Alliance of Women Film Journalists

AWFJ Opinion Poll: All About Movie Trailers

Jennifer Merin — Wed, 07 May 2008 10:59:30 +0000

Of some 10-billion videos watched on line annually, movie trailers rank #3, after news and user-created video. With such easy and instant access to them, these increasingly popular cinematic morsels are being devoured by moviegoers–and served up with serious consideration by the industry that sometimes spends sums equivalent to a third world country’s annual budget to concoct them.
Timed to coincide with the Ninth Annual Golden Trailer Awards’ ceremony on May 8, AWFJ releases the results of our “All About Trailers Opinion Poll,” surveying AWJF members for their takes on the aesthetics, ethics and impact of trailers: Do we consider trailers to be an art expression or marketing ploy? Can clever trailers catapult indie films into the mainstream? Should theaters charge studios to screen trailers? Would we miss trailers if they were withdrawn?
As evidence of the increasing popularity of movie trailers, the Ninth Annual Golden Trailer Awards ceremonies, which take place live in LA on May 8, will be broadcast May 26–on network TV for the first time, reaching 96 percent of American households.
The awards show, created by sisters Evelyn Brady-Watters and Monica Brady, is based on nominations made by the public, with winners in categories ranging from Best Action, Best Romance, Best Horror and other standards to quirkier “Golden Fleece (best trailer for a bad movie) and “Trashiest,” determined by a panel of nine expert judges. USA Today’s Claudia Puig, an AWFJ member, is the sole female on the panel this year.
Timed to the May 8th event, AWFJ makes movie trailers the subject of an opinion poll, with members answering a dozen questions related to the entertainment value, influence and effectiveness of movie trailers.
Quite coincidentally, in responding to the survey, AWFJ member Sara Voorhees questioned the use of the term ‘trailer‘ for what is clearly the ‘preview‘ of a film.
“I’d be grateful,” writes Voorhees, “if anyone could explain for the masses (and for me) when the earth-shattering linguistic decision was made to change the name of these things from ‘previews’ to ‘trailers.‘ I’m never satisfied with the answer I come up with when I’m asked that question.”
We haven’t come up with a certifiable explanation, but the Brady ladies–the ultimate go-to source for information pertaining to these brief but very influential cinematic expressions, whatever you wish to call them–inform us that originally these ‘coming attractions’ were dubbed ‘trailers’ (waaaaaaay back during the 20s or earlier) because they were shown after the main attraction. ‘Trailers’ actually became ‘previews’ when theater owners switched their programming to show them before the main attraction–because audiences weren’t staying to see them after ‘The End’ appeared on the screen. (Now, doesn’t that ever resonate with critics and others who want to watch credits, but find the view blocked by audience members stampeding for the exit and their next fix of whatever?)
It’s interesting to note, too, that Voorhees’ concerns about terminology aren’t singular. In introducing their event to network TV, the Bradys have had to make a titular adjustment to the show. While the live presentation and awards themselves are still called “The Golden Trailers,“ the broadcast on MyNetworkTV is titled “The Movie Preview Awards“–presumably because execs are concerned viewers may be baffled by that tricky ’trailers’ terminology.
But, we digress.
The results of AWFJ’s opinion poll regarding movie trailers–yes, that’s how we know them and that’s what we call them– follow. If, after reading the survey, you wish to comment on the results or any of the questions, please do so via the comment box.

.–Jennifer Merin, President. Alliance of Women Film Journalists

QUESTION: Do you enjoy trailers, think they’re an important part of the movie theater experience and would you miss them if they were gone?

The majority of AWFJ members ‘love’ trailers (and love is the term they use to describe their feelings) and think they‘re integral to the movie theater experience.
Susan Wloszczyna puts it this way: “Anyone who claims to love films must possess some interest in movie trailers–when done well and honestly, they’re like great foreplay, an irresistible tease to what hopefully will be an affair to remember.”
Sara Voorhees notes, “Just as appetizers are necessary before a meal, trailers prime the pump, letting body and soul know a new experience is coming, so you’re ready and alert, emotionally prepared for it.“
“They’re sometimes better than the movie,” comments Anne Thompson. “As a film pro, I check them out to see what’s coming, figure out what I want to see, gauge my own reaction and that of the audience around me.”
Joanna Langfield remarks that trailers help her ‘prep’ for a film and that she gets “a kick our of the reactions I hear from fellow moviegoers. Are they excited, turned off, or is there an altogether terrifying lack of reaction? It’s like market research without having to do the work yourself!”
More specifically, Wloszczyna says “I could instantly tell that “Hitch” would be a smash just by the way I kept hearing people in the audience say out loud ‘I like Will Smith’.”
Maitland McDonough enjoys trailers because they’re “reminders what’s on the horizon. Kim Voynar gets to the theater early to of watch them–even if she‘s already seen them online. Erin Trahan says trailers “help you settle into the cinematic experience.“ Brandy McDonnell says, “I enjoy well-made trailers and miss them if they’re not shown–at press screenings, for instance.”
On a more personal note, Carol Cling confides a sentimental attachment to her childhood trailer experiences, when she “used to embarrass the hell out of my easily-embarrassed sister every time our family went to the movies—during the late, great double-feature days—and I applauded when the previews came on. I’d miss them terribly if they were no longer screened. However, I wouldn’t miss them as much now as I used to, because trailers these days often give away the whole movie.

QUESTION: Do most trailers give away too much of the movie and does that make you (and/or audiences) less inclined to want to see that movie?

The majority of AWFJ members join Cling in thinking that trailers reveal too much plot. But there‘re differing opinions about whether that’s an audience deterrent.
Thompson says, “I hate the way trailers give everything away. Unfortunately, studios always cite conclusive evidence that the more you show, the more it gets people to come and see the movie. For me, less is more.”
Lexi Feinberg agrees: “If it’s a murder mystery, you don’t want to see the unmasked menace holding the gun. If it’s a love story, you don’t want to see the heartbroken guy sobbing on a bar stool. Let’s leave something to the imagination!”
According to Voorhees, “Occasionally a trailer gives us the best and the rest is useless–in which case it’s our duty to inform the public that if they’re seen the trailer, they’ve seen the movie. But, personally, I’m never less inclined to see a movie when the trailer has too much information–because I always hope that there’s more coming.”
McDonagh suggests that ‘although trailers contain spoilers, the average person doesn’t pay really close attention to them.”
Langfield says giving away too much is a particular pet peeve of hers. “The fact that audiences seem to know they’ve probably seen the best of the picture in the trailer doesn’t seem to bother most ticket buyers. But, as a critic, it drives me crazy–because it makes our job of trying not to give too much away practically futile. We’re told by moviegoers–and the studios–not to present too much plot in reviews, but watch a commercial or a trailer and you’ve seen practically the whole movie anyway! On air, I’m constantly apologizing for revealing plot points by saying, ‘Oh, what the heck, I’m not giving anything away you haven’t already seen in the ads‘.”
McDonnell says, “Trailers that give away too much make me not want to see the movie and irritated when I do.” Cling states she avoids watching trailers for movies she has to review, but Marcy Dermansky has another solution: “When trailers give away the film’s best parts, ruin the best jokes, or tell the plot from beginning to end, it’s important to cover your eyes,” she says.

QUESTION: Should movie theaters charge studios/distributors for screening trailers?

Acknowledging that trailers are ‘advertisements for movies,’ the majority of AWFJ members think theaters should charge for screening trailers.
Voynar points out that “studios benefit from having trailers shown because they generate excitement and makes audience members say, “Man, I have to see that!”
MaryAnn Johanson questions why theaters should give studios free advertising, when “the studios are already getting obscene percentages of the ticket sales.”
Cling concurs: “It might seem foolish for theaters to charge for advertising product — movies — that makes their business possible, but studios screw movie theaters in so many ways so often that I don’t blame the theaters for trying to make a buck wherever they can. (However, I draw the line at $5 popcorn.)”
Dissenting, Feinberg says “the more people who go to the movies based on enticing trailers, the more revenue movie theaters get. So showing trailers is a win-win situation for all. There should be no charge.”
Thompson, seeing both sides, suggests, “The studios need the movie theaters and the movie theaters need the studios. They both need trailers to sell their products. They should work this out.”

QUESTION: Which trailers stand out in your mind as exceptionally good and exceptionally bad?
In the good category, multiple members mention the upcoming “Iron Man,“ “Pineapple Express” and “Indy 4” (“It gives just enough of the flavor of the movie and assures everyone that Ford is indeed going to act his age, but with his usual waggish finesse,“ comments Wloszczyna), along with most memorable “No Country For Old Men,” “Ratatouille” and the Harry Potter trailers which, per Voynar, “don‘t show too much, but generate excitement and a great fan base.”
The exceptionally bad mentions list includes “Made of Honor,” “Love Guru,“ “Evan Almighty,” “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” and the upcoming “Sex and the City.” Voynar especially takes exception to the “13” (“Tzameti”) trailer, “which gave away the entire plot of the film, which would have really pissed me off if I hadn’t seen it already. Horrible, horrible, trailer. Also, “The Golden Compass” trailer, which showed scenes that couldn’t possibly have been (and were not) from the first film.”

QUESTION: How do trailers influence your expectations about a movie and what elements (plot points, characters, cinematography, special effects, soundtrack, casting) do you most notice and consider most compelling?

Most AWFJ members think storytelling is the most engaging element in trailers and are most troubled when bits shown in trailers aren’t in the final cuts.
“If the story isn’t intriguing, not much else matters. Movies are visual storytelling, and trailers are storytelling in extreme short form,“ says Susan Granger.
Voorhees indicates she notices storyline first and then, “Overall, I notice other elements equally to the degree that I’ll notice them in the movie itself. But, after seeing the movie, I often notice the trailer has scenes–or lines–that were ultimately cut.”
Johanson, who wants to know who’s in a film and be given a general idea of genre and story, says, “I tend to ignore the music, at least as a cue to what the film will be like, because usually it’s not the music that will be in the finished film.”
McDonagh assesses “the overall look–whether it’s cheap or glossy, or cliché. Is it the muddy grey-green palette the studios now use for horror films, or something I haven’t seen before? Excessive CGI effects or practical stunts and effects? And I always notice who’s in a movie.”
Voynar says she wants to feel excitement and “to see sharp editing that shows enough to grab my interest without giving away too much plot. I want to be dazzled. I don’t care so much about celebrity names, I care whether the movie looks good.”
Cling likes “trailers that give you a taste of the movie‘s atmosphere and theme without telling you everything that’s going on. I’m always impressed by a notable cast, but overall I like trailers that suggest rather than slam you over the head. But, they’re an endangered species.”
Mihal Gartenberg’s preferences depend on the movie. “If it’s a thinking person’s movie, the plot shown within the trailer is important. If it’s a popcorn flick, I’m interested in the characters,” she says.

QUESTION: Do you think trailers are a unique art form or a marketing ploy?

AWFJ members are divided on this one, with reactions ranging from Wloszczyna’s “They’re an art–sometimes better than the movie itself” to Eleanor Ringel’s “Younger folks seem to consider them worth reviewing. I see pure marketing” and Dermansky’s “I don’t think they’re an art form. It’s marketing. I love the Roman Coppola movie “CQ,” about the film editor who is assigned to make the trailer, and when the director has to drop out after a car accident, the editor gets promoted to direct the film.”
The majority of AWFJ members concur, however, that trailers mix art and commerce.
“They exist as a means to woo money out of our wallets, but sometimes they deserve kudos for being so incredibly well done,“ comments Feinberg, while Cling observes, “They can be an art form, but are mostly crude marketing come-ons,“ and Trahan opines, “They’re absolutely their own art form, and one with value–but generally the market value eclipses the artistic value.“
Langfield expands the notion of movies’ marketing from trailers to features, commenting that “many movies are shaped as marketing tools onto themselves, and it’s often hard to tell the difference between the art and the salesmanship. When I’m more aware that “Iron Man” uses Verizon Wireless, downs Burger Kings and zips around in Audis than I am of the plot, I’ve really got to wonder….”
Voynar, who considers trailers art form, reminds us that making them requires “taking key points from the films, editing them together sharply, the right music. The use of Black Sabbath’s “Iron Man” in the trailer is brilliant. But, if it’s done wrong, it ruins the whole thing. Bad marketing can kill a good film.”

QUESTION: Are different skills required for editing a good trailer?

Most AWFJ members think editing trailers requires special skills. Thelma Adams points out that “you‘re telling a story in a different way. The trailer tends to be a little movie in itself. It’s the difference between a haiku and a novel.”
Wloszczyna comments that a talent for brevity is beneficial, while Karen Martin points out that “you have to edit a trailer to be a one to two-minute film, which is difficult to do if you’re the filmmaker who made the entire film. A more detached point of view is needed.”
Trahan suggests trailer editors have “different objectives,“ Granger thinks they “need experience in niche movie advertising” and
Cling notes that “editors who cut trailers should be clever marketers as well as storytellers. But, these days, it’s a lost art—the sales dominate the storytelling.”
According to Gartenberg, “It’s the same skill set needed to make a pitch at a studio meeting.”

QUESTION: Do trailers differ from commercials? If so, how?

Most AWFJ members think the differences between trailers and commercials are minimal–a matter of degrees and circumstances.

Laura Emerick: “A commercial is a blatant ad, a trailer is usually an enticement.”
Ringel: “You can walk out of the room during a commercial. Unless it’s in a movie theater.”
Trahan: “One is designed to be seen in a dark theater on a big screen, the other is designed to grab your attention between TV shows, sports programs and the news.”
Langfield: “They‘ve got to pay big bucks for air time for commercials, so commercials are shorter.”
McDonagh: “Trailers are long commercials, 100% driven by the need to sell you the end product.”
Feinberg: “Trailers sell an experience; commercials sell a product. For me, experience always trumps product.”

QUESTION: Are trailers are gender specific in targeting prospective audiences? If so, what’s an example of a gender specific trailer?

According to most AWFJ members, trailers are gender specific.
Granger cites “27 Dresses,” saying, “If that’s not gender specific, I don’t know what the term means” and Ringel comments, “dewy-eyed ones are for women; blood-splattered ones for boys 14-24.”
According to McDonagh, “The issue of gender specificity is driven by the product: The “Iron Man” trailer is geared to men because the basic audience for comic book/superhero movies is men. It’s full of explosions and flying suit scenes because the movie is full of them, and it gives significant time to Robert Downey Jr. because if the men who are the movie’s prime audience don’t buy him as Tony Stark, they won’t come. That said, I think Robert Downey Jr. is what brought a lot of women in–”Iron Man” didn’t make $104 million opening weekend on men alone.”
Voynar suggests that “Trailers generally target whom the studio perceives as the target market for the film. Action and superhero films have gender-specific trailers–lots of special effects, action sequences, stuff blowing up, the obligatory shot of the “hot” girl. Rom-coms target women, focusing more on slogans like, “When two people aren’t looking for love, they find it in the most unexpected places …” etc. I think trailers targeted at women generally have more talking and relationship emphasis, whereas trailers targeted at men focus on action.”
Johanson comments that “Trailers are created with stereotypical gender expectations in mind–women want romance, men want action, and so on. There’re stereotypical expectations about age, too–ideas about what older and younger moviegoers want. Almost all trailers are clearly designed to appeal to those stereotypes.
Gartenberg points out that trailers targeted ethnicity as well as gender and age “because movies are geared towards specific audiences and trailers represent them.“

QUESTION: Could trailers do a better job of bringing women into movie theaters?

The majority of AWFJ members think trailers could (and should) do a better job of bringing women into the theaters–with some caveats.
According to Voorhees, “Studies show there’s a big gender difference in the reception of programming for girls and boys and for adult women and men. Programs and previews targeted for girls and women are (predictably) ignored by boys and men–but the reverse isn’t true. Girls and women are as interested in male-targeted programming as are men.”
Comparing two action superhero trailers, Voynar notes that “’As a movie, “Iron Man“ has many elements that could appeal to women, but the trailer barely shows the relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. On the other hand, the “Spidey“ trailers emphasize the Peter Parker-MJ relationship angle as well as the cool action.”
But McDonnell cites the “Iron Man” trailer as successfully appealing to women “by highlighting Gywneth Paltrow’s role (as Pepper Potts), which wasn’t the usual superhero damsel in distress role.”
Speaking more generally, Johanson points out that since “a trailer should accurately represent the film it’s introducing, if women aren’t going to movies as often as men, the problem is with the movies, not the trailers. Creating a trailer that appeals to women to introduce a movie that won’t is only deceptive advertising.”
McDonagh agrees, stating, “The problem, to the degree that there is a problem, originates with the product, not the pitch.”

QUESTION: Can clever trailers can help level the playing field for small budget indie films competing with big budget studio movies?

Most AWFJ members agree that trailers can help–but are not a quick fix for getting indies widely seen.
Voynar cites “Juno“ and “Little Miss Sunshine“ as examples of indies that “turned into much bigger films than the studios imagined in their wildest dreams, and excellent trailers really helped sell the films to mainstream audiences.“
“But,” says Voynar, “Indie film trailers might make a bigger difference if they were shown more frequently in big theaters before the mainstream films, instead of before other indie films in arthouse theaters.”
For Johanson, the focal point is–again–not the trailers, but the movies–and distribution. “No matter how clever trailers are, certain indies won’t appeal to mainstream audiences. It would be deceptive for trailers to misrepresent films in order to attract viewers. But even clever trailers that genuinely represent films with mainstream appeal won’t help if those films are only playing in two theaters–one in NYC and the other in LA.”
Adams asks, “How can low budget indies can get the reach to make clever trailers effective?” Echoing Adams’ concern about reach, Dermansky suggests that indie filmmakers use their “kick ass trailers to do some viral Internet marketing.”
On another note, Trahan mentions that indie filmmakers “use clever trailers to attract and secure funding before they make deals during one-on-one meetings in festival settings–or trailers can be used to generate interest and develop advance audiences online.”
Gartenberg is more skeptical: “Trailers don’t level the playing field because more than trailers are needed to bring audiences into the theaters. That’s why studios with marketing budgets for billboards and other forms of advertising or promotions continue to have the upper hand.“

QUESTION: Should trailers of other films be included on DVDs and should you be able to fast forward through them?

The majority of AWFJ members find no fault with the presence of trailers on DVDs, but say unanimously and emphatically that they should be able to fast forward through them.
“I always skip them. I hit menu right away and watch the movie,” says Adams.
McDonagh says, “I enjoy vintage trailers for the film I’m seeing, but want them confined to the special features area. I skip trailers for other films on virtually all DVDs. Disney is one of the exceptions–they don’t allow you to fast forward, and I hate them for it.”
Cling acknowledges that “trailers on DVDs sometimes call my attention to something I wouldn’t otherwise consider. I enjoy seeing how older movies were sold. (I especially love those old golden-age previews; they’re hyperbolic and hilarious, but they’re charming just the same.) But, I’m grateful that, on my DVD player at least, I can hit “Next” and skip whatever promos I don’t want to see.

That concludes AWFJ’s opinion poll about movie trailers. We’d like to know your opinion, too. So, again, if you’d like to leave a comment, please do so via the comment box below.

Releasing May 9, 2008

AWFJ — Mon, 05 May 2008 17:16:33 +0000

AWFJ highlights films made by and about women
Friday, May 9

The Babysitters - Peace Arch Releasing, 90mins - A teenager turns her babysitting service into a call-girl service for married guys after fooling around with one of her customers
Battle for Haditha - HanWay Films, 97mins
Before the Rains - Adirondack Pictures, 98mins - Cathy Rabin co-wrote this period drama set during the Raj.
Bloodline - Cinema Libre Studio, 113mins - Documentary dealing with the Mary Magdalene theories in the Christian tradition
The Fall - Roadside Attractions, 117mins - Tarsem’s beautiful and impressionistic film is about the healing relationship between a young immigrant girl and a stuntman befreft of hope.
Frontiere(s) - After Dark Films, 108mins - French horror film with socio-political undertones; contemporary spin on the “final girl” figure
The Memory Thief - Stark Raving Films, 95mins
Noise - ThinkFilm, 90mins
OSS 117- Mandarin Films, 99mins
A Previous Engagement - Ashdale Films Malta - Joan Carr-Wiggen wrote and directed this comedy about a middle aged woman who convinces her husband to go on vacation in Malta, where she plans to keep a date she made twenty-five years earlier with her first love.
Speed Racer - Warner Bros. Pictures, 135mins
Surfwise - Magnolia Pictures - Documentary about an unconventional family, including a husband-wife bond that dictates their children’s lives.
The Tracey Fragments - Alliance, 74mins - Ellen Page stars in this split screen exploration of a distraught young woman’s search for herself, based on the novel by Maureen Medved, who also penned the screenplay./li>
Turn the River - Screen Media Films, 92mins - Chris Eigman’s drama is about a desperate woman (Framke Jansen) who kidnaps her own son and flees her ex-husband.
Vice - 41 Films, 98mins.
What Happens in Vegas - 20th Century Fox, 99mins

Alanis Obomsawin Retrospective at MoMA

Jennifer Merin — Sat, 03 May 2008 03:29:06 +0000

The Museum of Modern Art is presenting a retrospective of the films of Alanis Obomsawin, the renown Canadian documentarian who has chronicled the history and struggles of the First Nations of Canada. The filmmaker will introduce and discuss her films from May 14 through 18. Read more>>

Isild Le Besco - Marcy Dermansky interviews

Marcy Dermansky — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:32:58 +0000

Isild Le Besco’s second feature film, “Charly,” made its U.S. premiere at Tribeca Film Festival. While known primarily as an actress (”A Tout De Suite,” “The Untouchable”), Le Besco wrote and directed her first feature, “Demi-tarif,” when she was only nineteen. Read more>>.

Jennifer Fox’s “Flying” Airs On Sundance

Jennifer Merin — Thu, 01 May 2008 02:09:01 +0000

The Sundance Channel will air Jennifer Fox’s remarkable six-hour documentary, “Flying: Confessions of a Free Women” on May 5, 12 and 19. In the film, Fox travels around the world, visiting with friends in 17 nations with widely divergent cultures, while trying to measure her own assumptions and attitudes towards relationships and personal freedom. The episodic film has been acclaimed since it premiered at the Sundance Festival in 2007. The film is also available on DVD.

“Flying: Confessions of a Free Women” - Joanna Langfield reviews

Joanna Langfield — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:42:42 +0000

If the idea of watching six hours of a privileged young woman pondering whether or not she should have a child makes you nervous, this extraordinary documentary will prove all the more surprising. Because Jennifer Fox’s epic, intimate film manages to look at not just one version of sex in the city, but amazingly, an entire world of women and their own questions of identity.

How did Fox pull this off? From one perspective, it’s a natural. Already an accomplished filmmaker, with teaching positions that take her all over the world, this is a woman used to pondering and putting it out there. And her “there” is a much broader place than most of us are fortunate to share. After all, how many of us can claim to have friends, really good, close friends all over the planet? Then again, as we watch how Fox begins to even wonder if she wants to have a baby, we also begin to wonder how many of us even have really good friends who live in our same city.

Fox’s journey essentially kicks off in a Manhattan hospital room, where one of her closest friends is about to go under the knife for a brain tumor. Scary stuff. And, understandably, the kind of life changing kick in the butt that can make anyone in its midst start to reevaluate. What it does for Jennifer is bring up that old question of children. Should she trade in her hard won freedom to nestle down and raise a baby?
Should she try to get pregnant with the far away married man she believes is the love of her life? Or should she allow herself to settle for the nice guy who seems to offer a cozy security, even if he isn’t quite so thrilling?

In the day to day of her life, Fox begins to look for answers from her family, the women she has befriended in other societies and newcomers, some of whom are facing far more immediate threats to their lives than risking sexual freedom. The filming goes on for five years and, through Fox’s camera, we all learn, love and lose.

Of course, there are times all this become irritating and self- indulgent. But Fox is smart enough to keep the camera moving, pulling us along through the mundane and deftly into yet another scene that is fresh and compelling.

I was often astonished at the honesty I was witnessing here, fascinated by universal emotions and truths, pained at the heartaches. And those are reactions I wish I had more often to film, an art that all too often settles for far less.

Flying: Confessionals of a Free Woman will be screened as a miniseries on the Sundance Channel in May and released as on DVD later in the month.

“Flying: Confessions of a Free Women” - Jennifer Merin reviews

Jennifer Merin — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:41:55 +0000

Using her personal quest for a meaningful relationship and a family as an ongoing point of reference, Jennifer Fox delves into the complex subject of what women around the world want from their lives and loves. Flying: Confessions of a Free Woman is her six-hour documentary comprised of six hour-long segments. Read more>>

“Fear of Flying: Confessions of a Free Women” - Anne Thompson comments

Anne Thompson — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:00:13 +0000

I watched the six episodes two at a time, three nights running. (I had admired Fox’s 80s doc Beirut: The Last Home Movie.) I was fascinated. Fox took five years of her own life and turned it into the narrative through-line for a survey of women and their life choices in different cultures. Read more>>

“Iron Man” - Joanna Langfield reviews

Joanna Langfield — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:36:13 +0000

This action special effecter seems to have all the right stuff: so how come it isn’t more fun?
Jon Favreau has mounted this newest Marvel comic come to screen with a sure hand and a solid appreciation of its roots. The always wonderful Robert Downey, Jr. is a hoot as early guy Tony, boozing it up with the players, babes and nuclear arms that have made him an internationally famous gazillionaire. Quickly, he witnesses the wrath of his own creations and our loveable playboy has a crisis of conscience. Not to worry: our boy doesn’t just sit in his magnificent surfside abode and contemplate his navel. No, Tony descends into the basement and comes shooting up with Iron Man, the most amazing soaring bucket ‘o tin since Howard Hughes’s Spruce Goose. And yes, it is very cool watching him create this modern day stunner. But the very special effects of trying on a computer generated arm don’t last long enough and pretty soon, we’re back to stuff we’ve seen all too often before.

Not that the cast doesn’t give it a game try. Gwyenth Paltrow is adorable as the standard assistant with a dream; a shaven (head, not chin) Jeff Bridges seems to be getting a chuckle out of his mentor role and Terrance Howard hints of glee to come in the inevitable sequel.

Purists, I suppose, will appreciate the grisly violence and real bleakness of the war scenes here; I’m wondering how they will play to the aimed for “family crowd” that this movie is supposedly trying to please. Wouldn’t it be something if, after all the Iraq themed movies landed with a thud at the box office, it took a guilt driven comic book hero to get the masses to think while they cheer?

“Iron Man” - Susan Granger reviews

Susan Granger — Thu, 01 May 2008 00:35:28 +0000

What happens when a hip, new superhero appears? He attacks corporate amorality, skewering the military/industrial complex, and changes the geo-political landscape. Too bad he can’t run for President.
When arrogant billionaire playboy/weapons manufacturer Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is in Afghanistan demonstrating his company’s new Jericho missile, he’s kidnapped by insurgents who bomb his convoy. Awakening in a cave, he learns his life has been saved by doctor (Shaun Toub) who implants an electromagnetic device to keep the shrapnel from piercing his heart. While the terrorist leader, Raza (Faran Tahir) demands that he replicate a Jericho out of spare parts, Tony secretly makes a high-tech suit of armor and escapes, looking a bit like the Michelin Man. But his life has been changed.
Back in his Malibu mountaintop mansion, he’s determined to stop making armaments and use his knowledge to wreak vengeance on his captors and save humanity, much to the surprise of his manipulative guardian/mentor (Jeff Bridges), loyal assistant (Gwyneth Paltrow), military liaison (Terrence Howard) and an investigative reporter (Leslie Bibb).
While the making-of-a-superhero story is formulaic, by assembling a high-caliber cast, headed by gifted Robert Downey Jr., director Jon Favreau (“Elf,” “Swingers”) elevates the superhero concept, making it hip, augmenting the imagery with metallic touches from “Iron Giant” and reminiscent tinges of the reclusive lifestyle of Howard Hughes. And credit production designer J. Michael Riva and cinematographer Matthew Libatique for convincing us that there’s really a man with a soul propelling that special effects suit.
On the Granger Movie Gauge of 1 to 10, “Iron Man” is a nifty 9. Make no mistake, though. It’s Robert Downey Jr., having triumphed over his substance abuse battle, who puts the pedal to the metal and scores the freshest new franchise going.