Contagion

Steven Soderbergh recently announced that he will be leaving filmmaking (at least temporarily) to concentrate on painting. After seeing Contagion, and taking into consideration some of his recent work, it might be good for Soderbergh to take a little break, before he ends up becoming the Neil Young of the film world, releasing everything he can, even if it's mediocre.

Contagion is an ensemble piece that focuses around one specific thing - a new disease that pops up, which, over time, claims millions of lives, and the fight to stop it. To try and explain how each of the leads (people like Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne, and more) is connected would take longer than I care to give it. Much like Traffic (another of Soderbergh's ensemble pieces), the interconnectivity of the characters can be inconsequential at times, but there's so many of them, trying to explain it would be tedious and confusing.

What's my gripe about Contagion? Well, put simply, a lot happens with nothing really happening. Bad things happen to all of the main players, but they're handled with such distance that it's hard to not just feel like your simply observing something unfolding in front of you, devoid of any emotional connection to the characters. Like The Girlfriend Experience, Contagion comes off almost like a documentary, but it's still a docu directors job to find some way for an audience member to have some sort of emotional connection to the people it's showing, whether positive or negative. In Contagion, I didn't feel either way. It was just a bunch of stuff that happened. I didn't feel fear. There wasn't any "thriller" aspect to the film, as some reviewers have alluded to. As I said before, it just came off as a bunch of stuff that happened.

You're going to kill me for saying this - It's not that it's a bad film, it just never seems to climax at any point. Honestly, I would still give it a B-. I don't know if that's because I look at Soderbergh's work through rose colored glasses, or whether their really is just enough there to have something redeeming happening. I'd like to see it again, see if a second viewing (now that all of the hype has been drained out of me) would fair better, but, it won't be in the theater.

One more quick note - I feel like Soderbergh is getting really lazy with his cinematography, as well. Half of the film looked like it was shot on a 5D. Not to bash 5D's (I shot PHX on one), but when you have a Red Epic at your disposal, and a real budget, don't just jack up your ISO. Light the scene. Shooting in "natural" light above 800 or so starts to really make the image look like crap. I know he's really been into available light shooting, ever since he fell in love with the Red One, but, seriously, you have the resources. Light it.

Iron Man 2

Comic book films. For so long they were done so poorly, people began to shut them out completely. Remember David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury? How about the Joel Schumacher directed Batman's? Or even, and I know I'll catch flak for this, the Tim Burton directed Batman's? Recently, ever since Christopher Nolan's exceptional reboot of the Batman series, and even Bryan Singer's X-Men movies (Singer, not Rattner), comic book movies have started to get better. They are more interesting, more realistic, and feel more relevant than ever before. Iron Man was a successor to the groundwork that Nolan laid down in Batman Begins, and director Jon Favreau took all of those cues to build the film into something enjoyable on almost every level. Iron Man 2, however, is a different story.

We are back with Tony Stark and company for the follow up, and this time Tony has, effectively, shut down war, seemingly, single handedly. In fact, he goes so far as to boast this during a senate trial that comprises much of the opening part of the film. We are also introduced, in the opening, to a character, Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke), who is obviously after Stark and is building his own version of the miniature reactor core that Stark is using to power the Iron Man suit, and to keep himself alive. Vanko succeeds in this, and meets Stark in Monaco, where he uses the core's energy to try and kill Stark. Unsuccessful at doing so, Vanko is captured and imprisoned, but not without catching the notice of Stark's direct competitor, Justin Hammer (played by Sam Rockwell). Hammer breaks Vanko out of prison, and throws endless amounts of money at him to build a knockoff of the Iron Man suit that Hammer can sell to the US government (since Stark is refusing to hand over his suit), but Vanko has his own plans.

Iron Man 2 is not a complete failure. It manages, at times, to entertain, but one has to wonder if Favreau really intended for the film to be as dull as it was, or if the studios tied one arm behind his back in order to try and make the film that they thought audiences wanted to see. Pretty much everyone in this film, even Robert Downey Jr., is criminally underused. Favreau seems to bring Stark back as the unapologetic, full of himself millionaire playboy, with only a tinge of the maturity we saw developing in the first film. Paltrow, as Pepper Potts, Cheadle as Rhodes, Rourke as Vanko, ALL of these people had parts that had potential for something greater than was up there on the screen. Scarlett Johansson's character, especially, felt tacked on, as if she was almost an after thought for Favreau and company.

The film failed because, unlike the first one, it was more about action and explosions than it was about character development. I'm honestly surprised they didn't throw in some boobs, just to round out all of the cliche's, but, they were gunning for the PG-13. Iron Man 2, while not the WORST it could be, is still, in my mind, one of the biggest let down's in the category of sequels to great first films. Favreau, I hope that we can blame the studio's on this one, and not you. And, if that's the case, I hope we see a director's cut that is everything many of us wanted out of this film in the first place.

DVD - Two Lovers

James Gray has made a career out of making New York based films that generally revolve around some combination of crime, gangs, and family. He took a break from all of that with his latest film, Two Lovers. The film had somewhat of a weightiness to it, upon its release, because one of its stars, Joaquin Phoenix, whom Gray had worked with twice before, had declared that Two Lovers would be his last film. Ever. Now, only time will tell whether or not that happens, but let's all hope it doesn't, because the combination of Gray and Phoenix is one that seems to be magic.

Phoenix plays Leonard Kraditor, a thirty something who returns to live with his parents in their Brooklyn apartment, after his fiancee leaves him. His father decides that it is time to sell his business, a popular neighborhood dry cleaners. When the buyer, Michael Cohen, and his family show up at the Kraditors, to celebrate their agreement, Leonard meets his daughter Sandra and the two become mildly enchanted with each other. Soon after, though, Leonard meets Michelle, a woman in his building whom he falls in love with at first sight. Michelle has a lot of issues, though. Leonard will have to choose one or the other. Will he stick with the smart, sensible Sandra? or be happy with the troubled Michelle?

It's hard to comment on this film in regards to Gray's prior work, as I have only seen We Own The Night (which I liked). This film, however, blew me away. I loved the tight intimacy of the Brooklyn neighborhood (Brighton Beach) that the film was set in, as well as the emotional intimacy we are able to share with Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow as Michelle, and Vinessa Shaw as Sandra. Phoenix, especially, brings an exceptional reality to his role that I feel is pushing the role a little bit more than any one else has in the past. Two Lovers is an amazing film that has made me a lot more interested in exploring Gray's previous work, and has put me on the lookout for his future projects.

Iron Man

Incredible.

That's your one word review for Iron Man.

Not good enough?

Okay, I'll throw in awesome too, no extra charge.

Jon Favreau directs Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, a millionaire playboy whose luxurious lifestyle is built on an empire of weapons technology. When Stark is kidnapped and held hostage, he needs to find a way out. His terrorist kidnappers want him to build them a "Jericho" missile, an incredibly destructive piece of equipment already manufactured by Stark Industries. He uses his time, energy, and resources, instead, to build a suit of armor and destruction to escape his captors. Upon his return home, he realizes that his weapons are a blockade in finding peace, and decides to shut down that aspect of Stark Industries. It is then, though, that the real enemy rears his ugly head, and Stark must refine his original design to become Iron Man.

This movie is expertly written, expertly directed, and the acting is out of the ballpark. Every cast member does an incredible job. The CGI is practically seamless and almost completely unnoticeable. 

And it's funny. Really funny, not just trying to be funny like so many other super hero movies. Everything about Iron Man just seems a lot more genuine than a lot of the comic book movies that come out today. Yes, their trying to be cool. Yes, their trying to sell this to an audience. But they don't do it in a way that is trite or unimaginative or unoriginal.

Downey Jr. is the kind of actor you want to see in that role again and again, just like Christian Bale in the new Batman movies, or Hugh Jackman as Wolverine in X-Men.

Incredible. That's it. Go, see it. Enjoy it. Make up your own mind.