The Hot Blog

The Swarm is the very reason why I have a phobia of bees and wasps.

...just throwin' that out there.

God I loved those Irwin Allen "all star" line-ups with the head shots in little boxes along the bottom of the posters. Good times.

The comics these movies are based on are hardly works of great literature - they're big loud fun for kids. Relatively simple storylines (basic good vs evil) with some personal angst and soap opera romance elements. If that's what they're going for, they're doing a great job.

It seems you're asking a superhero movie to be something it's not supposed to be.

Might want to hold off on that stock buy--Marvel is dragging its feet over rehiring Favreau for the sequel, and the fanboys are understandably in a froth. Without Favreau on board, their drumbeats of doom will kill IRON MAN 2.

BTW, I thought IRON MAN was great, though my only nitpick was that in the comic Stark was able to make the suit flatten out to the point where he could carry it around in a briefcase barely thick enough to hold a few magazines. Maybe in the next film.

So David - I'm guessing the Iron Man T-shirt you were sporting last night was meant Iron-ically?

since i walked into the theater expecting crap, i was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't as bad as anticipated....
these days that's all one can hope for, i guess...

WHile I think Towering Inferno was a step above the others I agree that Irwin created the same type of tentpole nonsense that Tim Story and Roland Emmerich submit us to today.

I'm in my 30s and still read comics. I haven't seen a leegit kid in a comic book store in 10 years. Comics stopped being for kids about 15 years ago. The best comics, and cartoons for that matter, always play to adults and just kind of sweep the kids along for the ride. How many grown women do you know who love The Little Mermaid and Alladin. Go to a comic-con and you see hardly any kids, mostly old guys who look like they are about to have a kid themselves.

Don't laugh, but if the Marvel and DC archetypes keep getting invented and re-invented in film, in comics and on TV throughout the next few decades, don't be surprised when Stan Lee gets labeled a modern Shakespeare.

Shakespeare took archetypes that had existed in theater for centuries - borrowing liberally from popular pieces of the time, in fact - and delivered them to the masses on familiar plates. I love, love, love me some Shakespeare, but the guy was part PT Barnum/Irwin Allen.

If you look at the major themes of Spider-Man, the Hulk, Batman, Superman, and even Iron Man, you see a lot of very relateable themes of family, alienation, heroics, hidden identities and all those heightened themes which relate to one's internal life.

There's a reason that Batman has been able to be interpreted and re-interpreted for decades now across many cultures. There's something there that, I would suggest, is the opposite of Irwin Allen. For his work, the characters are cookie-cutter and it's all about the slam-bang-explosions. For most comic book movies, even when they're all set pieces, it's because a lot of the work has already been done and people are coming into the theater wholly connected with the sturm and drang of the character - so getting to watch just the pure heroics side of it is fun.

They KNOW Banner is tortured and KNOW the Hulk is wish fulfillment and here's your cotton candy.

And, it's why - even though the character is pretty great and incredibly beloved by comic readers - the Punisher will never really be a $300 million success. Frank Castle may be tortured, but he's no Bruce Banner, Bruce Wayne or Peter Parker.

Re - keeping Favreau happy:

First off, this (and the decision to rush the sequel against the wishes of all involved) points out what has been successfully hidden in recent months: Marvel as a studio can be pretty dumb sometimes. Remember, this is the studio (along with Fox) that preferred a terrible and incomprehensible 96 minute PG-13 cut of Daredevil to a relatively solid and compelling 133 minute R-rated cut, purely on the basis of running time and simplicity (for what it's worth, the 120 minute cut of Fantastic Four is a lot better too, though I don't know who's to blame for that). This is also the company that demanded that Sam Raimi include Venom to Spider-Man 3, completely over his objections. And, this is also the studio that forced Ed Norton and Louis Leterrier to butcher their Incredible Hulk to a super-short 106 minutes. Granted, a full-blown 176 minute cut would have been excessive, but guess what new movie is being accused, even in positive reviews, of skimping on character development and drama?

Marvel may have gotten lucky with Iron Man and their plans for the next few years are incredibly ambitious, but their track record shows a long line of questionable judgment.

My own personal opinion is that Marvel should pay up and keep Favreau on board, both as a thanks for delivering a studio-creating film, and so as to not piss off the very geeks that will be standing in line with sleeping bags at 12:01am on April 30th, 2010.

And, most importantly for the health of the franchises and the studio, Marvel does NOT want to risk becoming this decade's Salkind Brothers, who managed to piss off every cast and crew member of Superman II by firing Richard Donner mid-way through and replacing him with Richard Lester for no particular reason other than greed and pettiness. Trust me Marvel, aside from all of the bad blood you will engender, you do not want Iron Man 2: The Jon Favreau Cut coming out in 2036.

tfresca, I notice you didn't mention Beauty and the Beast--my understanding is that there were a whole lotta women in the audience for that G-rated version of Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down.

Women dealing with psychotically possessive men must be another recurring theme.

Beauty And The Beast = Stockholm Syndrome: The Movie

"mediocre crap that appeals to a certain audience"

That certain audience (which is called "four quadrant") is about to propel Iron Man to a domestic $300m haul this weekend. Seems like a good model for today's audience.

I know genre films aren't your thing and that's cool, but it's amazing to me how you can put Ghost Rider and Iron Man on the same level. That's like being colorblind. There's just no comparison. 100 out of 100 people would say Iron Man is an infinitely better movie.

I think the word is 'splutter'.

Then again, I don't know the difference between Country Artist #1 and Country Artist #2. That's probably how it is with you and these kind of movies.

If Hostel, with its hacked up screaming rapes, was called torture porn, then Iron Man, with its dancing stewardess, Richie Rich gadgets and cheerful billionaire shallowness, must be considered playboy porn, right?

"Playboy Porn."

That's just too good.

Run with it.

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I don't think you've seen one of the movies you just mentioned.

Yeah, that must be a different Hostel. The second film was redundant, but the first one is still a quality film with interesting and subversive subtext. Some films would qualify as "torture porn" but Hostel isn't one of them.

I am a fan of labelling, say, Transformers or Pearl Harbor as military porn.

What movies do constitute Torture Porn?

The Saw movies.

I dislike the term, but if there's any series that would qualify, it's the Saw movies.

I knew Iron Man would be a little lifestyle-porny when the first trailer started with a shot of Stark arriving at Disney Hall in some kind of expensive car (they all look the same to me).

I am a fan of labelling Vivid Video movies as porn porn.

Porn about porn would actually be a different category, like AVN awards ceremonies or interviews with Larry Flynt.

I just Googled "playboy porn" to see if the term was used in the industry covarage this summer.

The search results indicate that...

a) The phrase is not in wide use as I have defined it.
b) The success of the films have nothing to do with posh lifestyles of Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne.
c) I can masturbate seventeen times in twenty minutes.

No seriously, you guys have been great.

"A New Generation of Junk" indeed. All to feed the industry's reactionary summer diet: comic book, franchise, remake, sequel, TV-based. Name-checking and Oscar-whoring to taste.

Heat is such a hater, that it's hilarious. Seriously... the guy just needs to go to Toronto now, because he's unnecessary as a film reviewer until September.

So I guess, unlike with Speed Racer, we won't be seeing any upcoming "Lunch With..." segments featuring any Hulk players, right? Funny how that works.

This will be a lance to David's heart -- 10 lances, really, but....

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117987417.html?categoryid=2508&cs=1&nid=2562

Jerry: that's the damn truth.

Let me also add that he's such a hater, that he totally misses out on aspects of films to such a degree. It perplexes me. He can disect the most inane fucking Oscar bait film, and gain some sort of insight from his discetion. Yet... Iron-Man... confounds the fucking guys. If there was ever a dicotomy between Summer David and Fall David. This would be it.

I'm with Poland on the Hulk, but not Iron Man.

*Norton undersold all his humorous lines.
*The Hulk is not and has never been King Kong. The Hulk is about a man trapped by the beast, not a beast trapped by man. This film is essentially King Kong.

(And I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man. It was a popcorn flick, no art to it, but pure enjoyment start to finish.)

I think Ms. Thompson's 1,4,5,8, and 9 are all paramount.

The most troublesome and frustrating portion of The Incredible Hulk is the absolute lack of chemistry between Norton and Tyler. This is where the neutering of the material is most obvious. In Ang Lee's flawed but interesting film, the relationship between Banner and Ross was messy, complicated, and adult. There were hints of romantic discord, the tinniest hint of past abuse, but they truly loved each other as human companions and friends. Jennifer Connelly's Betty Ross was a completely three-dimensional character with her own wants and goals, her own ideas and ambitions, and her own demons. Not so here.

Liv Tyler's Betty Ross is only a love interest, a prize to be won in a battle between her boyfriend and her father. She is reduced to the most conventional sort of love interest, existing only to drop her life to aid her long-lost lover without the slightest regard, making moon eyes at her man because the story gives her nothing else to do. She literally has not a line of dialogue for the first thirty-seven minutes, and almost none of her dialogue is anything other than the usual 'No!', 'Don't hurt him!', and 'Help!' variety. While Connelly was an intelligent and independent scientist, Tyler is never once shown doing anything scientific, and it's almost impossible to believe that she is an educator. Jessica Alba's Sue Storm from the Fantastic Four films is a more credible scientific genius, since we actually see her partaking in science from time to time. Even for this genre, the thin and empty role given to the female lead is rather pathetic. Apparently, and this is the disturbing part, making a film more appealing to the masses means not allowing 'the girl' to be anything other than 'a girl'.

The finished film is proof that Norton and Letterier were right in their fight with Marvel. And, in hindsight, it's a good thing that Norton and Letterier's fights went public, because now no one can blame them for this unfortunate result. It's so thin and so dumb that it is actually far more boring than the admittedly bloated 2003 Hulk. Ironically, this just proves Roger Ebert's old rule: no good film is ever too long and no bad film is ever too short. Even at it's truncated 110 minute running time, The Incredible Hulk is much too long.

No art to IRON-MAN? No art to the EXTREMIS ARMOUR? NO ART TO THE FREAKIN ARC GENERATION? No art to the way the CGI was made? You and your definitions are very tired. I would hope in the future you would possibly open your eyes more and realize even a comic book movie... can be made up of great art. Oh. I forgot. The only movies made of great art come out between September and December. Yeah. Right.

That aside Jeffy Mac... I am down with #10 being the real deal. This movie is easily 10 to 20 years ahead of it's time. If time does not look kindly on it. Well, really, we have become a bunch of assholes in those 10 to 20 years :D.

Oh yeah Scott: Betty works that way in the comic a lot of times. So they just played into an aspect of the comic to slim returns in your mind. Nevertheless; no one wants to fucking see the HULK in any other movie besides this one. A flick where HULK beats the fuck out everyone, has some moments of reflection, then beats the fuck out of everyone again. This is why the HULK will work better with the Avengers then by himself.

So... virtually every critic loved Iron Man (best reviewed film of the year last time I checked) and so do audiences (holding up far better than DP predicted, on its way to $300 million).

Why can't you just admit you're wrong about the film? Just admit your tastes are different than the vast majority, including those who know a great deal about film. You're missing something they saw, plain and simple.

Why give Poland so much crap for IM? His review might have been harsher than necessary, but that doesn't mean he was wrong. There are different kinds of review techniques, and while Poland's doesn't write from the populous perspective, he's neither a snob. How the hell some of you cannot gleam that Dave is looking for that perfect blend of commercial artistry says more about how low your standards are than how high are his.

The perfect example of this is IO. Look at his argument for art in IM; to point out individual artistic measures when anyone with a working neuron knows White Label was referring to the overall production's approach. There's an art to each era of Batman, to Singer's Superman, Ang's Hulk, that does not exist in most other superhero films - but that doesn't mean these artistic attempts were triumphs over IM, Spider-Man, X-Men, Inc. Hulk, etc...which is what Dave is reffering to with Irwin Allen. Artistry on a superficial level.

But if Poland rails on it, then IO and co. come out guns blazing making the same insepid arguments. If he's non-plussed, then IO and co. take it as a victory and begin to circle-jerk to the same tired points. So he writes a review where he encapsulates Marvel's overall approach because when it comes to Inc. Hulk, there's no there there, on an even lesser scale then IM. And what's the response? IM's box office.

And yes, IO, I single you out because your arguments are subjectives stated as facts. Look at your apology for the weakened Betty portrayal - because that's the way it was in the comics? Did it ever occur to you, once, that in the hour+ edited out, went her performance? Do you really think Liv Tyler would sign on for such a truncated role when she gets steady work offers? Do you understand the interests of the talent - actual personal interests no matter how trivial or contradictory - supersedes whatthefuckever was written in the decades of comic material. The Abomination is the quintessential example.

And if the current choices for Cap America are any indication, Dave's exactly right to say that this ride will be coming to an end. Once the starf*king begins, budgets get out of control and it all falls apart. Go ask WB.

Yes, it was because of that missing hour that I was careful not to directly criticize Tyler's performance. It may or may not be her fault. William Hurt was lousy and I'm a huge fan of his. But I can't judge Tyler because she had nothing to work with, especially compared to Jennifer Connelly.

I guess I'm the only one who thinks Matthew McConaughey would be perfect for CAPTAIN AMERICA...

People give McConaughey a lot of crap, but when he's actually trying, he's a completely credible actor. See Frailty, Sahara (yes, it's fun, the stunts are real, the action is inventive, and the character actors involved are having a blast), Contact, or even A Time To Kill (I hate that movie with a passion, but it's not the actors' faults).

McConaughey just needs his Changing Lanes or Hollywoodland. He'd actually make a fine Captain America (he'd certainly make a very good Steve Rogers, which is probably more important).

Martin: you can single me out, but you would not like it if I singled you out. So watch yourself. That being stated; I went with a broad argument.

You also fail to realize that "the way it is in the comic" is not a cop-out. It's the way this film was edited together. It's not my fault Martin, in your entire shiny life, that you have never read a Hulk comic. It's not my fault that you lack the ability to understand that a comic book movie is based on a comic book and occassionally these movies follow the comics better than others. The HULK is just another example of this. If Liv Tyler thought she would have more. Well... it's called a DVD you moneky. Look for it in October.

You have portrayed yourself as someone who works in the industry. Good for you. While you are not helping LEX get his sag card. You might want to realize that some of us actually are not talking out of our asses -- unlike you in your above response -- and decide to responsd to post in an entirely different way.

Again, calling me out, is not only moronic. It demonstrates a lack of comprehension of anything I have ever posted about Iron-Man. I called (figuratively of course) Heat out on Iron-Man almost two months ago. I also wrote a long ass post ripping apart every bullshit statement he made about Iron-Man in his review.

So call out someon you can take on. Not someone who pointed out in this thread that Heat is absolutely pointless as a movie critic during the Summer. He is either too angry at fucking Drew and Harry for making a living, or he simply hates geeks for ruining the world. Whateverthecase... go take care of your clients and leave the bullshit to someone whose not as professional as you claim to be.

His name is Jason Lewis. He would be a perfect Captain America. Mattie Mac is simply... too Mattie Mac to be taken seriously as a Cap. Marvel would have nothing but bad word of mouth on this flick for a year, or until they put out a freakin worthwhile trailer. Nevertheless, would any of you people really buy into Mattie Mac being in TWO SUMMER TENT-POLE FILMS in 2010/1?

Yikes, Jason Lewis? He has the look, but if he gets the role he needs to hook up with a vocal coach. He's got a weak, sort of nasally voice (of course, so did Tom Cruise in Top Gun, so maybe no one cares but me). I thought he did okay in his recent guest shot on House, but he was pretty bad on Charmed (haven't seen his SATC appearances).

Not sure I see McConaughey either, but I'll concur with Scott that the man can be quite good (and it's nice to see that someone besides me and wacky Armond White liked Sahara -- I've been questioning my sanity on that one).

Saw it last night.

It's pretty much the opposite of Ang Lee's version. Lots of action and not a lot of talk/plot but that doesn't make it a good movie though. I guess I liked it more than Lee's version, since I didn't fall asleep in this one. But then again, it's impossible to fall asleep with all the explosion they tried to do.

Am I the only person who thinks Liv Tyler isn't much of an actress? She is very attractive and good to look at, but she looked so out of place here.

forget mcconaughey, 'saraha' has the one and only steve zahn...zahn as 'captain america'...now that would be interesting, not just another lame-ass pretty boy hero, someone unique with personality and humour...yeah, when snowballs roll in hell

leah - I'm sure some people said the same before Keaton was cast as Batman and Downey was cast as Iron Man. But yeah, Zahn is a stretch. Really cool idea though.

I wonder how they're going to manage the transformation from scrawny Donald Blake to the god of Thunder in the eventual Thor movie? An actual scrawny guy as Blake, who is then CGI enhanced to become more Thor-like?

yeah, keaton and downey jr certainly buck the trend...funny that they are probably my fave superdudes of cinema. in burton's original, i still get chills when keaton says, 'i'm batman'.

Yancy: I agree Lewis could use a vocal coach, but he came across rather BUTCH on Brothers and Sisters. That's right. I roll with Nora Walker.

Back on topic to the superheroes: Thor is supposed to be Thor for most of the movie. If I remember the script review properly. If they indeed use that script. This is why Marvel, at one time, wanted Triple-H as Thor. This leads to me wondering how in the Hell they pull Thor off without it being all a bit silly.

there will NEVER be a better thor than vincent d'onofrio in 'adventures in babysitting'.......never.....jus' sayin'...

lol, scoot, i can see him right now (in my head, that is...)

Io - So watch yourself.

Puh-leaze.

in your entire shiny life, that you have never read a Hulk comic.

Ohmygod...is this where I'm supposed to show my bona fides so you can derail this into a pissing match?

It's not my fault that you lack the ability to understand that a comic book movie is based on a comic book and occassionally these movies follow the comics better than others.

Look, I see what you're getting at - the conceit in the film is similar to certain comic issues, but your opinion is not proof that this was intentional. What is factual is that 70+ minutes were excised after it went through the hands of six different editors. While one or two is somewhat normal, six means there's a problem. We already know that the lab test was trimmed to the credits, so that carved out Tyler's portrayal of Betty as scientist, something that never existed in the 50+ years of the comic, including the Ultimates. Combine that with the character changes made to Abomination and Leader, and it argues that the intent was to follow the Spider-Man/X-men movie formula moreso than any comic.

The HULK is just another example of this. If Liv Tyler thought she would have more. Well... it's called a DVD you moneky. Look for it in October.

This is your argument? Really? I thought this would be fun, but you can't even spell monkey.

You have portrayed yourself as someone who works in the industry. Good for you. While you are not helping LEX get his sag card. You might want to realize that some of us actually are not talking out of our asses -- unlike you in your above response -- and decide to responsd to post in an entirely different way.

WTF are you talking about? JeffMC, Nicol, - can anyone decipher this?

Again, calling me out, is not only moronic. It demonstrates a lack of comprehension of anything I have ever posted about Iron-Man. I called (figuratively of course) Heat out on Iron-Man almost two months ago. I also wrote a long ass post ripping apart every bullshit statement he made about Iron-Man in his review.

Yeah first, it's "Iron Man". Adding the hyphen makes him the superhero to dry cleaners. I did read your IM posts. And I do remember you having an interesting point amid the rambles, but the fact that you once again bring up your perceived "triumph" just proves my initial point; you are not here to do anything more than ride Dave.

So call out someon you can take on. Not someone who pointed out in this thread that Heat is absolutely pointless as a movie critic during the Summer. He is either too angry at fucking Drew and Harry for making a living, or he simply hates geeks for ruining the world. Whateverthecase... go take care of your clients and leave the bullshit to someone whose not as professional as you claim to be.

Wow. Dave's angry, huh? Hello kettle, I'm the pot.

So what this is about is that at some point over at AICN, you came to believe that Poland was the enemy of the geeks and now you've come here to prove him wrong, or - no one gave a shit as to what you were saying at AICN, so you dropped in here to pollute this blog. Great.

As for Thor - Marvel was never after Triple H. He pimped himself for it by getting the stupid hammer and Marvel entertained him as to not be a-holes. It's the same nonsense LeVesque pulled with Conan. He has less range than The Rock. Vaughn wants an actor. Odds are that it will be a Euro.

Martin: you should still not play because all of that was a bunch of bladiblah blah blah as the Dutch would say. Thanks for playing, try again next time, and scoot we agree about something.

IO,

You have a really bad case of J-MCitis, whereas you cannot be a human being and admit when you're wrong.

You also use the same tactic of dismissing others words instead of keeping an open mind. Which is very contradictory with the passion and preachiness you push towards being better to humanity when discussing Obama and other matters of importance (something I agree with and give you "dap" for).

I like you because we share similar tastes, but Martin S is probably a lot higher in the industry than you give credit for, and I feel maybe some respect is in order?

We all give you a pass, because we all assume you're not even 21 yet, but man, show some respect when it's due and instead of saying:

"You should not play..."

Maybe try something a little more considerate.

Such as "Interesting, I hadn't considered that"

Hopefully, you won't take this as an attack, but rather as a buddy trying to pull you aside after a few too many and trying to remind you of your surroundings...

This time, you got owned.

thx -- once called out, he will never respond...and that is how he 'plays'.... i can't believe this guy gets a pass.....

Please, leave me out of this one.

Sorry, Jeff.

THX - I'm not looking for any undeserved respect. I'm just tired of coming here and seeing this guy running his mouth about everything like the MCN authority. We have all done it at some point in our internet lives, but he's like some annoying throwback to the old Usenet days. And the thing is, I don't think he's under 21.

He gets a pass because he's got heart.

Sorry, Jeff. I needed a quick analogy that would hit home. You've actually been a lot better.

Martin S; as I've said before, you're my favorite poster here. So I've always got your back even with those I consider amigos...(which is pretty much everyone here)

"He gets a pass because he's got heart."

and it wouldn't surprise me to find out it belongs to someone else and sits in a jar on his desk......

Congratulations Scooter,

You have just performed an awesome transition from Movie Critic to Troll. No small feat especially for someone of your age.

I could match your snark & snideness with a crack about how you always cry "homophobe" when a straight has feedback about the Gay community or says they don't like rainbows; (it's in the same vein as the way Spike Lee cries "racist" at Clint & other filmmakers) - but Id rather engage in a conversation with you about movies.

See how uncool it is to say hurtful things to your fellow man?

Now, can we all just play together and keep an open mind & discourse when discussing this artform? Shit, who knows, instead of all of us trying to prove we're right, from some human wide insecure place, (myself included) we might just learn something about Movies and TV & general storytelling if we'd all practice a need to be kind, rather than a need to be right.

Okay; Im off my soapbox. Feel free to throw the tomatoes and shoes..

& I love ya Scoot! Don't be mad! & Dont be a troll ;)

it was a joke, thx --- a riff on the old stephen king quote, 'i have the heart of a small boy...and i keep it in a jar on my desk'......
just a literary reference, so simma down....
but, in all honesty, i think io gets more of a pass than deserved....
jus' sayin'....

and just ftr---- as much as io bugs the living shit out of me, i would probably miss his ungrammatical. misspelled posts immensly if he disappeared........

I agree with you, Scooter. There's been an amazing amount of tolerance for somebody who will whip out the c-word with unfortunate regularity. I like him as a character too, but he gets away with a lot.

All of you...

SIMMA DOWN!

And that "heart" joke belongs to Mr. Robert Bloch.

Oh and SIMMA DOWN!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)