Iron Man 2

What was great about the first Iron Man was that it actually put a focus on character and character development. It didn't just want to be a loud, shiny toy. It actually made the characters interesting and you cared about them, not just because you're supposed to, but because it was earned. And it did this by sacrificing a little action. In Iron Man 2, they can't give character the same kind of attention because there's more action this time around and there's also more characters to introduce. There are more threads going this time, and, overall, they're handled well, but a couple characters suffer for it. Namely Vanko and Pepper Potts.

Mickey Rourke insisted the character of Vanko have a bird (as well as gold teeth and Russian prison tattoos) to give the character some humanity and depth. The thing is, we don't really ever see that humanity. The bird never really comes into play for the character. When he goes to work for Justin Hammer, he insists they get his bird. They bring up the bird several times, so it should be important to the character, right? But when Hammer and his guards take the bird from Vanko, is Vanko bothered? No. He shows no concern over the bird. He's already decided what he's going to do. We could've gotten some humanity had they taken the bird and then Vanko gets upset and makes his decision. It may seem like a small, nitpicky thing, but it feels to me like a missed opportunity. A point they bring up which then doesn't really add anything to the character or story.

In the first movie, there's a real connection between Pepper and Tony Stark. You get it, you see it, you feel it. Here, the two are separated so much, you don't get that same feeling. They have so little to do with each other, their budding relationship depends on you knowing it's going to happen simply because it's supposed to rather than because we see something. This is the character and relationship hurt most by the increased action and number of characters.

Thankfully, the rest of the characters don't suffer the same fate. Stark has great depth as he faces an impending death. His blood is being poisoned by the device that is keeping his heart going. He uses the wild, daredevil personality now as a disguise to hide that anything is wrong. He's going out either way. His best friend, Rhodes, is trying to protect Tony and the Iron Man suit from the government and himself, but as Tony gets more and more reckless, that is harder and harder to do. And he has to deal with his obligations to his friend, possessor of a sought after weapon which other people and countries are now trying to replicate, and his obligations to the military.

And where the first movie had a great performance by Robert Downey Jr. (he is great here as well), I think Sam Rockwell gives a likewise wonderful performance as Justin Hammer. He is just so incredibly fun as the incompetent, Tony Stark wannabe. He oozes desperation. I dare you to not laugh uncontrollably when he does an awkward dance as he comes out on stage at the Stark Expo. It says everything there is to say about the character. He wants to be Tony Stark, he wants Stark's confidence, technological know-how, way with women, business, flair, and flash. But he's not Stark. He's not as smart or as good as Stark. At anything. And so he puts on these airs which he thinks will make people believe he is.

Scarlett Johansson is incredibly sexy here. We don't know much about her character, but that's the way it's supposed to be. We're not meant to. Garry Shandling is fun as Senator Stern, the senator leading the charge against Stark. Despite the number of characters and plots, the story is easy to keep track of and follow. It unfolds naturally, easily, and isn't forced. It's very funny. The scene between Tony, in his suit sans helmet, and Nick Fury at the donut shop is just fun. The action is great. It's not so non-stop that it numbs your mind, but is more than enough to get you giddy over guns and weapons.

It's a give-and-take: less character than the first, but more action. It wouldn't have hurt the movie if it were a few minutes longer to accommodate more character development. But it's still a pretty solid, fun, enjoyable movie.

3 ½ out of 5

Kick-Ass

Imagine for a minute you're standing at the foot of a very tall building, a sky scraper in New York for example. You look up and see a man on the very top of the building, standing at the edge. Do you A.) continue to look up in awe or B.) call the police to try to get him down? Now imagine this man spreads out a pair of makeshift wings like a modern day Icarus, metal and plastic replacing wax and feathers, and jumps. Do you A.) applaud and watch or B.) scream and turn away? I'm going to hope that we all answered B to both of these questions. Why? Because we live in a world in which we know a man can't fly and people don't have super powers. Now, this is the opening scene of the movie Kick-Ass, what do the people in the movie do in this situation? They choose option A in both cases, even though they also live in a world in which they know that a man can't fly and people don't have super powers. The man plummets to his death on the top of a taxi and no one is bothered. Is there something wrong here, or is it just me?

This movie is supposed to take place in the real world in which there are no super powers, just normal people. No one is phased, no one is bothered, no one feels anything, in the face of super-violence. Tell me, how am I supposed to feel connected to the movie when the characters feel nothing when killing people? And these are the good guys I'm talking about. They feel nothing. Hack someone's leg off? No big deal. Pin a woman to a door with giant knives through the torso? Whatever. That these are done by an 11-year old girl who feels nothing about it? You've lost me, movie. That the protagonist, our emotional connection, center, the character through whom we are guided, is barely disturbed by these things, and seems more concerned that there are other people better prepared than he is? I'm gone.

And this is supposed to be a comedy, right? There's no comedy here. There's nothing funny. Just horrific. Am I supposed to laugh when the crazy Armenian guy crashes into the taxi at the beginning after thinking maybe he's going to fly? Am I supposed to laugh when the 11-year old girl messes with a guy before crushing him in a car-crusher? Am I supposed to laugh when the bad guy gets blasted out a window in a high rise by a bazooka? There are ways to make the horrific humorous, as disturbing as A Clockwork Orange is, there's a lot of humor in it, but this movie fails at it completely. You're just bombarded with disturbing images and characters who feel nothing.

So what separates the good guys from the bad guys? They both kill and don't care about it. But the bad guys deal drugs. And the good guys kill the bad guys. But the bad guys take care of some of the bad guys, as well. Oh, and the bad guy framed Nicolas Cage's character as a drug dealer so he went to jail. And Cage's character blames the bad guy for the death of his wife because while he was in jail she was depressed and self-medicated, while pregnant with their daughter (the now 11-year old girl), OD'd and died. I fail to see, exactly, how the bad guy is at fault for that though. A pregnant woman who is obviously doesn't care that much about her unborn child by self-medicating ends up killing herself...I think Cage's anger is misplaced and should be aimed at her, especially for being totally irresponsible. Then we wouldn't have a story, even if you feel it doesn't make sense and isn't justified. But that's me.

And another entry in the 'does-not-make-sense' log is Christopher Mintz-Plasse's character. The son of the bad guy. He wants in on his father's business, though it's not clear how much, exactly, he knows about it. He obviously has an idea, but particulars, don't know. He gets set up as Red Mist by his father to try and lure Kick-Ass in to take care of him. But Red Mist finds that Kick-Ass isn't the problem, Nic Cage's Big Daddy is. So he tries to get to Big Daddy through Kick-Ass. When they get him, they also take Kick-Ass. And Red Mist obviously started to feel some connection with Kick-Ass because he pleads with his father to let Kick-Ass go. But his father instead sets up a website and webcam under the guise that Kick-Ass will be unmasking himself, only then to serve as a very public beating and gruesome murder of both Big Daddy and Kick-Ass. Red Mist asks his father to stop it, but he doesn't, and he's obviously disturbed by what his father is doing. So then when Kick-Ass and Hit Girl (the 11-year old girl, daughter of Big Daddy) go to take care of the bad guy...for some reason Red Mist starts fighting Kick-Ass, though he doesn't really seem to have any beef with him. They have no reason to fight each other. Then Kick-Ass uses the bazooka, sends the bad guy out the window to explode in mid-air. And at the very end, Red Mist appears to vow to be a villain. Even though he seemed disturbed when he saw what exactly his father did, so you'd think that even though they kill his father, he'd understand. It just didn't make sense to me.

And even though this is supposed to take place in the real world without super powers, Hit Girl seems to display rather super-human skills. She's able to jump wall-to-wall, bounce off people, aim, time jumps to catch guns in mid-air, change clips without missing a beat, etc, etc. I have a hard time believing a normal person (which she's supposed to be) could be that good and agile.

Oh, and there's a freaking jet pack. A jet pack. In the real world. Jet. Pack. I live in the real world. I don't remember ever seeing a jet pack. Not for $300,000. Not for any price. They don't exist, they're not real. Don't tell me this is the real world then throw in a jet pack. That just makes me angry because it's so ridiculous.

Now, I didn't hate everything. I quite liked the line “My only superpower was being invisible to girls.” It's funny because it's true. And...well, that's pretty much it. Had there been a little more between Dave/Kick-Ass and his friends, this might have been a little better, but what little there was wasn't that great anyway. Oh, the girl Dave likes thinks he's gay, ha ha, that's so funny. But at least it could've helped give it more of the tone they seemed to looking for. When the movie was focused on this stuff at the beginning, it at least gave you a decent feeling. And Nicolas Cage is somewhat enjoyable...until you have to sit and watch him burn for a minute or two. On a side note, is it just me or is it a bad idea to have a diner in a comic book store? Eat some greasy food, get your hands covered in ketchup, browse comics. I wonder how much the store loses on damaged and destroyed comics.

And I can't believe how they've marketed this. It's marketed as a comedy. It's supposed to be funny. You get in and it's not funny, it's something completely different in style and tone. I wonder at what point the parents who brought their kids to this R-rated movie (I have nothing against bringing kids to see R-rated movies, as I saw many a R-rated movie as a kid) regretted it. This movie is so totally not appropriate for kids, at all, whatsoever.

This is what desensitization looks like. Super-violence with no reason or purpose. Characters who don't care about killing. I'd like director Matthew Vaughn to sit down with me, watch the movie, and tell me what I'm supposed to feel at any given point and why I should feel that, because I just couldn't tell. I have no idea. You go through all that violence and you end up feeling nothing because it has no point or justification. It made me want to watch a movie with real heart and emotion, like Deep Throat or Debbie Does Dallas.

1/2 star

Hot Tub Time Machine

This is a movie which simultaneously made me cringe thinking how bad it could be and chuckle thinking how funny it could be. It could be really dumb (the unfunny kind) or fun. And it is funny. It's actually pretty darn funny. Is it as good as The Hangover (which I keep seeing as being a comparison)? No. But, The Hangover is a freak, the kind of comedy that only comes around once in a while; extraordinarily funny, good characters, fun story, and really well made. It's the kind of movie that sets the bar. Hot Tub Time Machine certainly fits the same kind of mold as The Hangover, three grown men and one who's a bit of an outsider to their group, take a trip to have a wild weekend and wackiness ensues. It's a few notches below though.

Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Robinson), and Lou (Rob Corddry) are old friends. In high school they were best friends. But as they've gotten older, life has kind of pulled them apart and they're more just friends in word only, because they were friends. Lou's an alcoholic and has an accident in his garage drumming to music in his running car with the gas pedal. Naturally this raises concern among the doctor and Lou's friends. So, to keep an eye on Lou, they decide to take him back to the scene of their greatest weekend ever – the Kodiak Valley ski resort. Adam brings along his nephew, Jacob (Clark Duke) who lives in his basement and most likely rarely leaves it.

Kodiak Valley isn't quite as they remembered, it's gone downhill like an amateur down the K-12. They get their old room back, it's a dump and the hot tub is disgusting. But it magically starts bubbling again and they get in for a wild night of hot tub partying and drinking. During the course of the night, they spill a Russian energy drink on the controls and that's when things get weird – they wake up transported back to the weekend they were there, for Winterfest '86. They're themselves as they are in 2010, but the people see them as they were in 1986 (except Jacob, who wasn't born yet so appears as he is, just go with it). Jacob is a science-fiction dork so he warns them all about the danger of changing anything. So they try to remember what they did that weekend so they can do it again, even if they'd rather do it differently.

Cusack is obviously the star of the movie, but it really belongs to Corddry as Lou. He steals the show and his character really brings the emotional connection. He's an asshole, but through the events of the weekend, you see how he ended up down the path to where he is. He becomes a very sympathetic character. And he plays it so well. He makes the film what it is.

There are problems. There are jokes that are never really paid off or explained (“great white buffalo”). Characters they don't really take advantage of (Chevy Chase shows up a couple times as the hot tub repairman, says a few cryptic lines, and that's it. His character seems as though it's meant to be their time travel guide, but he's not). A couple of unfortunate crude moments (projectile vomit is not funny and scenes waiting for Crispin Glover's bell hop character to lose his arm are uncomfortable). And just a general missed opportunity to poke fun and reference Cusack's films of the 1980's (he's a producer of the film yet all there really is is a line 'We're stuck in the 1980's, I hate this decade.' Come on, you're in the 80's on a snowy mountain, Better Off Dead anyone?) and the decade in general (this should be an opportunity to look at the 80's and how things have changed rather than just a few jokes). Things like this are what keep the movie from being really good rather than just pretty funny.

I've seen the language brought quite a bit; yes, they use naughty words, lots of them. Get over it. It's Rated-R, it's for adults. Can we get over this whole 'oh my, they just said the f-word, oh no, they said it again' thing? It's been 16 years since Kevin Smith had to appeal an NC-17 rating on Clerks merely for its language. Tarantino has been giving us profanity laced films for almost 20 years. Scorsese has been “f---”-ing it up for, what, 40 years? It's nothing new. Move along and stop acting so outraged by it.

I laughed. Pretty continuously throughout. In the end, they play loose with the rules of time travel, which is part of the fun. They're aware of the problems of time travel, try to follow the rules, but sometimes it's better to change things (hey, even in Back To The Future the McFly's end up better than they were at the beginning). It won't be the most memorable movie or likely one that you want to watch again and again, but it's fun. But really, what are you expecting from a movie called Hot Tub Time Machine?

2 1/2 stars out of 5

Alice In Wonderland

The first thing to know is that this is not the original Alice in Wonderland story. Director Tim Burton has said that he was never able to feel an emotional connection with previous versions because it's a girl just going from one strange character to the next, not really a story. So this isn't exactly a sequel or re-imagining, but a sort of extension. And this will likely disappoint, frustrate, or confuse some people.

Once Alice gets into Underland (yes, Underland), I found the film really enjoyable. It's not as whimsical or playful as I might have hoped, but that can be expected when the story is put into a framework and not allowed to just go randomly. You can probably argue that giving this story a grounding goes against the point because part of the charm of the original story is that randomness. But, again, this is something different and new. And it's not a bad thing to give the story an emotional grounding. It helps to give it a more full experience.

I really like that they actually did something new and different with the story. It makes it fresh and gives more a feeling of involvement because you're not quite sure where it's going rather than going through the motions because you already know what's up ahead. One of the most common complaints is that Hollywood doesn't do anything new or original and needs to stop re-making movies or re-adapting books, but this is a clearly a very new take, so that's good, right? Yes.

My only real problem with what they did is give it a sort of Wizard of Oz type of story framework (which is ironic since Lewis Carroll's original Alice stories can likely be pinpointed as an influence in L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz – young girl gets whisked to a strange, magical land and meets various strange characters). While it works for Oz, here it just feels cheap. Does there really have to be character's in Alice's real life that mirror those found in Underland? No. Especially when you want to believe that Underland actually is real, this just suggests it's her imagination. A bit of a let down.

As to be expected from a Tim Burton film, it's visually stunning. Very unique set and character design. But it doesn't distract from what's going on. Unlike other visually powerful, CG-heavy, 3D movies, the setting and all of that does not take center stage and is not the only real reason for the film. In 3D, the movie looks good, there's a few unfortunate instances where they obviously chuck things at the screen for the effect, but the movie just looks full (in a good way, not a distracting way).

Major kudos to Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter for their performances as the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen, respectively. The film is unquestionably theirs. They bring real character to the roles, beyond just being 'mad' or shouting 'off with their heads!' There's emotion in these characters as well. And they play them superbly well and it's a delight to watch them work. It's also somewhat humorous to contemplate the level of weird to have two actors known for taking, and portraying, very eccentric roles and characters in Johnny Depp and Crispin Glover sharing the screen in a Tim Burton film.

The film is very good and a visual treat. It's a joy to watch. Great? No. But so much fun and interesting.

3 stars out of 5

Cop Out

For the past 15 years, Kevin Smith has been making his living writing and directing independent movies. Some very good (Clerks, Chasing Amy, Dogma), some not so good (Zack and Miri Make A Porno). Cop Out is his first foray into the studio system, making a movie which he did not write. It made me uneasy when I first heard about it, a director whose work I really enjoy, for the most part, cashing a check and, from the sound of it at the beginning, playing it very safe. And the trailers and commercials didn't instill any confidence in the film.

So I'll start out by saying this – the trailers and commercials don't do the film any justice. They make it look like a very different, far inferior movie. It's a pretty funny movie. And it's good fun. Unlike the extraordinarily dumb movie the trailers and commercials paint it as.

The film has problems. The story is just good enough. It doesn't bring anything new to the table (not that it has to, or is supposed to, for this kind of movie). It's nothing to write home about, but at the end of the day, that's fine. Some of the characters don't seem to really serve a purpose or add anything to the story, and that kind of is not fine. As nice as it is to look at Rashida Jones, playing the wife of Tracy Morgan's character, in the end you ask yourself if the movie would lose anything if she wasn't in it and the answer is 'no.' The subplot involving her doesn't add anything to Morgan's character or the story. There's quite a bit of time devoted to Jones' character and her possible affair with the next door neighbor, the thing is, we see it affect Morgan's character, but we don't really feel anything or feel that it actually has any effect on anything...it's just kind of there. Without her in the movie, he'd still be exactly the same. It's just a distraction. It's the same with Seann William Scott's character. He's a lot of fun, but just a distraction who doesn't really factor in to the story enough to justify his screen time (which isn't a lot, despite what the commercials make it appear). If they don't bring anything, why are they there?

The cast is fantastic. There are times when Tracy Morgan mugs a little too much for the camera or acts a little too goofy, silly, or dumb for the character, but for the most part he does a fine job. Bruce Willis is, well...Bruce Willis. He has the tough guy, action thing, and he also has the comedy chops. The two of them work well together. And I really enjoyed the supporting cast. The already mentioned Jones and Scott (while their characters may not be essential or matter at all, both their presences are welcome, Scott especially), but Kevin Pollak and Guillermo Diaz are both make very good turns as an antagonistic detective and a baseball obsessed gangster, respectively.

It looks like a movie and feels like a movie, which is not really Kevin Smith's trademark, so he did a good job with that. A movie with something resembling a real plot, not just characters talking about movies and comics. And so I have to commend Smith, by maybe taking a safe step into the studio system, he actually ended up challenging himself a little more than he would most likely have, otherwise. And there's action...Kevin Smith directing action. There's no real big laughs, but the laughs are there and frequent enough to be fun.

That's basically all there is to say...the characters and story leave a little something to be desired, though the actors all do fine jobs. It's not a movie that I'd run out and tell everyone they need to see and it's the funniest thing ever, but I'd definitely say it's worth a shot if you're looking to watch a fun movie.

2 1/2 stars out of 5

The Book of Eli

In film, as well as literature and theater, we become involved and interested in a story because we've come to be interested in the main character who has an emotional involvement in the story. The main character is our guide. They are who we identify with. We care because they care.

So I have a question for the Hughes Brothers, directors of the Book of Eli, and Gary Whitta, the writer: when the main character is uninterested and uninvolved in the conflict and story, how and why are we, the audience, supposed to be interested and involved?

Eli, played by Denzel Washington, walks around the entire movie with the basic attitude of 'whatever, just don't touch my book.' He's not interested in anything other than taking the book west. He only cares when someone tries to take the book. And, honestly, it's hard to feel attached to a book. Especially when even we the audience are kept at a distance from the character and the book.

Gary Oldman as the villain, Carnegie, is the best part of the movie. And his run and control of the town would be the most interesting part of the movie, if it was actually a part of the movie. Instead, Eli doesn't care and just moves on. Carnegie wants the book though. So he goes after Eli.

Carnegie wants the book (the Bible) because he knows it has the power to control people. Eli is righteous, but he has no interest in trying to make things right...which feels odd. How can a man who feels he is being guided and protected by God not try to right wrongs? Selective righteousness I guess.

I wanted more of the world in which the movie takes place. We get a little taste of it, but it'd add so much more to the movie if we could really see the world, see how the people live, and to find out a little more about what exactly happened and how they got to this point. Again, we get a little, but then, of course, Eli doesn't care, just moves on, and so do we.

So, basically, all we get, and all we have to hold our interest, is fight scenes and shoot outs. Which is fine for the few minutes they last.

And, here's some spoilers so if you care, skip ahead. We spend two hours watching Eli not let anyone get near his book. Protecting it with his life. He will kill to protect it. And he definitely doesn't want Carnegie to get it. Two hours of this. Only for him to then give up the book without a second thought. Because he has it memorized and it's in Braille so no one can read it anyway. So what did I just spend two hours on? The movie could've been 30 minutes long had he just been willing to show Carnegie the book is Braille and can't be read by him, refuse to read it for him, kill Carnegie when he tries to force Eli, and be on his merry way. It's an unnecessary complication. There has to be a better way to create and tell this story.

Anyway, there's some cool action here. I guess that's the real point of it. Though it's funny that throughout the movie people wonder whether the gun Eli has has bullets in it, almost as though bullets are some rare commodity, and then there's this huge shoot out with tons of ammunition spent. Why wouldn't his gun have bullets? Go for the action, don't expect to be blown away by story or character.

2 ½ out of 5

Avatar

Has any movie been hyped as much in recent memory as Avatar has? Not likely. Film industry people raving about it being the future of film. Critics seem to be equally eager to hail it as a masterpiece. And the special effects are outstanding. And when you read about the innovations director James Cameron made in motion capture technology, they sound pretty fantastic...for filmmakers. The results on screen don't appear to be any different than anything else that's been released before. That really doesn't do anything for those of us who likely won't ever make a movie with digital characters or digital settings.

And, unfortunately, great special effects do not a great movie make. A great movie also requires a great story and great characters (it does not require great special effects). And, well, Avatar is missing those two aspects. The story is so extremely basic, it might as well be a paint-by-numbers drawing. (Insert evil corporation) seeks resource found only in (insert exotic location) inhabited by the peaceful (insert natives) who sends in (insert hero) to work from inside but falls in love with (insert native love interest) and turns against company and (insert battle). The story is unoriginal. James Cameron spent a decade on this film, apparently most of it was spent on the technology and not the story. Too bad.

And the characters are likewise uninspired. The corporate guy just sees everything as dollars, 'they're just trees!' The military man just wants to destroy everything and achieve his mission. The Na'vi are just innocent and good, though distrustful for good reasons. Nothing is really developed regarding any of the characters. The main character, Jake Sully, is a crippled former Marine, who is taking over the spot on the mission for his dead scientist brother. We never find out how he became crippled, how his brother died, and neither of these two facets of his character add anything to him or the story. He could just as well not be crippled and never have had a brother, it wouldn't change anything. These characters are pure walking, talking stereotypes. Characters with no depth work when they're robots (Cameron's Terminator) or malicious aliens (Cameron's Aliens), but people and humanoid aliens don't work so well without it.

And here is where you start to get into the argument that it's just escapist entertainment. But I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is never an excuse to not put any effort into creating a more original story or interesting characters. An original story and good characters will always make a film better, it doesn't have to be deep or thoughtful and make the audience think, but the filmmakers should put thought into it. And while there really are no truly original stories, there are new and interesting ways to tell them. And simply moving the story to an alien planet doesn't cut it.

The special effects are some of the best ever seen, no doubt. There's incredible amounts of detail. The alien planet, Pandora, looks amazing. But the characters still don't look quite as real as they want us to believe. The motion-capture work is great, their movements and facial expressions are excellent. But to me the eyes give it away, they look incredibly false still. And there's still just not enough details in the skin – there's millions of imperfections on our faces with pores, wrinkles, creases, etc, and they still haven't been able to re-create that. But these are nit-picky things.

Don't get me wrong, it's enjoyable and fun and the technical skill behind the making of it is almost unparalleled. But there are a lot of technically well-made, enjoyable, fun movies out there. I wanted something more from the story and characters (not in the sense that I want a sequel, but in the sense that it just wasn't good enough). And so there's really nothing setting this film apart from your average popcorn flick, when you get right down to it.

3 stars out of 5