Battleship

Battleship
 An international naval coalition becomes the world's last hope for survival as they engage a hostile alien force in this epic action-adventure. Stars Taylor Kitsch and Liam Neeson.

This film has for only purpose to entertain us and in this aspect it is highly succesful. The main hero is very likeable, the leading girl charming, the display of military hardware impressive, the aliens naughty (and ugly and stupid!), the scenario doesn't make much sense, the CGI effects are EXCELLENT, US Navy is the best, US government is incompetent - in one word, everything is as it should be in a movie made to go nicely with your popcorn on a Friday evening. WARNING! Some SPOILERS incoming at six o'clock!

The main hero, Lt. Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) is a troubled young man who after messing up a lot in his early life finally joined the US Navy and by some extraordinary miracle managed to become an officer in charge of weapons on board of USS "John Paul Jones", a very powerful destroyer of "Arleigh Burke" class. He is however poorly noted by his superiors and is generally considered as a disappointment and a failure. The unexpected alien invasion during a naval exercice will suddenly force him to take command ("Who is in charge now?" "Hopper!" "We are so dead!") and lead his men into a particularly deadly fight against a vicious and resourceful enemy.

Other than his messy life style Alex Hooper has also another "problem" - his gorgeous, sculpturally beautiful girlfriend Samantha (Brooklyn Decker). She loves him, he loves her and they are engaged to be married - but her father hates his guts and for reasons which you will have to discover yourself his agreement to their marriage actually matters...

Other characters are also important: Alex's brother, Stone Hopper (Alexander Skarsgard) who is the older, responsible and organised version of Alex; Vice-Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), tough, impressive commander in chief of US Pacific Fleet; Japanese Navy Captain Nagata (Tadanobu Asano), commanding the Japanese destroyer "Myoko" and Lt. Colonel (Retired) Mick Canales (Gregory D. Gadson), a bitter US Army veteran who lost his both legs in one of recent American wars.

Rihanna makes her movie debut in this film, as Petty Officer Cora Raikes, a weapon specialist and crew member on board of USS "John Paul Jones", serving under Alex Hopper orders. She has a lot of screen time and she is VERY good! I was very pleasantly surprised by her acting and I am looking forward to see her in more films.

The display of modern weaponry is very impressive. 5-inch guns and 20mm Phalanx CIWS (Close-in Weapon System), "Harpoon" missiles and 324 mm torpedoes of American and Japanese destroyers are used generously and they give a great show. And once the old battleship USS "Missouri" enters in action with her 16-inch big guns, things get even better!

The aliens are very very agressive and naughty - although to be fair, they seem to avoid the colateral damage as much as possible, by sparing the obviously harmless oponents. They also try to rescue their own soldiers taken prisoner, which is something not so frequent in SF films. Other than that they are the "standard issue" aliens: ugly, hostile, technologically advanced in some fields but limited in others (they do not seem to grasp fully the concept of guided weapons) and last but not least abysmally, galactically, terminally stupid! BUT, in this film it actually is an asset, because it allows USS "Missouri" to engage the alien flagship in a way which reminds of the bloody and dramatic fight between HMS "Victory" and "Redoutable" at Trafalgar...

The scenario doesn't make much sense as for the reasons for this invasion which seems ultimately to be just a reconnaissance. The reason for the attack on Oahu island and the whole battle around it are even more ludicrous - as for the whole "saving the world" thing, let's just throw a veil of silence on it... A civilization able to send a scouting military expedition of five ships through interstellar space, can always send a second one, stronger and better prepared. So, there is a possibility of a sequel.

The CGI effects are really EXCELLENT! Alien ships and weapons are very well done, fights are very "realistic" and visually the film is a big success.

All fighting men and women of US forces (and the one lonely Japanese guy) are shown as heroes fighting to the end at the best of their capacities, engaging enemy with missiles first, handguns second and iron bars and bare fists after that, if necessary. In contrast, the US government is (of course!) completely incompetent, which is only normal, considering that it is chaired by a Secretary of Defense played by Peter MacNicol (yes, you read well!).

So, all in all, it is a rather succesful, quite entertaining film, with lots of good special effects, lots of good fights, two well playing hot chicks (Brooklyn Decker and Rihanna), some handsome men, a very stupid scenario, quite a lot of humour, at least one very touching moment and one very VERY dearly paid chicken burito...))) I had lots of fun watching it, although I am aware of its weaknesses - and I think that if all you need is some harmless entertainment, you will like it too. Enjoy!

I can remember as a younger father playing the Hasbro game with my kids. I also have a vague recollection of playing a version as a kid myself using a pencil and paper but that could be just dead brain cells floating around. Speaking of dead brain cells...with a movie like "Battleship" it is usually a good idea to set the bar low (pick a Michael Bay movie) and just relax. For me, I use the second "Transformers" movie "Revenge of the Fallen" as my standard.

Here we have some early scenes that actually aren't bad and begin to flesh out the characters. The focus is on bad boy, Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) who somehow becomes a U. S. Navy officer at the insistence of his big brother, Stone (Alexander Skarsgard) who already is a Commander. Unless memory again fades, having been in the Navy myself it is unlikely that they would accept a drunken felon into their officer corps (i.e. Alex) but maybe things have changed.

While this is a minor nit not worth picking, there are so many other flawed aspects of the film, it can't be taken seriously. The good news is that the movie is wildly, if absurdly, entertaining. It is decently constructed with a beginning, middle and an end. The movie is extremely loud at times, especially when the alien visitors take offense at being threatened and launch their razor sharp ball bearing thingies. I mean, the Earthlings did invite them, right? All is well that ends well, especially when you have the mothballed (yet battle ready!) U.S.S. Missouri easily launched with a skeleton crew (pun intended).

Preview

 

Read more »

John Carter

John Carter A heroic, inspirational adventure that will thrill beyond imagination.

I went in to "John Carter" filled with trepidation. I often avoid these big, splashy CGI spectacles that never live up to their promises and I was sure that this film was going to be nothing more than lots of cinematic eye candy and short on substance. Added to that there was a lot of lackluster critical reviews. Well, all I can say is that this was a grand entertainment and I am so glad I caught it on the big screen!

I've heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really? My suggestion to them is "don't text while watching a movie, you might miss something". I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot.

I also read that the look of Barsoom (Mars to you and me) was dull and uninteresting. Hmmm, never been an admirerer of the stark and raw beauty of the American southwest I guess. Personally I found Barsoom to be beautiful, alien, exotic and familiar all at the same time. After all, the Mars rovers have confirmed that the Red Planet does indeed look like our American southwest and I for one happen to think both places very scenic.

Some critics have said the story is dull and lifeless. OK, put down the crack pipe and step away from the video game console. "John Carter" has a great fast paced plot with lots of interesting twists and turns. I also thought the characters were nicely drawn, if not overly complex, and that the alien races on Barsoom to be very interesting with fascinating customs which only made me want to learn more about them.

Other critics have complained that they have seen this stuff before in movies like Star Wars and Avatar. Wellllll, it seems as though those two directors (among other film makers and writers) have been looting the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs for quite some time so I guess there is bound to be a feeling of deja vu.

Have we really become such a culture that is so easily jaded? Can we no longer feel that sense of wonder and feeling of adventure in a film like "John Carter"? Maybe we are too use to storylines being spoon fed to us in easily digested bites and cannot follow along with a film that isn't zipping past our eyeballs at 186,000 miles per second with flashy explosions at every eye blink. If true then how sad that such a wondrous film will get pushed to the wayside in favor of something like Transformers 8.

John Carter captures the spirit of the original ERB books very well. I'm not going to give a thorough review of the movie because so many other reviewers have already done that. I will, however, say that everyone involved in the production of this movie should be commended. The film takes Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars" and combines elements of the second book "Gods of Mars" (adding a few tweaks along the way) to create what can be called a mini-masterpiece. The story is well-written, the characters are fleshed out, the FX enhance the story not overshadow it, and the acting is excellent. The stunning Lynn Collins steals the show with her performance as Princess Dejah Thoris, Taylor Kitsch is admirable as Carter, and Willem Dafoe is perfect as the Thark leader Tars Tarkas. Andrew Stanton did a great job directing, the score is memorable, and the visuals are breathtaking.

If you haven't read the original books (which are absolute classics), you'll enjoy this movie because it's a great movie. If you're already a fan of the books, you'll love the movie despite some of the changes (John Carter was never married before he went to Mars, for one), which can be overlooked (If you want an almost accurate representation of the source material, Dynamite Entertainment's "Warlord or Mars" comic series [along with the excellent spin-offs] is highly recommended. In fact, it's probably the best comic book out there right now). I'm already a huge John Carter fan, and this movie is a wonderful addition to the world of John Carter.

Do not let the critics stop you from seeing this movie. Anyone who gave this movie a bad review is an idiot and was probably on something when they saw this movie, or they based their reviews solely on the awful trailers. The marketing campaign for this movie is one of the worst I've ever seen, and there has been little or no merchandising for this movie-it's almost like Disney wanted this movie to fail. There are some fan trailers on the internet that absolutely blow away what Disney put out, and they really make you want to see the movie. I've given up hope that we'll see the sequels, but maybe people will listen to everyone that has actually seen the movie without an agenda, and the final box office and DVD/Blu-ray sales can keep the franchise going.

In closing, I cannot wait til John Carter comes out on DVD, and I give my highest recommendation to this film.

Former Confederate Civil War soldier, Captain John Carter has nothing left to fight for when he finds himself transported to a desert planet. Suddenly among a warrior tribe of four-armed aliens and a beautiful princess, Carter ends up in the middle of another war. But when faced with the chance of returning home to Earth, Carter may have found a cause worth fighting for in Princess Dejah and the people of Barsoom.

Taylor Kitsch stars as John Carter, the bitter and destitute man who cares for nothing but his found cave of gold. Kitsch has a young face and stoic countenance, perfect for the role of the ageless John Carter. He's a believable fighter and a great straight man to plenty of humor. Princess Dejah is played by Lynn Collins, who has terrific chemistry with John Carter, and is just as strong and smart as her male counterparts (if not more). Mark Strong and Dominic West are fantastic villains, especially West as a surprisingly charming and attractive (though naïve) despot. And my favorite characters in the novel (Princess of Mars) as well as the film were the Tharks, played by Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church and Samantha Morton. Though CGI, the characters still brought depth, emotion, and humor and successfully brought Burroughs' characters to life.

Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' classic Princess of Mars (published in 1917), John Carter is a surprising and exceptional retelling. I recently read Princess of Mars in anticipation for the film. And though the film doesn't delve into the depth of the Tharks' stories as I would have liked, it still captures the spirit of the novel. And the natives of Barsoom get an impressive technology upgrade, and the science is updated for the awe-factor in the film.

I had my reservations after seeing the official trailers. But I was happy to see that the screen writers and director Andrew Stanton knew what they were doing, even if the marketing was off. This fan was captivated from beginning to end and loved every minute of this epic adventure. Full of fascinating characters, life-like aliens, and advanced technology - science fiction fans will certainly enjoy John Carter. But the action-packed thrills, suspense, drama, romance, and incredible story will appeal to a wide range of new fans - of all ages. It's heart-warming, inspirational, and highly entertaining. Don't miss this one.

Preview

Read more »

Avatar

 


Avatar

From Academy Award winning director James Cameron (Aliens, The Abyss, True Lies, Titanic) comes Avatar, the story of an ex-Marine who finds himself thrust into hostilities on an alien planet filled with exotic life forms. As an Avatar, a human mind in an alien body, he finds himself torn between two worlds, in a desperate fight for his own survival and that of the indigenous people.

I'm primarily interested in the storyline differences between special sets and their theatrical counterparts, so here are the differences between the two (NOTE: SPOILERS FOLLOW).

The extended collector's edition runs 16 minutes 28 seconds longer than the theatrical cut, and listed below are the major differences.

1) The opening scene is different, and starts with Jake in a wheelchair on Earth, in a Blade Runner-esque Earth city. The scene moves to scenes of Jake in his apartment, then taking liquid shots in a bar. Jake's narration of "I told myself I can pass any test a man can pass" and "They can fix the spinal if you got the money. But not on vet benefits, not in this economy" are inserted during this new opening scene.

Jake beats up a bar patron who is mistreating a woman, and then Jake and wheelchair are unceremoniously thrown outside by bouncers into an alley. While in the alley, Jake meets the two RDA representatives who bring him news of his brother's untimely death. Then the movie cuts back to the original theatrical cut where Jake sees his brother's body cremated, then awakes in space.

2) During Jake's initial flyover of Pandora in his avatar, they witness a herd of Sturmbeasts, buffalo-like creatures.

3) After seeing the Sturmbeasts, Grace, Jake, and Norm stop by Grace's old English school for the Na'vi. The school is now closed, abandoned, and some walls are riddled with bullet-holes. Norm finds a Dr. Seuss book, "The Lorax", on the ground. This scene explains how Neytiri knew English so well, and certainly gives some further backstory into Grace Augustine's character.

Interestingly, The Lorax can be seen as a metaphor for the Pandoran story. Recall that the seemingly simple Seussian book is actually a lesson on the plight of the environment and industrialization.

4) We see some other different Pandoran flora and fauna, particularly with scenes of the luminescent forest floor.

5) Jake's first dinner with Neytiri is longer and extended, and it's here that she tells him her full name.

6) When Jake, Grace, and Norm first visit the Hallelujah Mountains on the way to the remote uplink station, Grace explains (in a Jake voiceover) that the mountains are levitated [via the Meissner Effect], because Unobtanium is a superconductor. There's a pretty spectacular CGI shot as the characters look around in awe at the suspended mountains.

7) Pictures of Grace and Na'vi children at her previously functioning school. Dr. Augustine tells Jake that she previously taught Neytiri and her sister, Sylwanin. However, one day, Sylwanin and some hunters destroyed an RDA bulldozer, and RDA SecOps troopers killed them at the school, which explains why the school walls were previously seen pockmarked with bullet holes.

8) Sturmbeast hunting scene after Jake tames a Banshee. After Jake successfully kills a Sturmbeast with an arrow, he and Neytiri chortle a "Heck yeah!" and whoop.

9) Jake and Neytiri's love scene comprises them linking braids together. Some kissing, nothing explicit.

10) Tsu'tey leads a war party that destroys the RDA's autonomous bulldozers, as well as the RDA SecOps squad that was guarding them. Corporal Wainfleet leads the search party that uncovers the evidence, via real-time helmet cam footage. Not sure why they cut this scene from the theatrical cut, as it persuades Selfridge to attack the Home Tree.

11) Attack of Hammerhead Titanotheres on RDA forces has been extended slightly; additional scenes of AMP-Suits getting destroyed.

12) Fight between Colonel Quaritch in AMP Suit and Neytiri on Thanator slightly longer.

13) Tsu'tey's death scene; in the theatrical cut, he falls off the RDA shuttle's aft ramp to his death. In the Collector's Edition, he falls to the forest floor, mortally wounded. He passes on leadership to Jake, and asks Jake to ceremonially kill him e.g. hara-kiri, so that Jake will be the last shadow that Tsu-Tey sees. Jake does so.

I preferred the original Tsu'tey death scene, which was more dramatic. Jake, had afterall, already become the de facto clan leader by that point in the movie, so further formal transfer by Tsu'tey (a minor character) seemed unnecessary.

I got this as soon as I found it available on the net. It will not be available commercially for some time and that, of course, means the price is WAY to high for most viewers. I was willing to be taken for a ride but if you do not just have to have it now I would recommend waiting until it is available everywhere.
The video quality is fantastic. I have a Samsung 40" 3D setup and the movie was just beautiful to watch. Not quite the same as IMAX but very close (size of screen being the only difference that I could see). The 3D is, to my eyes, exactly as good as the IMAX on-screen version. I am a huge fan of the movie but believe me I would tell you if the video quality was not great.
I would not hesitate to do the purchase again (even considering the huge rip-off in price at this time) but advise others to consider if you really have to have it right now or can wait awhile.
Great movie, almost unbelievable video transfer quality, and a price that is just not right!
Hope this helps.

There are many low score reviews purely based on the fact there was a release of this movie earlier this year and now the extended version comes out feels like a marketing game. When the first release happened it was known an extended version was coming, but some people just had to have it now. I just watched it on Netflix and waited for the extended version. I agree if you bought the first release version you have little real reason to buy the extended version, unless you love this movie and want the bonus features.

Some of the other low scores talk about the 3D version coming, but that is weak reason for most people because most do not own and will not own a 3D TV set. If you do your research on 3D TVs you will find they clunky and costly. Unless you are among the few who have a 3D TV, then there is no reason to wait to buy this release of Avatar if you enjoyed the movie. Preview

Read more »

The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man
 A teenage Peter Parker grapples with both high school and amazing super-human crises as his alter-ego Spider-Man.

I read a lot of reviews for this movie before watching it myself. In the end, they all boiled down to a few basic criticisms, which I kept in mind as I made my own appraisal. Here are the major problems people seem to have had with Marc Webb's "Amazing Spider-Man", along with my responses.

1. The reboot was too soon.

This more or less depends on your point of view. True, the last Spidey movie was in 2007, a mere five years ago - more than long enough to warrant another Spider-Man film; not exactly long enough to call for a complete reboot. On the other hand, I think a lot of people would agree that it's been more like eight years since the last GOOD Spider-Man film. I loved Raimi's work with the character, though I do criticize him on some minor points. But in the end, he really dropped the ball with Spider-Man 3, running a lot of good characters into the ground and painting himself into a corner with two hours of very messy plotting. In the end, whether a reboot was necessary per se is a matter of personal preference. But even if you think it wasn't necessary, is it fair to write off the new movie completely as a result? I don't believe it is.

2. We've heard it all before.

Yes and no. This is another interpretation of Spider-Man's origin story. But it's very different from Raimi's first Spider-Man film. More importantly, it's a well-done interpretation. At the heart of this "origin story" is Peter Parker's development from a somewhat geeky, trouble-making teen into a true hero. This transition happened far more quickly in Raimi's first movie, mainly because Maguire's Peter had a more strongly-developed moral compass to begin with. Neither version is objectively inferior in my opinion, but I do have a personal preference for the deep character drama achieved by Webb. The point is, yes, this is the spider-bite story again, but it's a good spider-bite story.

3. The hype about "secrets being revealed" was a big lie.

Yes, it was. This is most definitely not "the untold story". Significant-sounding lines from the trailers such as "Do you think what happened to you was an accident?" and "If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, then come and get it" didn't even feature, which I'll admit kind of annoyed me. That amounts to false advertising in my opinion. I was very happy with what I got, but it wasn't what I was promised. The thing is, there is some big mystery going on in this movie with Peter's parents. However, their story doesn't feature very heavily in this first movie. The elements of it that do were given away in the trailers. So don't bother watching this solely to find out more about Richard and Mary Parker. Their story will have to wait until the sequel.

4. The villain was weak.

My main problem with this film's take on Dr. Curtis Connors was that it diverged so heavily from the comics. The Connors I remember was an intriguing villain because he was a father and a husband who transformed himself into a monster in a quest for healing. Billy Connors and his mom aren't around here. Instead there's a bachelor, British-accented Connors who frequently runs the risk of going boldly where so many villains have gone before. Fortunately, Rhys Ifans' performance is good enough to prevent this happening most of the time. Connors' motivation makes sense overall, though little time is given to truly flesh it out. Perhaps if his mysterious connections to Norman Osborn had been explored in greater detail, he would have been more memorable.

5. The Lizard's design was flawed.

Most people who didn't care for the Lizard's look seem to describe it as "too human". The face certainly is. It wasn't really that scary. I've seen alternate designs which the production team ultimately abandoned which I think would have been a lot better. So basically I would agree with this criticism, but for me it was a minor quibble.

6. It had too much teenage angst and Twilight-esque drama.

Actually, it had none. The teenage interactions were more mature than I'm used to seeing in film or TV, with even Flash Thompson evolving from a typical bully into a likable character over time. There are a few moments of stereotypical rebellion from Peter, but they lead rapidly into the tragic events that change him, so they're quickly forgotten. Despite the early publicity saying that this movie would be "darker", I don't think I'd describe it that way. It's a little less cheesy and a little more gritty in parts, but there are enough moments of clever humor to give the viewer a break from the gradually building tension.

The Amazing Spider-Man does have flaws. But in my opinion, its good points are so good that they cancel out the missteps. Andrew Garfield brings the wisecracking, geeky, sometimes mischievous Peter Parker from the original comics to life better than anyone I've seen (or heard, in animation) thus far. He nails the sense of humor that was frequently lacking from Maguire's Spidey. I had my doubts about Emma Stone as Gwen, but her acting was superb as well. She and Garfield have great chemistry on screen, which bodes well for the future. Really all the main cast was terrific, but I must make a special mention of Dennis Leary's Captain Stacy. He truly did a fantastic job. The special effects in regard to Spider-Man's web-slinging and other stunts were breathtaking, and clever cinematography draws the audience into the action effortlessly. The music was forgettable for the most part, but served its purpose in the more dramatic scenes (much like the soundtrack to The Avengers).

In short, watching this movie was a delight for me as a long-time Spider-Fan, even with the memory of Raimi's better efforts fresh in my mind, and I'm very much looking forward to the sequel (teased at the end of this movie by an intriguing mid-credits scene). Worth buying, worth watching, and worth re-watching. It's a fun, engaging superhero film, and deserves to be judged on its own merits, which are considerable. Please don't let the unfair amount of negativity surrounding this movie scare you away from it. If you give it a chance, you won't be sorry.

The Peter Parker we find in this film is grittier, more real than one in Sam Raimi's previous trilogy. He's kind of a spaz and he looks it. The kind of guy you could easily imagine geeking out with all his geeky friends, playing World of Warcraft between hits on a bong. Not that there's anything like that in this movie (where's Harry Osborn when you need him?), but you get the idea. It's this more "real" take on Peter Parker, not quite so perky and preppy as Toby McGuire's version, that's the thing I liked most about this movie.

Other than that, there's not a huge amount to say. Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is cute but utterly unremarkable, and so too for most of the other performances. Sally Field injects more than we are used to seeing into Aunt May, but that's about it. I'm not entirely sure that Martin Sheen was even trying. For long time spider fans, or even just those who've watched a handful of superhero summer blockbusters, this isn't a film with too many surprises. Or even, dare I say it, any surprises. It's an entertaining extravaganza, but it's not the kind of thing that very many people over the age of 15 will feel the need to see more than once. You may want to bear that in mind when making the decision whether to rent or buy.

It is worth noting that this film is clearly designed to set up a sequel, and more than likely a trilogy. There are questions raised and themes presaged that are then just left hanging within the scope of this individual movie.

The only thing I would say actively went wrong in this film was its attempt to have Spider-Man spout the kind of witty banter he uses when fighting his comic book battles. You may be able to get away with that kind of thing on the printed page. But in this medium the pace of the banter was totally out of sync with the blitzkrieg action of the fighting itself. For this reason it came across as completely forced, and to be frank, as a rather poor and awkward voice-over. Fortunately, although glaringly obvious, this flaw was rather minor and forgivable in the scope of the movie as a whole.

Finally, I might as well make my own prejudices clear. I personally am quite sick of the endless reboots that plague the genre. I think things at least have the potential to get far more interesting when the universe is left running for longer periods. There is at least the chance for writers to move beyond endless recapitulation of the same basic storylines - a form of writing that once again I believe is a plague upon the genre. I know that Bruce Timm's work in the DC Animated Universe was far, far more interesting back when all the shows made up a definite continuity: a true universe with scope and depth and history and a future that the viewers and the writers got to explore together.

What I personally would most love to see are productions that allow for real development and change. That don't require all the principles to be treated as such valuable pieces of intellectual property that they must be preserved forever in aspic. Or perhaps, to go with a more apt analogy, treated like action figures who must never be removed from their packaging because to do so would annihilate their value on the collectables market.

Preview

 

Read more »

Green Lantern

Green Lantern (2011)
Protectors of peace and justice, the Green Lantern Corp must rely on their newest and only human recruit, Hal Jordan, to save the Earth from a new enemy called Parallax.

Green Lantern has received quite a bit of flak from reviewers for not being mainstream enough to relate to modern audiences. And that's a shame, because if Green Lantern is guilty of anything, it's of being a SUPERHERO movie.

Back before all these directors started streamlining films, revising backstories, and taking out Spider-Man's technologically-advanced web shooters, comic books were a glorious hodge-podge of the near possible, the impossible, and the just plain fantastic. Because superhero settings include every superhero and villain imaginable, they have to accommodate magic, aliens, superscience, and alternate dimensions in one heady mix. This makes for a very rich comic book series that can be intimidating for new audiences - which is precisely why movie directors cut out so much.

But you can't cut all the crazy out of Green Lantern and still stay true to the comics. And so, with tons of exposition, Green Lantern rabbit-punches viewers with world-shattering fact after mind-altering fact in the first five minutes: aliens exist, there's a giant yellow monster imprisoned in a planet, ancient humanoids predating humanity have been guarding the universe with green willpower, and there's a dizzying variety of highly advanced technical races from across the galaxy. Green Lantern makes Superman's backstory look quaint. His name doesn't help either - Emerald Flashlight has to say an oath that activates a ring that's charged by a lantern that's powered by a planet that's actually the embodiment of all sentient beings' will. No wonder critics got confused.

)o()o()o( "I pledge allegiance to a lantern, given to me by a dying purple alien." - Hal Jordan )o()o()o(

Director Martin Campbell knows all this. He makes fun of the ridiculous circumstances in which Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds and his fab abs) finds himself, ranging from a dogfight with two robot jets to a dogfight with a giant soul-eating monster. Part of what makes Green Lantern so entertaining is that it embraces its pulpy roots: there's the childhood sweetheart (smoking hot Blake Lively as Carol Ferris who just happens to be a successful businesswoman and fighter pilot), the nebbishly awkward villain (Peter Sarsgaard as Hector Hammond), and tough-as-nails "red Spock" Sinestro (Mark Strong). The real villain of the piece, Parallax, sounds like a 1980s video game effect - oh wait, it is! This is not a movie to be taken too seriously.

)o()o()o( "It's not a magic ring--it's a ring powered by advanced technology!" - Hal Jordan )o()o()o(

And yet, Green Lantern is no movie trifle. The challenge with a superhero who has powers like Green Lantern is that the possibilities are literally endless - the rings are powered by the hero's will, which means he can technically imagine anything. This also means that an abusive hero might imagine black holes and solve all of his problems that way. Green Lantern cleverly constrains these god-like powers by imposing plot-related restrictions on Hal's creativity. When all Hal can come up with to stop a helicopter from crashing into partying guests is a Matchbox car in a ramp, it's because he played with one in his nephew's room the day before. When he's trying to use the sun's gravitational pull as a weapon, it's because he used the Earth's gravitational pull as a weapon against the two jets earlier and because his tutor Kilowog points out that gravity is a...uh, harsh mistress. Hal Jordan might always manifest boring weapons straight out of a first-person shooter, but that's because he's harboring a lot of guilt over his military daddy's death.

)o()o()o( "You thought I wouldn't recognize you just because I can't see your cheekbones?" - Carol Ferris )o()o()o(

Speaking of daddy issues, Green Lantern is one giant ball of forest-colored father/son conflict: Hal and his military pilot father, Hammond and his successful senator father, dead Abin Sur and grieving Sinestro, Abin Sur and the newly created Green Lantern, Parallax and his newly adopted avatar Hammond...it's clear the Green Lantern writers were looking for some emotional hook, and that hook was spelled out D-A-D. Green Lantern tries very hard to be deep.

Unfortunately, Green Lantern can be pretty shallow at times. Parallax, remember, is an ancient being predating much of humanity's evolution, but he falls for the oldest trick in the book. We're supposed to believe that Parallax really, really, REALLY hates Abin Sur and everything associated with him. After he kills Abin Sur, you have to ask why Parallax wants to go after just Hal Jordan when he could be eating so many other Green Lanterns for breakfast.

When Green Lantern goes big, it's glorious, but when it pulls in tight, the plot turns an earth-shattering battle between god-like beings into a schoolyard shoving match. But really, that's pretty normal from superhero comics. It's just that today's movie superhero fans expect a guy in a cloak that's just like you and me without any of the world-spanning baggage.

Green Lantern's guilty of being true to Green Lantern, spandex, mask, ring and all. For those who find it implausible, maybe a superhero powered by a jade-colored light source isn't for them.

I'll admit up front that I wasn't that familiar with the Green Lantern character before this movie. In fact, if I hadn't have talked to a friend who was a fan of the comics, everything I knew would have been from watching the old "Justice League" cartoons on Saturday mornings -- the ones in which Green Lantern was just another random face in the crowd. At least he wasn't the Wonder Twins, but Aquaman got more love than Green Lantern on that show. Thankfully, my friend explained why Green Lantern is so cool. I mean, having the power to create anything you can imagine... that's pretty awesome stuff. Obviously, the more imaginative the person, the better, and that was my main concern going in to this movie -- that the things the writers came up with for Green Lantern to create wouldn't be that creative. But I think they actually did a pretty good job in that department. Of course you have to keep in mind that he has to come up with these things on the spot, without a lot of time to sit around and think about it. The movie does have its flaws. There are a few scenes that feel cliche and it could have used a bit more action and a longer end fight, etc., but I still found it to be a fun, inspiring movie overall. I loved the "courage overcoming fear" storyline. As it turned out, it was the best time I had at the movies all summer.

Preview

Read more »

X-men: First Class

X-men: First Class

 Following the classic Marvel mythology, X-MEN: FIRST CLASS charts the epic beginning of the X-Men saga.

The X-Men films are kind of a huge letdown as a whole, aren't they? The first two are pretty good, but everything good they had going for them was completely destroyed once The Last Stand came to fruition. Thank you, Brett Ratner. And X-Men Origins: Wolverine just drove the franchise even further into the ground; kudos, Gavin Hood. So there probably isn't any reason to get excited over a new X-Men film even if it is a prequel to the X-Men films people actually enjoy. Why would we want to see another comic book movie with limitless potential only to drop the ball yet again? Not only does X-Men: First Class take that ball and run with it but it uses it in all the right ways and reminds you why you loved the X-Men in the first place.

The cast is way better than it has any right to be. Everyone fits their character incredibly well and works fantastically as a cohesive unit. Kevin Bacon seems like a bit of an odd choice for Sebastian Shaw at first, but any doubt you may have is washed away once you finally see him absorb energy. His role as the main villain may be significantly smaller than you may imagine, but his more than qualified acting chops make nearly every scene he's a part of memorable (nothing really tops his first scene with young Magneto though). James McAvoy does an excellent job handling Charles Xavier. He's gentle, kind, and really seems to care about helping his fellow mutants. Michael Fassbender as Magneto manages to have the strongest on-screen presence. He's intense, powerful, and emotional; the best-rounded character of the film.

It was gratifying to see McAvoy and Fassbender make the roles of Professor X and Magneto their own without completely rehashing what Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan established the first time around. That is often a problem when it comes to prequels; these younger actors wind up focusing on mimicking the older version of who they're meant to portray without putting their own spin on it. Luckily, that wasn't an issue here.

No expense was made when it comes to the special effects either; Azazel is a perfect example. By the end of the film, you still won't know anything about the character other than the fact that he can teleport like Nightcrawler and is a master swordsman. His teleporting ability is just as fun to watch as Nightcrawler's was in X2 and his fight sequences (especially the one with a particular blue mutant) are always quite engaging. Most of Magneto's scenes involve some pretty hefty CG and it's pulled off rather well. The metal fillings scene is a personal favorite along with the Argentina bar scene (pay particular attention to the slow building yet unnerving music used during that scene along with the weapon used at the table). Then there's the obvious scene of Magneto reversing the missles that's being shown in nearly every advertisement these days. Beast is probably a high point of the special effects. Nicholas Hoult portrays Hank McCoy rather flawlessly (other than one scene that I won't spoil); brainy, shy, not sure of himself, and ashamed of his mutation. Beast's transformation is one of the best scenes in the film though. It gave me flashes of An American Werewolf in London. It's a shame we didn't get to see more of him as Beast because the one good long scene we see of him is really impressive.

One of the things that make X-Men: First Class so good is that we get to see how these characters grow into the superheroes and super villains that we know and love today. And again, while the film loosely follows the comics it still manages to blossom and mature into something exceptional on its own while also planting the appropriate seeds to line up with the Bryan Singer X-Men films.

So by now you have an idea of how good the film is, but is there anything bad about it? Some characters feel really underdeveloped; Riptide, Darwin, and Angel come to mind, but the biggest disappointment is Havok. There are no connections that he's actually the brother of Cyclops and many will be upset about that. Plus his character doesn't really feel very useful in comparison to both Beast and Banshee who at least put their powers to good use on several occasions throughout the film. Other than a few minor gripes about certain characters, which could surely be rectified in future installments; there really isn't much to complain about with X-Men: First Class.

Do not let other 20th Century Fox comic book related films put you off, X-Men: First Class deserves to be held in the highest regard right next to Marvel's best. The cast is practically overflowing with talent, the storyline is both sharp and absorbing, the special effects are probably the best they've ever been in any X-Men film, and the appropriate connections are made to the best parts of the original films. X-Men: First Class should be the standard for all X-Men films from here on out. It's intelligent, engrossing, and spectacular. It's easily the best X-Men film yet.

What drew me to check out X-Men: First Class was not any particular love of comic books nor any particular fondness of the previous films. What drew me to this film was the presence of actor Michael Fassbender, whose increasingly eclectic work has continued to impress me more and more with each new film he appears in. I recall little about the first three X-Men films, besides that I found them enjoyable and I admit that I haven't even bothered to see X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I figured it was only a matter of time before Fox rebooted the X-Men series after the lackluster reception of the last two X-Men films. Bringing in director Matthew Vaughn, the director of 2010's cult hit Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class is a summer blockbuster that delivers on all fronts, while reinventing and re-energizing the series.

The film opens with the same scene that opened the first film, introducing us to Erik Lehnsherr as he's separated from his mother at a Nazi prison camp. These first scenes, particularly Erik meeting his mortal enemy Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), are surprisingly effective. Several years later, the film sets itself up against the backdrop of the 1960s Cuban Missile Crisis as Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) is recruited by CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) to assemble a team of mutants for the purpose of stopping Shaw from triggering World War III. Charles forms a partnership with the vengeful Erik (Fassbender) to help him assemble the team, which already consists of Charles' adopted sister Raven (Jennifer Lawrence), and the film leads us through the events that culminate in Charles, Erik, and Raven becoming Professor X, Magneto, and Mystique, respectively.

The story and screenplay give credit to six people total and the key to the success of this movie may be that one of those six people is Bryan Singer, the director of the first two X-Men films whose absence may have been what guided the last two films into mediocrity. His involvement, Vaughn as the director, and the changing of the time period all have significant impact on the film's success. The material seems much more at home in the 60s time period, while also helping to establish a different atmosphere and tone that separates it from the other films in the series.Vaughn emphasizes a steely, gray palette, an atmospheric visual aesthetic that gives the film a much bleaker tone than it's predecessors. He's assisted in establishing this effective atmosphere by the ominous musical score by Henry Jackman that lends to the atmosphere and builds the suspense.

There is some great talent in front of the camera. Lawrence, a recent Oscar nominee is a perfect fit for the young Mystique and Kevin Bacon gives a diabolical performance as the antagonist, but it is Michael Fassbender whom I believe will walk away from this film a star. It's sad that with so many great roles behind him in the last few years Fassbender has to play Magneto to finally get the recognition he deserves. With that said, Fassbender's performance as Magneto is fascinating to watch and brings a new level of depth to the character. His charismatic performance shows Erik as a tortured soul, but also a (forgive me for not being more eloquent, but no term I can think of is better) bada**. Furthermore, he shares remarkably strong chemistry with McAvoy and these two work well enough together to carry more films in this series.

What really elevates the material beyond it's predecessors and, for that matter, most superhero movies, is the level of drama and genuine humanity it contains. It's a complete success as a summer action film, but it's much more than that; it's a genuinely good, well-made film. In addition to that, it's almost unbearably entertaining. I found it riveting for it's entire 132-minute running time, while marveling at how it's so insanely entertaining without relying on contrived, repetitive, action sequences to guide its entertainment value. There are some negative elements; Mystique's makeup looks much cheaper than it did in previous incarnations and there is the occasional cheesy line of dialogue, but none of this was substantial enough to negatively impact my view of the film.

X-Men: First Class is exactly what it's title implies; first class. Backed by a script that is both entertaining and intelligent, guided by great direction, and brought to life by a tremendous cast, I have no reservations calling this the best X-Men film yet. It has all the things you could want from a summer blockbuster; action, adventure, intelligence, soul, Magneto exacting revenge on Nazi's, great performances, and one of the funniest cameos I've seen in a long time. It's not a masterpiece, as it sticks a little too close to the summer-film template but, be that as it may, the heart must rule the head and I have no qualms admitting that I loved it.

Preview
 

Read more »

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Heroic Hugh Jackman breathes the fire into Wolverine -- with a vengeance! This pulse-pounding action thriller sinks razor-sharp adamantium claws into the mysterious origins of Logan/Wolverine: his epically violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed/Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber), and the ominous Weapon X program that unleashes his primal fury.

With the X-Men films becoming too expensive to feature all its stars, it has become more logical to focus on the storyline of each of the main characters. And what best than to feature one of the more popular characters in the Marvel and X-Men universe, Wolverine.

Taking the helm as director is actor, Gavin Hood ("Thug", "The Storekeeper" and "Stas and Nel Adventures"), with a screenplay by David Bennioff ("The Kite Runner", "Troy") and Skip Woods ("Hitman" and "Swordfish"). Joining the men is composer Harry Gregson-Williams ("Deja Vu", "Shrek the Third" and "Gone Baby Gone") and cinematographer Donald McAlpine ("The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", "Peter Pan", "Anger Management" and "Moulin Rouge!").

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine", the Blu-ray Ultimate 2-Disc Edition comes with two discs. The main disc is the Blu-ray, while the second disc is a digital copy.

VIDEO & AUDIO:

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is presented in 1080p High Definition with an AVC @ 22MBPS. The picture quality is quite solid with the skin pores of both Hugh Jackman and Liev Schrieber coming quite nicely on the HD transfer. The grittiness, the sweat, the grime, the vibrancy is also well-captured in the film. Blacks are nice and deep and with the film being shot outdoors, the areas that Logan visit are quite detailed. I didn't see any compression artifacts or major scratches or dust on the video transfer.

The audio is presented in English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio (also English, Spanish and Portuguese 5.1 Dolby Digital and French 5.1 DTS). The lossless audio track is absolutely awesome. From Zero's gunfire, Logan's adamantium claws making the "snickt" sound, Wade's swords as it deflects the bullets and Victor's attacks and his growls, it's all captured and sounds incredible. Also, there are plenty of action-scenes that really showcase the surround channels and a good amount of LFE is utilized. From the explosions to the gunfire, home theater owners should be happy with the Blu-ray lossless soundtrack as some scenes sound quite immersive.

As expected, Twentieth Century Fox has done a great job with the video and audio transfer for "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". Subtitles are presented in English SDH, Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin and Portuguese.

SPECIAL FEATURES

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" comes with the following special features:

* Commentary by Gavin Hood - Audio Commentary by the director Gavin Hood. For the most part, Hood does a great job in providing the details to the film. A very informative audio commentary.
* Commentary by Producers Laura Schuler Donner and Ralph Winter - There are some interesting details about certain scenes and what went on to create those scenes via the producers perspective. The only problem is that Donner and Winter have too many silent moments in where they are not talking. So, it can be a bit distracting.
* The Roots of Wolverine: A Conversation with Stan Lee and Len Wien - (16:16) Both Stan Lee and Len Wien discuss the X-Men, Wolverine as a character, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and the history of the character. An informative featurette in regards to the comic books. For some reason, I felt that Stan Lee was not his jovial self.
* Wolverine Unleashed: The Complete Origins - (12:02) Interviews with the director, producers, Hugh Jackman in regards to shooting the film, origins of Wolverine, training, making his claws and the set.
* Weapon X Files - This segment features each talent in character talking about themselves and then we hear from the director/producer about what they wanted to accomplish with their character and special effects that went into the making of that character. Probably my favorite was the featurette on Kevin Durand's Blob and what went into making the fat suit.

- Victor Creed/Sabretooth (7:25)

- William Stryker (4:25)

- John Wraith (4:15)

- Kayla Silverfox (3:26)

- Fred Dukes/Blob (7:18)

- Bradley (3:18)

- Remy Lebeau/Gambit (9:08)

- Agent Zero (3:45)

- Wade Wilson/Deadpool (7:10)

- Emma (Kayla's Sister) (3:25)

* The Thrill of the Chase: The Helicopter Sequence - (5:53) The making of the helicopter sequence.
* Ultimate X-Mode - While watching the film, viewers can watch the director, producers and cast talking about the film via picture-in-picture.
* Deleted & Alternate Scenes - (9:30) With optional commentary by director Gavin Hood, Hood introduces four deleted and alternate scenes which include: Young Storm, Victor at the boxing ring, Alternate Memory Erase Sequence and a Japanese Bar Scene.
* Fox Movie Channel Presents: World Premiere - (6:20) The "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" debut in Tempe, Arizona (The contest winners of where the red carpet premiere took place).
* X-Men on Blu-ray: Trailers for X-Men Trilogy and "Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian".
* BD-Live Lookup - With a BD-Live enabled Blu-ray player, viewers can access up-to-date information on actor filmographies, information related to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" on imdb (The Internet Movie Database).

JUDGMENT CALL:

I literally grew up with the "X-Men" and "Wolverine" comic books when I was younger. During the 80's, you had your American superheroes but Wolverine represented a character that was just exciting, deadly and literally kickass.

Since the release of the three X-Men films, I have no doubt in my mind that Hugh Jackman was the best casting decision made for the character. He embodies the character completely and the amount of discipline he puts in working out and being Logan is just incredible and it shows in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine".

For the most part, the film is full of action and full of characters. The excitement is there, the killer instinct of both Logan and Victor are there and of course, we have pre-Deadpool Wade Wilson in the film as well, along with many other characters that makes this film fun and exciting. And to feature a storyline that revolves around Logan's origin is not easy. After all, having followed the comic books for so long, I think even writers had their challenge of how the Weapon X program would be and even today, just seeing how things have evolved with the program is just staggering. So, before watching the film, I did have my reservations of how muddled the plot could be.

Fortunately, the filmmakers took a different approach and created their own storyline with some aspects of the comic book still part of the storyline. Keeping things simple and for the most part, for those who are not familiar with the comic books, at least exciting enough to understand where Logan came from and why he and Victor have had this dysfunctional relationship.

For the most part, Jackman is just great as Logan/Wolverine and Liev Schreiber can always play the definitive bad ass. Danny Huston as Stryker was quite effective and Lynn Collins as Kayla Silverfox did a great job as well. As for Taylor Kitsch ("Friday Night Lights") as Remy Lebeau/Gambit, that was quite interesting but for the most part, I felt that Kitsch did a good job albeit the thick French accent that Gambit exhibits in the comic books and people are so used to hearing from the X-Men animated series. The others have small roles such as "LOST" and "Lord of the Rings" actor Dominic Monaghan as Bradley and Black Eyed Peas member Will.i.am also ventures to the acting world, appearing onscreen (instead of voice as he did in "Madagascar 2'). But one of the exciting parts of this film was seeing the Blob (Kevin Durand) and of course, Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds). It was great to see on the Blu-ray of how they came up with the Blob's outfit and of course, having Wade Wilson in the film. It's important to note that if you are a fan of Wade Wilson, make sure you watch through the ending credits.

With all my gushing about how much I enjoy this film, one must wonder if I have any negatives. Well, what I didn't like about the film was the overuse of CG, in which some scenes looked a bit too unrealistic. Also, the tweaking of the Wade Wilson character was a bit too much for my taste. I can understand some hardcore fans who may have a problem with the comic book continuity and how the film has quite a few differences but personally, many super hero films has its differences from its comic book counterpart that its not surprising anymore. As long as the soul of the characters are intact and the storyline is well-presented, it's good enough for me.

As for the Blu-ray release, the film definitely gets a wonderful HD transfer as picture and audio quality is solid. A good number of special features are included, as well as a slipcase and a digital copy of the film.

With that being said, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" is a good superhero film with a lot of action. Was it as deep and entertaining like "The Dark Knight Returns", my answer is no. But I definitely enjoyed it more than the third X-Men film and even the "Hulk" related films. I felt that the storyline focused on Logan/Wolverine, his rivalry with Victor Creed quite well. If anything, it's the CG that tends to be overdone at times that bothered me a bit but for the most part, I did enjoy watching the film.

But after watching the awesome Blu-ray version and seeing the film in High Definition and watching the special features, that actually enhanced my perspective towards the film. A lot went into the making of this film and to see that Hugh Jackman did most of his own stunts, that is incredible.

Overall, if you are a fan of Wolverine and the previous X-Men films, definitely give "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" a try. Definitely worth recommending!

I want to get this out first, I love the comics. I think none of these movies are anywhere close to represent the X-men as they are in the comics. That said, I think these movies exist in a different world that has nothing to do with the 616, except for the characters names and most their powers. I have no problems with these movies; X-men 1 and 2 were very entertaining action movies. But even those movies should have been called, "Wolverine 'N Pals", because they didn't focus on the X-men, but on Wolverine's interaction with the other characters. My expectations of this movie were not based on the comics themselves, but on the previous movie storylines. I knew in my heart that Hollywood would somehow find a way to rape the image of one of my favorite characters in the Marvel Universe, Deadpool. So when "Weapool 11" popped up at the end I wasn't even surprised they would do something that silly. I read an interview a long time ago that about X-men 1 that the producers had to fight to have Cyclops wear the visor because the director didn't like it. So, I am not surprised nor bothered by the fact that these Hollywood interpretations don't have a clue about how these characters should be handled. I did like the previous movies (except 3), and understand that this is merely a diferent interpretation of these characters.

Wolverine Origins or, "Wolverine 'N Pals 4; how this mess began", is a very entertaining movie. But it fails to deliver a comprehensible story line. A lot of the story doesn't make any sense. The movie,( as you might be have been clued to know), is about Wolverines origins, its shows you where he came from and how his powers manifested, leading to spending a long part of his life with his half brother Sabertooth, whom we were introduced to in the 1st X-men. After many adventures and wars, the pair ends up joining a military group of people with superpowers led by Stryker. On one of the missions, Wolverine angered by Sabertooth's actions leaves the group to pursue a nicer lifestyle. This is when he falls in love with Silverfox and the pair lives happily for a while. Many years later Sabertooth comes back in a killing rampage taking out some old members of Stryker's group, and Wolverine's love is killed during this. To get his revenge, Wolverine agrees to have done on him an experimental procedure that with give him metal plated bones.

There is some timeline continuity problem between this movie and X-Men First Class, and a little with the later movies. At the end of First Class, Xavier is around 30 and still has his hair when he is paralyzed. Near the end of this movie, there is a short scene of a bald Xavier walking. Also, Scott Summers is a minimum of 14 in 1962 in this movie, and seems no older than 30 in X-Men 1, set somewhere in the 1990s (when he should have been at least 44 for continuity to work).

Overlooking these details (after all, the comics contradict each other periodically, too), this is an enjoyable movie and worth getting. I actually liked it better than First Class (which I also enjoyed), though that one has better reviews.

Preview

Read more »

X-Men: The Last Stand

X-Men: The Last Stand



In the climax of the X-Men motion picture trilogy, a 'cure' for mutancy threatens to alter the course of history -- for the first time, mutants have a choice: retain their uniqueness, though it isolates and alienates them, or give up their powers to fit in.
I may be among the few who liked this one better than the previous two. It probably was never going to be possible to create an X-Men finale that was going to please everyone. I'll confess that there were a number of things in the three-film sequence that I didn't care for. But give the team an "A" for effort in at least trying to do something interesting and compelling. My complaint with the first film was that it was so safe and tame. It didn't try to take the X-Men saga anywhere new or interesting. THE LAST STAND did. For the record, my complaint with the series is that it managed to make Rogue an unessential and uninteresting member of the team. Of all the incarnations of Rogue, this one was the least powerful and the least complex. Anna Paquin did a fine job given the script they provided, but she should have been far more empowered than she was.

Most movies based on the comics suffer from a failure of nerve. The writers want to play it safe, don't want to offend, and refuse to take risks. THE LAST STAND takes a world of risks and leaves the X-Men universe shaken from top to bottom. I loved that! I didn't think all the gambles paid off. The Phoenix story was not as interesting as it has been in the past. Part of the problem with the Phoenix is that they tried to incorporate it with too many other arcs, including the "cure" of the mutant gene.

Most of all, this film, unlike the previous two, really made me care how the story ended. In the previous two, one figured everyone would be alive at the end, so in a way precisely what happened wouldn't matter all that much. But in this one once Mystique had been "cured" and Scott and Xavier killed, there was a great sense of danger. Not every one was going to emerge OK in this one. Who would have imagined that the film would have ended with Xavier, Scott, and Jean dead, and Mystique, Magneto, and Rogue stripped of their powers?

I loved the fact that they included some of the X-Men neglected in the previous films. Kelsey Grammer was excellent as Hank McCoy, but I thought Ellen Page was perfect as Kitty Pryde, who has always been one of my favorite X-Men, mainly because her power of being able to pass through solid objects (or having solid objects pass through her) made her fascinating because employing it required so much strategy. The sequence where she and Juggernaut engage one another was a lot of fun. Vinnie Jones was almost unrecognizable, by the way, as Juggernaut. Sidenote: Many X-Men fans are bothered by the fact that traditionally Juggernaut is not a mutant. Therefore, in the scene where his powers are stripped temporarily by the mutant who robs other mutants of their ability, he should have been unaffected. But on narrative grounds I can understand why they altered this in the film.

I can understand why so many fans of the comic disliked the final movie in the trilogy. It was a sharp departure from most of the various versions of the X-Men saga found in so many of the comics and cartoon shows. But I was ecstatic to see them try something really different and risky. They didn't take the safe route. And I personally found the story far more interesting than the first two films precisely for that reason. Yeah, I wish Rogue had been conceived differently in the trilogy and I wish the Phoenix story had been handled better, but I realize that because there have been so many permutations of the X-Men, everyone is going to contruct their own private version. This isn't quite the version I would have come up with had I the ability to cherry pick the elements I like, but this one managed the most important task: it made the story interesting.

The Collector's Edition was a let down to say the least. All they did was take a regular widescreen X-MEN THE LAST STAND in the regular DVD CASE and put it in some nicer packaging and throw in a COMIC BOOK and charge you about $10.00 DOLLARS MORE. You are better off just getting the regular version and save yourself about $10.00 DOLLARS. I would think if you are putting out a COLLECTOR'S EDITION you would think it would be a 2 DISC SET , especially for the price. I was not Impressed at all!!!!! 1 STAR for a BAD COLLECTOR'S EDITION , 3.5 STARS FOR THE MOVIE.

Preview

Read more »

Fantastic Four

Fantastic Four

The superhero world's most famous dysfunctional family turns tragedy into triumph and catastrophe into coalition as they use their unique powers to thwart the iron-fisted nemesis Dr. Doom.
I'll be honest...this movie doesn't need an "extended cut" version...sure it's a fine movie, but most of you already have an acceptable version of it, and an extra 20 minutes of footage is fine, but to most of us, not quite enough to justify buying an entire other DVD version of it...
So WHY am I reviewing this version of the DVD as a 5-star "MUST BUY" version? SOLELY because the "extras" DVD has a feature reflecting and honoring JACK "KING" KIRBY, the man/legend who co-created the entire Marvel universe (among other superheroes), with Stan Lee, but got almost NONE of the credit (or money) that Stan did...
KIRBY was a creative FORCE for both Marvel and DC comics over his lifetime career, and not only was he the world's greatest comic book creator and artist, but an amazingly warm, wonderful person, family man, and treated his fans as if they were close friends...never in the world was a man more deserving of a documentary than Kirby was, and while it should've been included in the original release, this feature alone is WELL worth watching and well worth as well the cost of buying this DVD...you will NOT be disappointed by watching the KIRBY documentary...he WELL deserves this honor, and it's VERY interesting for comic fans and non comic fans alike...

I can't remember the film, but I'd seen an old movie once about a screenwriter who was complaining about the way the studio treated his little script about kids playing ball in the park. Once it was written and sold, the piece was later turned into a war film, ruing any care, attention or real labor that the writer had put into an otherwise fetching story. To say that this is what could have happened to the Fantastic Four is just an assumption. But, somewhere along the line, between writing the script and casting the film, somebody who didn't know a damn thing about Marvel's finest hero group took control and warped it into one of the stupidest pieces of cinema this side of SuperGirl. Either they didn't know or they didn't care. Take your pick.

When I heard who was cast as Ben Grimm, the Thing, I was really excited. I had never even once thought of Michael Chiklis, but there could not have been anyone better for the role. Hyped up, I learned about who would take the role of the Human Torch. Whatever, I'd never even heard of this kid. Then, Jessica Alba, and I said, "Oh no." Not as the....Invisible Woman??? How can it be worse!?! Then, it got worse with some guy who's name I couldn't even pronounce as Mr. Fantastic, with gray dye on his temples. Not even looking anywhere near the real age of Reed Richards, this guy meant doom. But not all by himself. No, the real doom would come from the smug actor, Something Whatisname, who would destroy the character of Dr. Doom forever. Not only did this guy look like he couldn't play Doom but he played him in a really stupid plot device. Here...

Reed and his ilk want to go out into space for a science mission. I halfway believed him as a smart guy, but never are we made to believe that he is a genius. Victor Von Doom is the billionaire who finances the project and tags along - with Sue Storm as his girlfriend (!) and Johnny and Ben to tag along as pilots. Now, what is wrong with this story?

FIRST: Reed and Doom were friends in college until Doom blew up his own face in a science mistake and blamed it on Reed, hating him forever. This was waaaaay before Reed even knew the Storms.

SECOND: Johnny Storm was much younger in the comic book, at least by three or four years. AT LEAST. How he unbelievably managed to take the trip into space at that age, I will never know, so it's good that they fixed that part.

THIRD: I don't think Sue was a scientist in the book - in fact, I'm positive of it. Either way, Jessica Alba, being a major hottie, gets away with her hotness when being in ANY movie. But she will never get away with playing a scientist.

FOURTH: Doom never went into space with Reed and his ilk and he sure as heck wasn't dating Sue.

FIFTH: Ben Grimm ROCKS! Can't diss that part.

So, there. Before the film even starts, not only do they manage to smartly create a timely story about their origin which manages to incorporate Doom, but they DO IT BADLY AND STUPIDLY! Trying to crunch in the important themes was a good idea but it was left in the hands of bad, bad, bad storytellers. Doom ends up getting zapped in space with the rest of them and that's why he has armor? BECAUSE IT'S HIS SKIN? LAME!!!!

I won't go into much more of my personal hatreds, but I will tell you that I despise the director, Tim Story of "Barbershop" fame. Not only is he not competent enough to take on a story like this one, but he doesn't know enough about it to care. With a name like his, I half expected at least a good visual "story." Instead, we seemed to get just a pile of smoking junk, as if he didn't know a good story if it bit him in the butt. Now, some directors just do what they do because it's payday or because they don't have the clout to flex any muscles. If he were Spielberg, he would probably have said, "NO! TAKE THIS GARBAGE BACK AND LET WHEN KNOW WHEN YOU HIRE SOME REAL SCREENWRITERS!" (this from the guy who made "Jurassic Park" - which only floated thanks to CGI. But CLOUT reigns supreme) But, Story is not Spielberg, he's the guy from "Barbershop." But the film just reeks of not even trying. If he was powerless and had to succumb to the studio's demands, I take it all back. The studio should have backed off, not him.

Ben's latext skin was good, but it really should have been better with a little CGI touch-ups. There were times when I cringed at how obviously fake his orange suit was. Still, Chiklis handled the job really well, but the scene where Ben's wife leaves him was totally laughable. Still, not his fault. Furthermore, not that I'm hating, but I could have sworn that Ben's blind girlfriend in the comic book was white.

Sue Storm and Reed Richards sucked almost as bad as Doctor Doom. Doom is a super-intimidating figure and it did not play out here well enough. He said some mean things, smacked some people around, but he was by no means the insane mastermind from paper pictures. Sue's powers looked super-cool but Reed's seemed a bit silly at times. But during the BIG FIGHT SCENE, I forgave a lot and just enjoyed myself. For a few minutes there, it was totally FANTASTIC FOUR material.

The Human Torch could not have been better. Not how I imagined him, but he surpassed all my expectations and actually proved me wrong in some places. He is cocky and arrogant and, like Dash from THE INCREDIBLES, seemed to be the only one to relish the idea of having super powers. Nice change of pace, differing from Batman, Blade and Spiderman, who do what they have to do like it's a curse or a reason to be bummed out all the time.

If I were to rate it from one to ten, I would give it a four. One because it's a superhero movie. Two, because Alba is hot. Three, because I loved Grimm and Johnny and their constant bickering. And four, because some of the effects, like the Human Torch's fire, were top notch. Keep one thing in mind though, after the "Incredibles" came out and everyone saw how cool a person with stretch powers could be, rumor has it that the FANTASTIC FOUR went back and shot "better" scenes of Reed stretching around. Still....no competition. Not even enough competition for a cartoon.

Preview

Read more »

The Hulk

The Hulk

Marvel Super Hero, the Hulk, explodes onto the screen in this special-effects epic starring Eric Bana and directed by Ang Lee.
Since this movie is seven years old and already has plenty of reviews written, meaning it's doubtful this one will ever be seen, I'm going to keep it short. This movie was simply too smart for many of today's movie going audience. If stuff isn't blowing up every five minutes they lose interest, fast. It is no wonder to me the new Hulk was so well received compared to this one, because stuff was blowing up all the time.

Since I don't have a short attention span and I appreciate stuff like character development, a well written script, and an emotional core to my movies, this version of the Hulk delivered in spades. The effects were also fantastic, and I thought the CGI was very convincing, better than the new Hulk with it's synthetic looking CGI, which is impressive considering the new version had six years of technology advances over this version and in my opinion had nothing to show for it. Lastly, as someone who has emotional scars from my own father, and the very troubled upbringing I had with him, this Hulk was a much more emotional experience for me than I am used to in an action/sci fi movie. I applaud what Ang Lee attempted with this version of Hulk, and how he was more interested with using the character as a catalyst for a much fuller, cerebral movie experience. Sadly since much of today's movie audience doesn't want to think during a movie, it was lost on many a viewer. If you value the same things I do in a film however, and you haven't seen this version due to the bad reviews, you owe it to yourself to give it a shot.

[ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS]Since posting this review I have read comments regarding the review, both negative and positive. I have removed a bunch of the superfluous stuff from the original review. It was/is not my intention to come off as a pretentious, pompous, blow-hard, thus if the new Hulk works for you, than more power to you! I have to call it like I see it however, and while the new Hulk was a good action movie, that's all it was (for me). Ang Lee's Hulk offered more than that (for me) and I appreciate what he attempted with it. It's easy to create a strict action movie, it's far more difficult to create an action movie that offers a cerebral core to its plot. Movies like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, the Sam Raimi Spiderman trilogy, and Ang Lee's Hulk all offered deep/dark psychological plot lines, that again, provided for a much fuller movie experience. There is nothing wrong with superhero movies like the X-Men trilogy, the new Hulk, the Iron Man movies (Iron Man 1 was significantly better than 2 IMO), Thor, the Fantastic Four movies (I did not care for either of the two, I hope FF are rebooted with a far more competent director), or the Avengers, but all they were was action movies, nothing more, nothing less. Again, if that's what you prefer there is nothing wrong with that, but it's apparent from the comments to my original review, lots of movie goers appreciate a bit more to their superhero/action movies.

The "Hulk" is a good movie, often times great. The first half of the movie is a long, methodical character study of people under immense emotional torture, especially Bruce Banner (a pitch-perfect Eric Bana) and Betty Ross (Jennifer Connely). It is hinted that they share a dark past filled with absentee fathers and a secret military project that they might now be working on again, 30 years later. This first half or so is the reason why the "Hulk" was not well recieved among viewers and critics. People were expecting either another "Spiderman" or another "X-Men" or its sequel, filled with those films' brimming everyman qualities and light-pacing throughout, or the Hulk of the 70s t.v. show, who aided people when he had and anger spell. But director Ang Lee opted for a more tragic approach, with plenty of Freudinized angst, along the lines of repressed memories manifesting themselves in dreams. And while Lee sometimes overdoes it, his decision ultimately makes "Hulk" far more interesting than the t.v. show whose premise wore thin after a few episodes and a little more intriguing than Marvels past comic-book adaptations . However, action junkies need not fear. Things kick into high gear in the film's fast-paced and action-packed final act as Banner escapes from a military compound where they were hoping to harvest him for their own purposes. He then proceeds to tear up the california desert in a wondrously shot sequence that shows off the ILM's incredibly life-like and belivable Hulk creation and the films' unique style of editing that makes the film feel like a comic-book with skillfully juxtaposed images from various camera shots that describe various scenes that occur simaltaneously in the film.
It should be said, though, that "Hulk" is not as artistically accomplished as Director Lee's "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" or perhaps other acclaimed films in his catalog. "Hulk" at times suffers from uneven pacing, some mind-numbing psycological probing and timid acting. But overall, "Hulk" stands on its own as a dark, brooding and spectacular comic-book adaption that had the balls to take the "Hulk" to places no one ever expected something like the "Hulk" to go. And while having the guts to do something daring is instantly laudable, "Hulk," even with its flaws, still succeeds surprisingsly well.

From the pre-release buzz about how Lee had taken a revisionist tact with the origin of the Stan Lee-Jack Kirby Marvel comic book hero, to the first, fleeting -- and unfinished -- glimpses of the all-CGI green one during the Super Bowl, the comics-to- movie community had been eagerly awaiting, and debating, the big-budget film. Early reactions ranged from utter disgust to complete and total admiration, which brings me to my thoughts on the film -- one which ended up being sent to the Marvel scrap heap in lieu of a 2008 movie that pretended (basically) this film never happened.

Before I dive into specifics, I can say that I was first appalled when I heard about the concept of Lee and James Schamus' version. Having grown up on the old Bill Bixby-Lou Ferrigno show, plus the various cartoon incarnations, the idea that Bruce Banner became the Hulk courtesy of his father's attempts to play God, to the mystery surrounding his mother's death, to the Hulk being able to leap tall buildings with a single bound -- all of them were pretty hard to swallow considering my youthful memories of the Incredible Hulk.

While what Lee and Schamus (along with credited co-writers Michael France and John Turman) have come up with is at times too dark for its own good, and is overly bogged down in psychological aspects that don't quite come off, THE HULK is still an ambitious, flawed, but always watchable combination of silly, colorful Marvel Comics action and a study of parents and children and what makes us all tick.

Sound like a jumbled mess? Well, it works better than you might have heard. Eric Bana essays Bruce Banner, a California research scientist who works alongside former lover Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) in a lab for their betterment of mankind. Their work, though, spurs interest from Josh Lucas, who represents an "evil corporation" that's also associated with Betty's military dad (Sam Elliott). Enter Bruce's long-lost father (Nick Nolte, appropriately disheveled in one of his best performances in years), who has tracked down his son and wants to make good on the experiments he believes are trapped in his son's DNA. Obviously, it's just a matter of time before Bruce is ticked off and his transformation into the Hulk occurs.

When it does, it's a triumph of CGI animation on the part of Industrial Light & Magic, who have fully captured the look and movement of a comic book character on-screen. Unlike the tempering of the X-Men's physical characteristics (i.e. their subdued uniforms), ILM's Hulk isn't a compromise -- it's the animated character captured in its full, colorful glory, and while some may carp that the Hulk doesn't look "real" (as if a 20- foot green creature ever could), I found ILM's work to be tremendous here. The Hulk's facial animation is nothing short of outstanding (he's certainly more emotive than Bana's bland Banner), like a combination of Frankenstein's monster and Ferrigno's old muscular creation, and the level of detail in the creature is astounding.

That aspect of the movie brings with it some completely absurd sequences -- like the Hulk's battle with gamma-radiated dogs -- but they're completely in tune with the kind of action that anyone who grew up reading Marvel Comics will appreciate seeing on-screen. This Hulk does have the ability to leap into the sky, bound off cliffs and ledges, and dismantle anything that comes in his way, but the FX are great and Lee builds the dramatic conflict between father and son up enough that the movie works if you're willing to meet it halfway -- especially in its almost-indescribable, completely "comic book" final confrontation between the two.

Getting to that point does require some patience, as Lee spends a great deal of time establishing the relationships between nutty old man Banner and his bottled up son, not to mention Betty Ross and her military father. It's a little heavy-handed and slow-going at times, but you have to applaud the filmmakers for trying to establish characters and drama in a movie that ultimately turns more outlandish than any comic book film in recent memory.

Nolte's ultimately over-the-top performance goes for broke and fits the movie perfectly, as does Elliott's excellent work as Ross' father. Bana and Connelly are OK but don't have much chemistry with one another, and the former is completely overshadowed by the Hulk once the muscular one takes over. One failing of the film is its notable lack of humor -- there should have been an additional supporting player on-hand for the audience to identify with, since every character is overly brooding and wrapped up in the story.

Visually, THE HULK benefits from Frederick Elmes' fine cinematography and the use of comic book-styled "panels" that keep reminding the viewer that you're watching a comic book movie -- even if the Shakespearian aspects of the script sometimes clash with its pulpy pedigree.

Danny Elfman's music, meanwhile, is always serviceable but comes off as uninspired for the composer, sounding like a compromise between what Lee reportedly wanted (is there some point to the female vocalist who wails away on the soundtrack?) and a by-the- numbers Elfman score that has "auto-pilot" written all over it (the furious "lab montage" motifs reminiscent of "Darkman," the dark and brooding "Batman"-like aspects, the "Planet of the Apes" percussion, etc). While I wasn't a huge fan of Elfman's solid but unremarkable work on "Spider-Man", THE HULK unquestionably sounds like the result of one too many trips to the same well for the composer.

THE HULK is decidedly uneven but constantly surprising and, in the end, highly satisfying from a number of angles. It's a movie that takes a lot of risks and encompasses a wide range of emotions, and while some are more successful than others, it's certainly one of the most audacious attempts at creating a live-action comic-book that can sustain the interest of both adults and kids. Even with its shortcomings, it's a strongly recommended view.

Preview

 

Read more »

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2



Robert Downey Jr. returns as billionaire Tony Stark in this thrilling sequel to the worldwide blockbuster. Now that his super hero secret has been revealed, Tony's life is more intense than ever. Everyone wants in on the Iron Man technology, whether for power or profit... but for Ivan Vanko ("Whiplash"), ...
I've loved Iron Man ever since my first Tales of Suspense comic, so I might not be the most unbiased person to write a review. Still, I'm going to try and be as honest as I possibly can. In some ways, Iron Man 2 improves on the original. For instance, the brawl between Iron Man and War Machine was perfect, and RDJr was even better this time around. However, there were some weak moments. For example, Pepper Potts is almost absent from the movie, and is shrill and unpleasant during her brief appearances. Whiplash has never been a particularly compelling villain, and the movie doesn't do much to make him any more exciting. Also, they really need to STOP with the "Iron Man fights someone who has the same technology" plots. It's already boring. Plus, I couldn't help but wonder where a drunken hobo managed to get the equipment to build an Arc Reactor. Stark did it in the first movie because he had several billion dollars worth of his own weaponry to cannibalize. How does a homeless Russian manage it? Furthermore, the character of Justin Hammer was silly and played for laughs, which was the wrong move. It had a real "Jim Carrey in Batman Forever" vibe to it.

Others have mentioned the unnecessary plot lines, and they're right. We could have done entirely without the "Paladium Poisoning" and the "Under House Arrest by SHIELD" plots, since neither of them really went anywhere, and felt like padding in a movie that didn't need any. I didn't mind the Black Widow showing up, but eventually it felt like we were tripping over minor characters. Also, they're not fooling anyone with the whole "The Avengers don't want Tony Stark" subplot. None of us believe for a moment that they'd do an Avengers movie without the only Avenger that's proven to be a box-office success.

Still, it was a good movie. Perhaps not a GREAT movie like the first one, but at least it wasn't a franchise-killing fiasco like Spiderman 3 or Batman and Robin. Honestly, if none of us had ever seen the original Iron Man, we'd all be talking about how this movie was one of the best Comic Book movies ever. But as it is, it's over-shadowed by it's phenomenal predecessor.
While Iron Man 2 may not be perfect, it is a very solid and fun sequel. Improvements include better action sequences and some great characters added to the franchise. Unfortunately there is a lot going on here and even though it isn't hard to follow, there isn't enough time to give each sub plot the proper screen time it deserves. Oddly enough for a super hero film, I think they could have edited some of the talky scenes down and added a little more Iron Man action.

A good example of this is when we meet Natasha Romanova she isn't given much to do and I found myself wondering if she was going to be The Black Widow on screen. She is only in one action sequence(a great one with one of the funniest moments in the film)late in the movie and she and Nick Fury are really only there to set up The Avengers movie. I'm not saying it should be edited out, but there is only so much ground you can cover in two hours. Whiplash is played with gusto by Mickey Rourke, but he doesn't have much screen time either and that seems to be the problem with this film, no one but Tony Stark gets enough screen time.

After the first encounter with Whiplash in Monaco on the race track, we don't really get a good dose of Iron man until the final battle, which means there is over an hour of time where there isn't that much action. Considering what I had read about this being an action packed film, I found it to be very talky. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because the characters are well developed and the actors are all really good here.

The final battle is very good with some very cool Iron Man destruction and some nifty moves, but it's surprising and anti-climatic when Whiplash is defeated very quickly. In the first film, I thought the final battle was too long and in this one, it just seems to end too abruptly. I'm not bashing this film in any way as it is a very fun film that I will most certainly own the DVD/Blu Ray when it is released, but I think the story may have been a little too ambitious for one film.

Overall I give Iron Man 2 a solid B(4 stars)and I think Favreau did a very good job all things considered. Of course if you are seeing this in a theater, then stick around until the end of the credits role for a little teaser scene about another Marvel Hero who will be hitting theaters next year.

At the end of 2008, I made two bold assertions: (1) That "Iron Man" was one of the year's best films; (2) that "Iron Man" was one of the greatest superhero films ever made. I still believe both to be true. Now we have "Iron Man 2." While it is thoroughly entertaining, it's also a bit conventional when compared to its predecessor, having less of a compelling story but more in the ways of action, special effects, gadgets, humor, and stunt work. It's a comic book through and through. That's fine by me - what it lacks in introspection it more than makes up for in sheer fun. We have plenty to cheer for, not the least of which is our hero, billionaire industrialist Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), who when we last left him had shut down the weapon's division of his company to focus on more humanitarian uses for technology. The result was a high tech metal suit equipped with rocket boosters and missile launchers.

It's now six months after Stark revealed himself as Iron Man at a press conference. Despite the demands of a United States Senate committee, he refuses to share his technology with the American military, believing that world peace can be maintained only if it's privatized. At this meeting, he humiliates Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), the CEO of a rival company who has unsuccessfully tried to outdo Stark's technology with his own prototype machines; in an effort to get ahead, Hammer appeals to Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist who publically revealed his grudge against Stark by attacking him as he was car racing in Monaco. For as yet unknown reasons, Vanko has constructed an arc reactor very similar to the one implanted in Stark's chest. He has improved the design by attaching whips that surge with bolts of electrical energy.

Stark, meanwhile, is realizing that his chest implant, originally constructed as a way to keep him alive, contains an element that's slowly poisoning him. He doesn't handle it well. He acts out. He drinks in excess. He hastily appoints his former personal assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), as the new CEO of his company. If he's to survive, he must replace the core of the implant with an entirely new element, one he has tried but failed to create on his own. Out of the blue comes special agent Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), who suggests that Stark look to his father's research for guidance.

New to the cast is Don Cheadle, who replaces Terrence Howard as Stark's dedicated but weary friend Lt. Colonel James Rhodes. Also new is Scarlett Johansson as Stark's newly hired personal assistant Natalie Rushman, who says she's from the company's legal department.

Watching this movie, I was quite dazzled by the sights and sounds, and I found the plot engaging in a suspension-of-disbelief kind of way. I did not, however, find it persuasive, as I did the first film, which I felt put a refreshing and thought-provoking spin on the traditional comic book adversary; Stark might have physically battled with the power-hungry Obadiah Stane, but his real enemies were war and injustice, both of which he took part in by selling weapons of mass destruction. This time around, it's much more by the book - a superhero pitted against a madman out for revenge, a fight to the finish that includes a lot of things blowing up, a showcase of digital wizardry and highly choreographed stunts. There are a number of films that can give you pretty much the same thing.

That being said, there's no denying the quality of the performances, especially Downey, whose cocky take on Stark makes the film fun but not jokey. Rockwell is quite good, playing Hammer is if he were Stark's slightly goofier evil twin - comedy relief with a hint of something darker, you might say. Credit also to Rourke, who truly does convey the anger, resentment, and pain his character feels in every one of his scenes. He isn't given all that much screen time, but when he's on, he's on, resonating with a deep, calm, frighteningly low voice and an imposing build.

If there is an "Iron Man 3," and I have no doubt that there will be, I can only hope it doesn't follow its predecessor's lead and decline in quality. The original "Iron Man" was a superb film, redefining the superhero genre for both old and new generations of moviegoers. "Iron Man 2" is a great looking and wonderfully performed sequel, although its approach to the story is routine, more so than I had preferred it to be. Still, you've got to hand it to director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Theroux - they sure know how to entertain an audience. There's an early scene in which Stark, dressed as Iron Man, jumps off a plane, flies through the sky, and lands unharmed in the middle of one of his own lavishly high tech expos in New York City. Throngs of people cheer him on. I suspect the audiences for this movie will do the same when it's over.

Preview

Read more »