew on or a particularly interesting plot development to leave us reeling. There’s just predictable old plot gimmicks that run for 90 minutes, which hardly feels adequate for Douglas to give the character much depth.
He gets no help from an impressively cast ensemble including the likes of Susan Sarandon, Jenna Fischer, Jesse Eisenberg, and Mary-Louise Parker. The writers don’t bother to give any sort of depth to these supporting actors; they might as well have just abandoned names altogether and called the characters “aging ex-wife,” “young new girlfriend,” and “beautiful daughter.” There’s so much “Solitary Man” could have been, but not even Michael Douglas can save it from becoming an entirely forgettable snooze. C /
Back in the beginning of September, I pondered Michael Douglas’ Oscar chances given all the sympathy stemming from his very public fight against cancer (and the fact that he was getting good notes).
Three people think Douglas could cash in on the sympathy and get a Best Actor nomination while three think he won’t. I hesitate to publish a split vote, but it’s pretty much where I stand as well. Given the movie’s lackluster box office showing and mediocre critical reception, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” doesn’t really seem to stand a chance. But good performances have been nominated from sequels that didn’t light the world on fire – for example, Cate Blanchett for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.”
So while a nomination isn’t out of the question, I’d say before precursors hit, it’s highly unlikely.
Fincher followed up the resounding success of “Se7en” with 1997’s “The Game,” a cerebral thriller that was received notably less well both financially and critically.
I made the slight complaint with “Se7en” that I had seen a similar premise done a little bit better. With “The Game,” I have a similar grievance. The movie was, in essence, the same as the 2008 paranoid thriller “Eagle Eye” with much lower stakes and much less intrigue. Both involve people getting played by some system bigger than they can comprehend, and both follow the struggles of the people trying to escape the oppression of this omniscient system.
Michael Douglas headlines as banking mogul Nicholas Van Orton, a man who has chosen money over relationships. He is estranged from his younger brother Conrad (Sean Penn) and let his relationship with his most recent wife fall by the wayside. The problems can all be traced back to his father’s suicide while he was a young boy, and the effects of the life-shattering decision continue to affect him decades later.
But things all change after a mysterious birthday gift turns into an all-encompassing game designed to challenge his priorities. Reality begins to blur in this game, although not as intensely as it does in a movie like “Inception.” Van Orton feels mildly disoriented and wonders whether every suspect thing in his life is happening because of the game. Eventually, his anxieties lead him to demand answers from the organization that set up this game.
By no means am I saying that “The Game” isn’t good. The premise keeps us interested the whole time, although the ending is wholly unsatisfying because it wraps up way too neatly. Fincher’s attempt to recreate a very tense atmosphere of terror just isn’t quite as effective as it is in “Se7en,” and the paranoia is totally missing. This thriller lacks any sort of thrill, making it little more than just a series of events with the hope of a bigger twist waiting at the end.
You absolutely have to love Michael Douglas now. The man is in the fight of his life against Stage 4 throat cancer, and he’s talking about it openly to millions of Americans on late night television. Now that’s courage.
Here’s what doctors have to say about Douglas’ future:
Doctors say the therapy is grueling. Many patients develop painful mouth sores that require morphine-like narcotic pain relievers, says Robert Haddad, an oncologist with the head and neck cancer program at Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Radiation also can burn the throat, which makes it painful to swallow. About half of patients require a feeding tube, says Haddad, who has no personal knowledge of Douglas’ case.
Despite the side effects, Haddad says, Douglas’ long-term quality of life “should be excellent.”
Although the treatment is tough, it can cure 50% to 80% of patients, depending on the location and other details of the tumor, he says.
Douglas appears optimistic, and everyone in America will certainly be cheering when he beats cancer. But will the Academy be cheering with everyone?
Will an unintended side effect of Douglas’ treatment be an Oscar nomination? While we are expecting him to make it through, recovery is not 100% certain. Just think of how many Oscar nominations have been given to people that we have been afraid are going to leave us – Hal Halbrook, Ruby Dee, and Christopher Plummer, just to name a few.
Douglas also has two horses in the stable for an Oscar run this year: the critically acclaimed indie “Solitary Man” and the sequel to the 1987 movie that won him an Oscar, “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.” Having a really good year is always a big plus for the Academy, who often like to reward several performances through one nomination. Case in point: Kate Winslet in 2008 for “The Reader” but also for “Revolutionary Road” and Leonardo DiCaprio in 2006 for “Blood Diamond” but also for “The Departed.” (NOTE: One actor cannot receive two nominations in the same category.)
“Wall Street” represents his best chance seeing as “Solitary Man” was released by a very small company that can’t afford a big enough campaign. Some have speculated that he will be in the Supporting Actor category for this effort, perhaps to run Shia LaBeouf for leading. I can’t really see this happening; I think the most likely outcome will be a co-lead push for LaBeouf and Douglas. He’s solid as always, early word says. According to Variety‘s Justin Chang, “Older, grayer and perhaps a touch less snakelike, Douglas is still insinuatingly good, and his performance lays the groundwork for the film’s one spectacularly cynical twist.” I’d say he has a great shot, and the somber spotlight (sadly) only helps.
A funny note, no one has ever won two competitive Oscars for the same role. In 1946, Harold Russell, a World War II veteran, won Best Supporting Actor for his role in “The Best Years of Our Lives” and an honorary Oscar for inspiring hope. And the role of Vito Corleone in “The Godfather” saga has given Oscars to two actors, Marlon Brando in 1972 and Robert DeNiro in 1974.
As for the rest of the movie’s chances, it gets pretty spotty. Here’s Guy Lodge of In Contention after seeing the premiere at Cannes back in May, offering what I see as a pretty accurate representation of feelings toward the movie from across the board:
“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” is one of the more pleasantly surprising studio pictures of the year thus far, and a significant improvement on its po-faced (and, 23 years on, now fearsomely dated) predecessor. If the sequel could never have been deemed “necessary,” it’s certainly as handily timed as can be. As the original served as dumb but not ineffective allegory for the coke-fuelled iniquities of 1980s capitalism, the new film not only does the same for credit-crunch sobriety in the post-2000s, but allows Stone his “Toldja!” moment to boot.
Oliver Stone has two Oscars for Best Director already, so I say there’s no chance that he even gets nominated. Best Picture is not entirely out of the question, although I wonder if “The Social Network” will fill the movie of the moment quota. I can see an outside possibility for Shia LaBeouf, but odds are he’s too young and people haven’t forgotten that he’s been in the “Indiana Jones” and “Transformers” series.
Everyone loves Carey Mulligan, and like Douglas, she has two performances in play this year (the other coming from this week’s release “Never Let Me Go”). They are much more likely to recognize her for the other movie, but if reception for that is tepid, she could sneak into Best Supporting Actress.
BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor (Douglas)
OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress (Mulligan)
M. Night Shyamalan give us his most mainstream movie yet with “The Last Airbender.” Due to James Cameron’s mildly successful film “Avatar,” the Nickelodeon series opted to use only the last part of its name to avoid confusion (although you could make some good money from dumb moviegoers under the impression they’re seeing “Avatar 2”). It got the quickie 3D conversion slapped on in the past months, which means I’m sticking to 2D here if I even see it at all. I’m worried that some backlash against the conversion could wind up really hurting this movie. But even before I knew about the added dimension, I couldn’t get myself too excited. No matter how extravagant and enormous they make it look, it’s still a Nickelodeon series. I have mixed feelings for Shyamalan; the only movie of his I actually liked was “The Sixth Sense.” I don’t know anyone in the cast save for Dev Patel, better known as Jamal Malik from “Slumdog Millionaire,” and he may end up being what draws me in to see it.
Sometimes I don’t catch everything when it is initially released, particularly indies. I want to give them their fair shake, so I’m going to feature movies when they open in my hometown if I missed them before. The first of these movies is “Solitary Man” starring Michael Douglas and thank heavens it’s not Michael Cera (that’s code for Jesse Eisenberg). In her glowing review of the movie, Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly called this, not “Wall Street 2,” Douglas’ best shot for Oscar glory. The story seems friendly enough and the character seems an Oscar type. Rounding out the ensemble are Jenna Fischer (“The Office”), Susan Sarandon, Danny DeVito, and Mary-Louise Parker, so it seems pretty audience friendly too.
July 9
I’ll get to the mainstream fare later. First, I must cover the indie comedy hit of the summer, “The Kids Are All Right.” More to come later in an “Oscar Moment,” but expect it to make a splash a la “Little Miss Sunshine” and “(500) Days of Summer.”
Adrien Brody steps back into the horror arena after … let’s just say, going places in “Splice.” This time, he’s rebooting the “Predator” franchise along with Laurence Fishburne and Topher Grace. “Predators” proudly flashes the name of producer Robert Rodriguez. But here’s what I want to know – will sequel/reboot/remake fatigue catch up with moviegoers by July and kill this movie?
I’m so excited for the release of “Despicable Me.” Not because I want to see it, but because I’m so tired of seeing the stupid trailers with every movie I have seen for the past year. My guess is families will still be choosing “Toy Story 3” over this. Not even Julie Andrews can save a movie that proudly boasts the participation of an executive producer from the “Ice Age” series as if they had Steven Spielberg.
If you are looking for some shaky-cam horror, “[Rec] 2” comes out. Strangely enough, I must have missed “[Rec]” 1. But I did know about the predecessor to “The Girl Who Played with Fire,” the big indie of 2010 so far, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.”
Opening in Houston on July 9 is “Restrepo,” the winner of the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance for documentary features. It takes a look at the grittiest and most intense location of fighting in Iraq and its effect on the soldiers who fight there.
Meanwhile, opening two days earlier to get out the way is “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” Jerry Bruckheimer’s latest blockbuster. It starts Nicolas Cage as the sorcerer and Jay Baruchel as his apprentice. I’ve been saying for quite a while now that Baruchel needs a big breakout; maybe he will get it with this once people match his face to the voice in “How to Train Your Dragon.” On the Nicolas Cage front, the role seems kind of kooky. Perhaps this is his Jack Sparrow? I may end up seeing this solely for villain Alfred Molina, who rocked Doc Ock in “Spider-Man 2.”
Officially released on June 18 but not hitting Houston until July 16 is “The Killer Inside Me,” starring Casey Affleck and Kate Hudson. Apparently it’s based on one of the most brutally violent and disturbing stories ever. I’ll trust Kubrick here.
July 23
I’m hoping “Salt” becomes this summer’s “Wanted.” Just an enjoyable, action-packed movie that doesn’t try to wow you, only entertain you. Angelina Jolie makes one BA action heroine … or villain, depending on what happens in this movie.
Kiddie fare comes for the third straight weekend with “Ramona and Beezus,” starring Disney Channel sweetheart Selena Gomez. This could do well because it’s an adaptation of the beloved series that has been around for decades, and it has an impressive adult cast including Sandra Oh, Bridget Moynahan, John Corbett, and Josh Duhamel. Then again, it could also just fade into the mist of the other kids movies.
Opening on the indie side of things is “Life During Wartime” starring Allison Janney.
July 30
I’m honestly scared of “Dinner for Schmucks.” I love both Paul Rudd and Steve Carell to death, and the plot here just reeks of a bomb. My worst fear is that this and “The Other Guys” become the “Land of the Lost”/”Year One” comedy flop combo of 2010. Maybe Zach Galifianakis can save it…
Meanwhile, there’s some good indie drama with “Get Low,” starring Robert Duvall. See my Oscar Moment for further commentary.
Can July save the summer? Will “Inception” rule the roost? What will be the BEST movie of the month? Let me know by taking the poll … DEADLINE IS JUNE 25.
Last night, I had a very bizarre dream involving movies. I don’t know why on earth I would have this dream, but nonetheless, I had it.
In my dream, Michael Douglas killed Shia LaBeouf in the new “Wall Street” movie. It was a violent strangling, but I woke up before I got to see too much of it.
Given that Shia is playing Douglas’ potential son-in-law, I doubt it will happen. But if I just foretold the future, then … I don’t know what I’ll do.
(P.S. – Someone looked at another factoid where I described a random movie dream, Random Factoid #192. If you’re interested in what I think about while I sleep, it’s worth a look.)
“
Looks like we’ve got a hung jury.
Fincher followed up the resounding success of “Se7en” with 1997’s “The Game,” a cerebral thriller that was received notably less well both financially and critically.
Last night, I had a very bizarre dream involving movies. I don’t know why on earth I would have this dream, but nonetheless, I had it.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments