IRON MAN 2.

It's here. The first big anticipated film of the year is here. The original was a big surprise when it came out. This sequel has been anticipated (as already stated) ever since. But the original weren't without its issues. My own personal problems were the character of Pepper Potts (I just didn't like how she was written), as well as the climax feeling, well, anti-climactic. So did the sequel fix these issues?

The story follows Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) after having announced himself to the world as Iron Man. The government wants his armor, seeing it as a weapon that belongs to "the people." Tony, of course, refuses. They eventually have to bring in his best friend, Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle), to try and talk some sense in to him. Meanwhile, a man named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), the son of a Russian scientist, wants to take revenge on Stark. He builds an outfit to take on Iron Man, utilizing lightning whips. And then there's Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell), a weapons' specialist out to commercialize the Iron Man technology for the U.S. Military, and he ends up taking on Vanko as help. The film also stars Scarlett Johansson as a woman who might know more than she seems, working with Stark. And, of course, there is the return of Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts and Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury.

First off, the trailer is slightly misleading. It portrays Vanko as the primary villain, and I don't think that's true. Yes, he's a main villain, but the trailers hardly even show Sam Rockwell. Justin Hammer is a huge part of the movie, and really none of the plot could happen without him. But I suppose when you have the option of showcasing Mickey Rourke with lightning whips or the powerless love child of Edward Norton and Dana Carvey, I'd go with the former, too.

So how are the villains in this movie? They're pretty good. Vanko only wears his ridiculous costume for the racing scene as shown in the trailers, but comes up with something a bit more sophisticated (?) for the finale (which I'll get to later). Unfortunately, those are his only two fighting scenes. Hammer, on the other hand, is in the film constantly, either stumbling over his words trying to outwit Stark or trying to play the impressive businessman to Vanko. And he is a good villain, despite not really ever getting his own hands dirty.

And how about the good guys? RDJ is still hilarious as Tony Stark and badass as Iron Man. Don Cheadle steps in to replace Terrence Howard, and I'm not sure which I like better. I think Cheadle, overall. Howard was able to add some humor to the character, while Cheadle pretty much plays him straight, at least up until the third act. But I think Cheadle pulled off the straight-man aspect of the character better than Howard, seeming more serious and believable as a military man. And then there's Pepper Potts. I actually liked her in this movie, especially since they didn't have her yelling secret plans to overthrow the enemy while the enemy was right there like in the first movie. So yeah, she was much improved over the first movie. Oh, and... uh... Scarlett was hot (and awesome). And hot.

So what were some of the negatives, you might ask? Well, first, I don't think there was nearly enough action. There are really only three major action sequences in the movie, and only two of them serious. There's the race car fight where Vanko first shows his abilities. The fight itself occurs at the end of the first act and, depsite Vanko slicing cars in half and Stark using his awesome suitcase armor, the fight is relatively short--maybe only 1 or 2 minutes once Stark actually gets his armor on. Then there's a not-so-serious fight that introduces War Machine, which is pretty fun. And then...

...then there's the climax. As a whole, the climax is awesome. There's Scarlett Johansson kicking ass. There's Iron Man kicking ass. There's War Machine kicking ass. There's explosions, lasers, flying, dodging, martial arts, and even a bit of humor... everything. But then there's Vanko. What I was worried about was a fight like the first movie's, where Iron Man goes up against the big bad guy and it ends up only lasting a couple minutes, as Iron Man figures out some big explosion-type deal that can take him down. So how is it this time? It lasts even less time than the one in the first movie. I suppose I shouldn't be complaining, as the entire climax up to that point has already lasted a long time. But I figured all that would be just the warm-up battle to prepare for the Final Boss, as it were. At least in the original, they fly around, shoot at each other, throw some punches... in this one, it literally lasts only a minute or two, mostly of Vanko holding on to Iron Man and War Machine with his lightning whips and tossing them about. How awesome would a midair lightning whip/hand blasts battle have been? Maybe add some rain... stylish! But oh well. Everything leading up to it rocked pretty hardcore to at least make up for it to a degree.

Overall, the movie was really good. I wasn't even going to comment on the visuals, as they are amazingly well done. The action that was there was done very well, but I think there could have been a little more there. With so little action, everything else in between seemed to drag at times. I was about to get annoyed right before the racing scene came up. Yeah, he's in his suit more, but just wearing the suit does not Iron Man make. Everything else was amazing. So was it worse than, as good as, or better than the original? I certainly don't think it was worse than. I'm actually tempted to say it was even better than the original in some cases, while in others it was just as good as. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you liked the original, you will definitely like this one, possibly even more. It had a couple issues, but then again, so did the first. Has summer officially started, then? Hell yeah, baby.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Wait for the scene after the credits. On top of the million Avengers nods this movie throws at you, there's one after the credits that's pretty cool).

SHERLOCK HOLMES.

From the trailers, I was never sure what to make of this movie. I'm not an avid fan of Sherlock Holmes or anything, so it wasn't an issue of staying true to source material or whatever. I guess it just made it seem a pure action movie with slow motion visuals and little on the mystery. I suppose this is a case where the trailer wrongfully portrays a film.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is the greatest detective of his time. He and his partner and friend, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), have just stopped Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) from killing another person. Blackwood is then tried and hung for his deeds. But then he rises from the dead and boggles the minds of the Scotland Yard. Around this same time, an old 'flame', Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), arrives to stir up a bit of trouble in Holmes' life. But while working on her case, he gets mixed up in the new case of Blackwood's resurrection. And it's up to him and Watson to solve the case before it's too late.

First, the movie wasn't just all action as I had feared. There is plenty of it there, but there's also a good bit of mystery involved, as well. And as for my much-feared slo-mo fighting, it worked in the context of the movie. Basically, it's Holmes slowing down the situation and thinking out his points of attack, rationalizing it, before he does it. And it only happens a couple times. Other than that, the action is pretty good.

The mystery, on the other hand, is (from what I hear) classic Sherlock Holmes. By that I mean that there is no way for the audience to figure it out beforehand. You know what bits and pieces are important when you see them, but there's no way (unless you're a scientist or genius) to figure out what the pieces mean or how they fit together. Usually I hate that kind of mystery, as I think the point of a mystery is to be able to figure it out yourself (thus becoming the detective), so taking away that ability and giving it a "out of nowhere" response is a bit of a letdown. Not necessarily the case here. I think they kept it entertaining enough and shot well enough that it didn't really bother me.

As with most Guy Ritchie films, the dialogue is heavy and fast, making it sometimes hard to follow. Though, unlike his other films, it doesn't permeate throughout the entire film. It's just in a few places here and there. But also, like other Ritchie films, the cinematography and overall visual style was great. There were some really beautiful shots in the movie.

I don't have too much to say about the film, really. I liked the visuals, the music, and (as expected) the comedy. I suppose the biggest surprise was Jude Law. I don't go out of my way to see Jude Law films, but I really enjoyed his portrayal of Dr. Watson and wanted him back when he wasn't on screen. Anyway, an all around fun film. It was good entertainment, and I'll definitely be seeing the sequel (because there's gonna be one).


A Keanu 'Whoa'

P.S. The biggest disappointment? The McAdams cleavage shot from the trailer isn't in the movie. Boo.

TROPIC THUNDER.

I wasn’t sure what to expect going into this, but I came out with a smile on my face and a good time behind me. Tropic Thunder is about a blundering war film based on a ‘true-story’ book called Tropic Thunder written by Four Leaf Tayback (Nick Nolte). But everything is screwed up: the explosives guy Cody (Danny McBride) is overly obsessed with his profession; the actors—action guy with failing career, Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller); extreme method actor, Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.); failing comedian, Jeff Portney (Jack Black); rapper, Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson); and the rookie, Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel)—are all screw-ups and completely messing up the film. So the director, Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan), gets advice from Four Leaf to film the movie guerrilla-style by dumping the actors in the middle of the jungle away from all of their modern-day vices and such. But when one bad thing after another occurs, the crew finds themselves in the middle of an Asian drug encampment, and they’re all very much real and serious.

The beginning was a little slow, though there were quite a few laughs. The big thing with this movie is the high number of cameo appearances, including the much-talked-about Tom Cruise. Sometimes they’re more than small appearances, sometimes they’re only brief. But all of them are funny.

The acting in the movie was done really well, I thought, all around. Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr., though, were the obvious leads of the film. The majority of the movie concentrated on those two actors’ characters. Jack Black’s character isn’t really the typical Jack Black, in my opinion (musically obsessed, hardcore spaz). But then again, Black wasn’t at the forefront of the movie, either. Brandon Jackson is pretty much like you’d figure him to be from the movie trailer. But the surprise of the group was Jay Baruchel, who really held his own against these other guys. You’d probably only recognize the guy from Knocked Up (the scrawny friend with the bad haircut). But his character here, though he’s not one of the top billings, played a bigger role than arguably even Jack Black’s. And his character was much better, too. Of course the stand-out was Robert Downey Jr. Anytime he was off-screen, I waited for it to go back to him (even though you could barely ever tell it was him). Oh, and Tom Cruise’s character is hilarious. He was very good, too. As for Nick Nolte? Well, he was Nick Nolte (intense and kinda creepy).

The cinematography was another thing done quite well. There were a lot of great scenery shots, as well as fun action shots. And on the subject of action, there was a lot, and it was all excellent. The only bad visual I really noticed in the whole movie was toward the end, when there’s this kid stabbing one of the characters… and the whole sequence with the kid (from the stabbing to what happened right after) looked really fake. Otherwise, it was great.

So we have the action down; what about the comedy? For an action-comedy, it’s half the equation. And it really worked. I was laughing, my theater was laughing, and it was hilarious in its absurdity. And the humor ranged all around the board: from just verbal humor, situational humor, gross-out humor, action-related humor… well, the movie was just really funny. I can’t say much more than that.

And I really don’t think I can say much more than that. The acting was done well. The visuals (in both cinematography and action) were done great. The humor was great. The cameos were great. All around, the movie was highly entertaining (except for a few slow spots toward the beginning), and I left the theater smiling. What more can you ask than that?

A Keanu 'Whoa'

P.E.S.T.

I know I just posted (and please check it out below, or here, because it's important info), but I totally forgot about Pre-Emptive Strike Thursdays! Darn those new thingies! So here we go for this week.

------

Title: The Happening.

Pre-Thoughts: I personally think it's gonna bring M. Night back into good standing with critics and such after his last few movies. I've heard it's supposed to be his best since The Sixth Sense. And it's rated R! I think it'll be pretty awesome. It'll probably have a lot of jump-scares, and while some parts of it might be slow (I feel it might be a slow-burn movie) that could turn people off, I really think it'll be worth it.

Pre-Score:

A Keanu 'Whoa'


Title: The Incredible Hulk.

Pre-Thoughts: The CGI looks as fake as it did the last go-round, but I love Edward Norton, and I think he could really pull through on this movie. I think it won't be nearly as boring as the last one, and it'll have more action, so that'll be cool. Overall, I think it'll be a regular summer popcorn flick. I don't think it'll be incredibly super awesome, but it'll be enjoyable. And Robert Downey Jr. will have a cameo as Tony Stark! That's gonna add some cool points to the movie.

Pre-Score:

I Am McLovin!

Bizarre Noir #2: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Welcome to the second of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

---------------

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Shane Black.

Why it's bizarre: It breaks the fourth wall. And it's funny.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as thief Harry Lockhart who, in running from the law, finds himself pretending to try out for a detective movie. They cast him, but want him to get some detective lessons from Gay Perry (Val Kilmer), a gay detective. Then Harry stumbles into his old hometown crush, Harmony (Michelle Monaghan). Meanwhile, Harry and Perry start getting set up for a murder, while Harmony’s sister is supposedly murdered. So now both men are trying to figure out both cases, which are seemingly unrelated, while also trying to stay alive.

Let me start off by saying I love this movie, and it has become one of my favorites. It’s hilarious, suspenseful (at times), and quirky. The first time I saw it, I was completely confused with the ending, unsure of how everything tied together or what had actually gone down because it all moves so fast and you have to remember almost every little detail in the movie (fortunately, RDJ’s narration will sometimes kick in and tell you that something within a scene might be important for later on). But after that first time, I had it all down and can understand it just fine now.

The acting is superb, and the comedy chemistry between RDJ and Val Kilmer is great. And Val has gained quite a bit of weight, making you wonder how exactly he ever fit into that bat suit (though most of us don’t want to remember that anyway). And you really feel for the characters in the movie and what happens to them.

The movie itself never goes where you expect it to. Just when you think you know where the movie is going, it takes a sharp turn and throws you off. And that on top of the witty narration and dialogue make the movie truly memorable. There’s one bit of dialogue that I love that can really exemplify both of these things:

Perry: “Look up ‘idiot’ in the dictionary. You know what you’ll find?”

Harry: “A… picture of me?”

Perry: “No! The definition of the word idiot, which you fucking are!”

And just because I know this dialogue can do nothing but make you curious…

Harry: I peed on the corpse. Can they do, like, an ID from that?
Perry: I'm sorry, you peed on...?
Harry: On the corpse. My question is...
Perry: No, my question. I get to go first. Why in pluperfect hell would you pee on a corpse?

Really, the visuals are good (especially for a movie with this low of a budget), the acting is great, the story is great (though really fast-paced), the dialogue is witty, and the movie is both funny and unpredictable. And there are a lot of references to old noir/detective books and such, if you’re a fan of those. And if you’re a fan of RDJ, noirs, comedies, or are just interested in seeing Val Kilmer play a gay man, you gotta check out Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Royale With Cheese

IRON MAN.

It’s the first big blockbuster of the season… and it delivers. I got to see the 8 PM Thursday Night showing, so I'm happy. Anyway, on to the review. Iron Man is about Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), a billionaire weapons manufacturer who gets captured by terrorists demanding him to build a new-age missile. But, knowing that he’ll just be killed afterwards anyway, Stark creates a prototype armor suit instead and fights his way back home. After a change of heart (literally), he decides to fight the evil his own company has created. He builds the suit and fights the bad guys. That’s the basic gist of it.

I normally try to list all of the major cast members in the synopsis, but I really couldn’t this time. The reason? This movie was a one-man show. Robert Downey Jr. owned this movie on every level. He was smart, quick-witted, and hilarious (not to mention a badass superhero). Terrence Howard as Jim Rhodes, his air force friend, did a nice job. And Jeff Bridges (AKA The Dude) as Obadiah Stane did well, too. There was really only one acting complaint I had… which would be Academy Award Winning actress Gwyneth Paltrow.

Odd, huh? She just seemed really awkward and out of place in this movie (the title of which most thought would go to Downey Jr.). There were times she tried to be as quick-witted as Downey Jr., but it just didn’t work. Not to mention the climax of the movie in which Tony is whispering commands at her so she can help out, and she’s standing not too far away answering back in shouts (into her cell phone) for all to hear. Learn to whisper, woman.

Another thing, closely related to my previous comment, was the actual climax. One would think that Iron Man would use less weapons with normal humans and more weapons with giant robots. Apparently the movie thought differently. The final battle could have used a lot more action from the Iron Man suit. All it really did was fly around. But besides Gwyneth and the final battle, I have no complaints.

The movie did have some really cool action. The special effects were AMAZING. And, as previously stated, the movie as a whole was hilarious. It wasn’t as dark as Batman Begins, but wasn’t as light (nor as crappy) as Fantastic Four. There was a healthy mix of drama and comedy. And it totally sets it up for a sequel (in more ways than one). For those who haven’t heard yet, stick around until after the credits for a short scene. Really, it was a great movie that I’d love to see again (and again). Good fun.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I don’t know if it’s just because he shaved his hair off, but The Dude’s head is enormous).

CHARLIE BARTLETT.

Charlie Bartlett is a pretty simple movie: Charlie Bartlett (Anton Yelchin) has gotten kicked out of every private school, so his mother (Hope Davis) enrolls him in public school. It starts off bad for Charlie Bartlett, as he’s plagued by a bully, Murphy (Tyler Hilton). But soon, Charlie Bartlett becomes the most popular kid in school, acting as a psychiatrist to the students and prescribing them medications. Unfortunately, he’s also started seeing Susan (Kat Dennings), who happens to be the daughter of the troubled alcoholic principal (Robert Downey Jr.).

First, I might as well get it out of the way… there can be two different drinking games played during this movie: First, anytime somebody uses the full name of “Charlie Bartlett” instead of just “Charlie.” Second, anytime Robert Downey Jr. downs some liquor himself.

Okay, so on to the review. The movie is rather predictable, and you can pretty much figure out what’s gonna happen by the end of the movie. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good movie. Honestly, I really enjoyed it. It started off rather slow, as it feels it takes ages to get to the psychiatric stuff. But overall, it was really good and entertaining. And it had heart.

The acting was actually really good. Anton Yelchin (you might recognize him from Alpha Dog) does rather well, really, except for the really forced closing line of the movie. Kat Dennings (you might recognize her as the daughter in 40-Year-Old-Virgin) is the movie’s eye candy (and plays it well), but she acts her part out nicely, too. The props go to Robert Downey Jr., though, who was really able to pull off that whole down-on-his-luck drunk really well (…hmm…*cough*).

There were some really funny scenes, some really heartfelt scenes, and some really sad scenes (and it’s pretty easy to figure out which characters those might emit from very early on in the movie). I really don’t see the comparison people have been making to Ferris Bueller (granted, those are typically the people who have yet to see the movie). Oh, and I probably would have really rolled my eyes at the whole Ritalin segments had I not actually known people who have been on it and heard some Ritalin-induced horror stories. Anyway, it’s a great movie all on its own. I’d recommend it to anybody that doesn’t get easily annoyed by Anton Yelchin’s voice.

I Am McLovin!