Movie of the Week – The Incredibles

This week’s movie: The Incredibles (2004)

Superheroes were a big part of our world, but after some bad publicity they were asked to take off their masks and return to normal society. Now, many years later, former superheroes Bob and Helen Parr lead normal boring lives, raising a family – Bob works for an insurance company and Helen is a homemaker. But while family seems to be enough for Helen, Bob still has a yearning for more. This makes him an easy target to be lured into a budding scheme by a super villain to gain fame and notoriety, putting the world in grave danger in the process.

The film is written and directing by Brad Bird, who has made many of the best animated features in recent years, including: The Iron Giant and Ratatouille. He has now moved on to live-action features with Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and the upcoming Tomorrowland. He worked with great composer Michael Giacchino on the film.

The film features voice work from Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson, Jason Lee, Wallace Shawn, and Elizabeth Pena (Bird voiced Edna, a nod to famous costume designer Edith Head).

The Incredibles won the 2005 Oscar for Best Animated Feature. It is maybe Pixar’s best film to date (though, WALL-E and Up are great as well), featuring the right balance of action, drama and comedy. The characters are also very well written, something that is not too common in films made primarily for children in today’s cinema. While it is probably considered a superhero film, it feels much more like a spy thriller in the vein of classic James Bond films. It is a must-see for Pixar fans.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray and Video On-Demand

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) – Review

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier is very entertaining with really great action and a nice tonal change of pace from most superhero adventure films. The film is about Steve Rogers (Captain America) still coming to terms with his place in the modern world, working for S.H.I.E.D. There is a conflict between his idealism and the manner by which S.H.I.E.D. wants to police the world (preemptively eliminating targets with huge flying gunships). Working with Natasha Romanoff (Black Widow) on a recent op, Rogers uncovers a secret conspiracy within S.H.I.E.D., one that changes everything and makes Rogers and Romanoff fugitives from S.H.I.E.D.

There are two things that stand out about The Winter Soldier right away. It is very violent and plays much more like a serious political thriller (with a lot of action) than a superhero adventure film, especially for the first two acts before it bows to the obligatory massive action set piece in the third act. There are great twists and a plot that is actually interesting. This film does not have to merely make due on the strength of its good characters and visual splendors (though, it also has both of those too).

Directors Anthony Russo and Joe Russo have completely changed the tone of the Captain America solo franchise, taking full advantage of Ed Brubaker’s great story (he also makes a cameo in the film). Captain America: The First Avenger is sort of hokey and is steeped in nostalgic charm, but that worked for that film (as it takes place during a different time with different values and realities). It succeeds not on its action beats (which are mostly boring) but on its character moments. The Winter Soldier has great action (maybe the best of any film so far in the MCU) and character moments. It is a superior, but different film. Paralleling the NSA, S.H.I.E.L.D. seemingly wants to monitor and control the people it is charged with protecting. The world is no longer about stopping evil in terms of a known entity like the Nazis or Hydra; good and evil being black and white. The world has digressed into a scary place in which evil is now potentially everywhere, hidden in plain sight, waiting to strike. Our modern world is one of fear and terror, and thus the Russo Brothers have adapted Captain America to be a beacon of hope and moral good in this world of grey.

Phase II of Marvel’s films has been so much better so far than Phase I. Each of the solo superhero films is better than any of the solo films in Phase I (personally, I rank them: Iron Man 3, The Winter Soldier, The Dark World, Iron Man, Thor, The First Avenger, Iron Man 2, and The Incredible Hulk). I also really like that each of the solo franchises has a different tone and style: Iron Man 3 feels like a classic 1980s/90s action film, The Dark World like a sci-fi/adventure fantasy, and now The Winter Soldier like a political thriller (similar to the Jack Ryan or Jason Bourne films, but with much bigger action sequences).

The Russo Brothers have a difficult narrative to manage with The Winter Soldier. There are many characters and the story has a lot going on. Like the best blockbuster directors, who need to balance the spectacle with the characters and story, the Russo Brothers create great character moments that fluidly exist within the bigger action sequences, which allows the film’s pacing to be rather tight and the narrative keeps moving forward; however, I am not sure younger viewers will quite find this to be the case. There are portions of the film that revolve around Rogers and Romanoff trying to uncover the truth behind the conspiracy, and these might play slower for young viewers (although, I am not sure this film is appropriate for those young viewers anyway, as again it is very violent, as Captain America certainly is not messing around). All the good action aside, the film really succeeds on the story work the Russo Brothers do with their characters. Maybe more so than any other MCU film to date (along with Iron Man 3, which is in some ways also a Tony Stark character piece), the narrative really digs deeply into its characters. The audience really gets to see behind the veil, especially with Rogers (and also to some extent Romanoff and Nick Fury).

MCU films still do not have great villains, however, outside of Loki (particularly when compared to The Dark Knight Trilogy). In The Winter Soldier, there is a hidden villain behind the conspiracy and then his henchmen, the most notable of which is the Winter Soldier (whose identity should not be a spoiler as it is obvious from any trailer, promo or merely looking at the cast list, but I will still treat it as one). The Winter Soldier as a character is fairly bland as he is basically a cold-hearted killing machine (he is essentially a Terminator), but that level of conviction is also kind of exciting, because the audience knows that this man will not hold up or stop coming, which in turn creates actual suspense when he engages Roger, Romanoff, et al. That said, I am hoping Joss Whedon can finally deliver another great villain into the MCU with Ultron.

The Winter Soldier is another example of Marvel’s dominance of superhero films in the present moment (as it has been ten years since Sam Raimi’s brilliant Spider-Man 2 and The Dark Knight Trilogy is at an end). Like each of the other Phase II films, The Winter Soldier is extremely entertaining, providing its solo character (or two characters, as it does feature two Avengers heavily) with his own great adventure, allowing the audience to become all the more invested in the MCU as a whole. And yet, it also works completely as a standalone political thriller that draws parallels to our own political climate.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: I was very surprised that Marvel hired the Russo Brothers to direct a big budget action film, as their CV was mostly made up of TV comedy like Arrested Development, Community, and Happy Endings (all good, but not big action things); and, their only feature film was You, Me and Dupree (which certainly does not inspire faith). Let me say: they did a fantastic job with The Winter Soldier. Their camera is always active in the scene, often creating interesting and exciting shots. I am very much looking forward to their work on Captain America 3 in 2016.

Composer Henry Jackman is no stranger to the superhero genre, having also scored Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class. With The Winter Soldier, he again delivers a score that works well with the tone of the film while also giving it an epic superheroy feel. It is good work, as usual. Trent Opalock (who shot District 9) brings a great grittiness to the cinematography, almost completely contradicting with the gleam of The First Avenger, which nicely juxtaposes the differences in the world Rogers knew and the one he now finds himself in. I think the look of the film is tonally right on. Production designer Peter Wenham (who designed The Bourne Ultimatum) also grounds the film very much in the real world (as much as it can be) with a very real feeling and looking world for Rogers and company to inhabit.

There are a lot of characters in the film, and yet they are all served well by the narrative and give good performances. I really enjoyed the cameos/small roles from Gary Sinise’s voice, Steven Culp, Branka Katic, Danny Pudi (yes, Abed got in there), Aaron Himelstein, Jenny Agutter, Garry Shandling, Callan Mulvey, Toby Jones, Maximiliano Hernandez, Frank Grillo, Emily VanCamp, Cobie Smulders (hoping these two women might show up in future episodes of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), and especially Hayley Atwell (who might be getting her own Marvel TV miniseries Agent Carter). Anthony Mackie, playing Sam Wilson/Falcon, brings a good foil for Steve Rogers to bounce off. Sam too is a good man returning from war a bit shaken, not really knowing what to make of life back in the world. Mackie plays Sam with a great sincerity that works very well in the developing of Sam’s friendship with Rogers. Sebastian Stan, playing the Winter Soldier, does a good job of looking heartless and cold, essential to the character. Robert Redford plays Alexander Pierce, a man who is at the top of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s hierarchy with Nick Fury. Redford brings the right balance of politician and war veteran to the character, making him very believable. Samuel L. Jackson reprises his role as Nick Fury, but he has never been better as the character nor had more to do (in terms of dramatic moments). Jackson is quite good in the film. Scarlett Johansson is also great as Natasha Romanoff. Her flirty work relationship with Rogers is so much fun and gives the film needed lighter moments amidst all the action and suspense. She is possibly the star of the film – that is except for the fact that Chris Evans is also wonderful as Steve Rogers. Evans has been good in other films and as other characters, but he is perfect as Rogers, a man who seems as wholesome as they come, but who is also not hesitant to carry out his mission (if he believes in it – which is what creates the tension in the film; he is a soldier, but more so a good man).

Summary & score: Captain America: The Winter Soldier is yet another great and entertaining film from Phase II of Marvel’s Cinematic Universe. The action is strong and big and the characters moments are very satisfying, but mostly the film is just a good political action/thriller. 8/10 

Django Unchained (2012) – Review

Review: Django Unchained is a highly entertaining action drama with some western aspects, full of references and throwbacks. The film is about a slave Django who is freed by a bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz who needs his help identifying a bounty he is looking for. Django and Schultz become friends and partners. Schultz decides to help Django rescue his wife from a Mississippi plantation Candyland, whose owner Calvin Candie is notoriously wicked – a dangerous mission to say the least going into the belly of the beast.

Django Unchained is the second in writer-director’s Quentin Tarantino revenge fantasy trilogy, following Inglourious Basterds. And like Inglourious Basterds (as well as most of his films), it is packed with references to many of Tarantino’s favorite films in the genre. Homage is most prevalently paid to the films of the spaghetti western director Sergio Corbucci (who directed Django), a filmmaker in the genre that Tarantino loves (even more than Segio Leone who gets most of the praise in today’s cinema criticism). Corbucci’s films often tackle harder issues like racism, slavery, and class warfare (which are themes that Tarantino also addresses with Django Unchained).

Tarantino also seems interested in addressing the grandeur of the southern plantation – tearing it down as a myth and exposing the sheer inhumane cruelty and abuse slaves endured on these plantations (even with simple things like remarking that none of the whites have ever seen a black man riding a horse). This is not necessarily new ground, as media has focused on this topic many times (as historical revisionism aimed at exposing many of the horror before shaded over in history has been a popular academic pursuit since the late twentieth century), but maybe with not so much style and panache as Tarantino who does not pull his targeted punches.  One these such punches seems to be directly aimed at Gone with the Wind (when Django and Schultz travel to Mississippi they are met with a title in big bold letters tracking across the screen from right to left that is very reminiscent to Gone with the Wind’s opening title), a film that very much propagates the South and its way of life (forwarding the myth of the grandeur and elegance of the southern plantations for worldwide audiences, skipping over the brutality suffered by the slaves).

The violence in the film, for which there is a lot, is purposely overdone and almost cartoony. This was maybe done as an attempt by Tarantino to keep the film from being NC-17 or to keep the film fun, as the tone is mostly light. However, the violence suffered by the slaves in the film feels different. While the gunfights in which Django blows away whites are exaggerated, scenes in which violence is done to black characters are presented in a much more realistic and even horrific manner. This is a clear choice by Tarantino to create a deeper feeling of sympathy for the black characters by making their pain real, while white characters being blown up, shot and otherwise massacred is all in good fun.

This choice also firmly puts the audience behind Django, as they actively care about him and want to see him rescue his wife, and more so reap vengeance upon those that deserve it. The film also profoundly creates a sense of revelation in the audience at the true stakes for Django’s mission. While lots of films have created an emotion and revelation in their audience regarding the true plight of the slaves, Django Unchained does it while still playing as a mostly light action western. Thus, the revelation in the audience might be more profound, as they were not expecting to feel something about the film and the characters. However, the light nature of the film might also allow the audience to excuse the deeper emotional impact and forget it as the credits roll focusing on the comedy and exciting action.

Tarantino brings his style of brash dialog to the film as well. However, here with this topic, the juxtaposition of the way characters talk also plays into the emotional feeling the audience experiences. The physical violence in the film is extreme, but the verbal violence the slaves are subjected to is maybe even more damaging, as it is a coat of insults that just seems to lay upon them wearing them down and dehumanize them. The language of the characters is striking as it really exposes the clear disregard, even above hate, that many of the white characters have for the black characters. They are nothing to them, at least nothing human.

Overall, Tarantino gets across his message of exposing what slavery really was – not so much in the hardships suffered by slaves, as that is only briefly addressed, but in the relationship between blacks and whites in the South.

Narratively, Django Unchained is much more a straightforward story than Tarantino usually employs in his films with a clear three-act structure. Though, it still has sort of an episodic feel differentiating between Django and Schultz’s work in Texas and Tennessee as opposed to their venture into Mississippi to rescue Django’s wife. The film can almost be viewed has having two parts – the prologue in which Django and Schultz become friends and partners pre-Mississippi (act one) and the main narrative in which they go to Mississippi (acts two and three). However, the prologue is really more as a lot of character work is done in that section, which later allows Tarantino to focus on other narrative areas (like creating a fantastic villain with Calvin Candie); and it also allows Django to play a different character in disguise for a large portion of the Mississippi episode because he is already established with the audience. Even though the three-act structure is apparent, pre-Mississippi and Mississippi do have a different feel, which Tarantino clearly intended. Pre-Mississippi feels like a western, while Mississippi is much more an action drama with the hero deep in enemy territory. Django cannot merely ride off and hide if he gets in trouble, like characters often do in westerns; he is either going to rescue his wife or die; he is completely committed, which is what makes the drama so compelling.

Tarantino also does a masterful job with the tone. This is a very fun and entertaining film, even given the intense nature of its subject material. It is often very funny, as well. Tarantino is able to get across the drama and have the audience experience something real, but leaves them feeling light, as they have chiefly been entertained. He does this by having most of the violence play bigger (like a cartoon) and having the film packed with intended comedy (which all works).

For the most part the film is free from major issues, but the narrative does not quite have the dramatic impact it could. This is the choice Tarantino made. The film could not be both light and fun while still also fully engaging the audience dramatically, because this would have left the tone and ultimately the film feeling very disjoined and nothing would have worked quite as well as it does. Tarantino chose to primarily entertain. Though, even with the film’s fun tone, with multiple viewings the intended impact resonating from the narrative choices (such as the juxtaposition between the violence on whiter characters versus black or the way these characters speak) will ingrain itself in the viewer, thus having the same lasting impact that a strong dramatic take on the material.

The narrative is also a little loose in the first act (and maybe overly long). It does not really get going until Django and Schultz get to Mississippi and the stakes are raised, which is again why the film feels episodic.

Another possible issue is that the graphic nature of the violence and langue will not appeal to all viewers, as in both cases it is extreme (but also in both cases completely serves the narrative).

Django Unchained is not a great western in the classic sense of the genre, as it is not really a western for most of the film. However, it is a great action drama with the purpose of again exposing the villainy of slavery and the people that subjugated others to be their slaves.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Auteur Quentin Tarantino started off making great crime dramas and is now making great genre films. While he brings a great nostalgic style to his films (as a massive cinephile – especially for ‘B’ films), his own ability as a filmmaker has matured. His writing is brilliant, but with Inglourious Basterds (my favorite of his films) and now Django Unchained he directing seems equal to his words. The level of performances he is garnering is phenomenal as well. I cannot wait to see the final piece of his revenge trilogy.

Robert Richardson’s cinematography accomplishes the look and feel of a western while also complimenting the style of Tarantino’s direction (as this is there fourth collaboration). J. Michael Riva’s production design is great as well, as it both fits the tone of the genre and has fun with it (especially the Cleopatra Club set).

Django Unchained is visually impressive and has a fantastic directorial flair, but the strongest aspect is its impressive performances. Kerry Washington and Walton Goggins are good in small supporting roles. Samuel L. Jackson is hilarious, biting, and dramatically interesting (a compelling combination) as Stephen. It is his best role and performance from him in a long time. Leonardo DiCaprio is an absolute riot. He is wildly insane and having a blast as Calvin Candie. Looking at him, the viewer really gets the sense that they are starring at the devil. Villains often get to be played big and they often are the juiciest character roles – this is a great one and DiCaprio takes full advantage commanding every scene he is in. Christoph Waltz is great as Dr. King Schultz, a bounty hunter with a moral conscience and abhorrence towards slavery. Waltz plays Schultz to be quite playful with his words and delivery, often bringing the most effective comedy to the film. Jamie Foxx is very good as Django. He brings a quiet strength and willful disobedience to the role, while still giving off a clear soulful humanity (which allows the audience to fully connect with his character). The performance is among his best work.

Summary & score: Django Unchained unapologetically and boldly attacks the malice and repugnance of the people that propagated slavery by owning slaves raining vengeance with merciless graphic violence and complete distain. And as a revenge fantasy should be, it is very satisfying and enjoyable. 8/10

Movie of the Week – Pulp Fiction

Movie of the week: Pulp Fiction (1994).

An ensemble group of characters intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.

Auteur writer-director Quentin Tarantino is maybe the most celebrated filmmaker to emerge in the 1990s (at least among his fans). Pulp Fiction is his greatest work (though, my personal favorite is Inglourious Basterds). Much like his debut, Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino’s wonderfully colorful characters in Pulp Fiction (his second film) carry the piece, and his dialog and the performances are what make it a classic.

Pulp Fiction is the film in which Tarantino fully established his working relationship with producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein (who also earlier produced True Romance, which Tarantino wrote). They have since produced all his films. He decided to reteam with cinematographer Andrzej Sekula (who also worked on Four Rooms) and production designer David Wasco (who has designed all Tarantino’s solo films other than his latest, Django Unchained), after their good work on Reservoir Dogs.

The film has a great ensemble cast with John Travolta (completely resurrecting his career), Samuel L. Jackson (who often gets Tarantino’s best material), Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Eric Stoltz, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Maria de Medeiros, Rosanna Arquette, Uma Thurman, Frank Whaley, Steve Buscemi, Christopher Walken, Harvey Keitel, and Tarantino.

Pulp Fiction is arguably the best film of the 1990s (with The Shawshank Redemption, Schindler’s List and Goodfellas – I would also put forth Rushmore, The Big Lebowski and Trainspotting as my favorites). It was nominated for seven Oscars including Best Picture, but only won one for Best Writing. Like the films listed above, it is an essential film for fans of cinema and those who want to have a good working knowledge of the best films ever made. The dialog and performances are some of the best and most entertaining of the decade.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

Movie of the Week – Coming to America

This week’s movie is Coming to America (1988).

The comedy is about the Prince of Zamunda whose wife and life have been predetermined for him. He decides to find out what the real world is like and travels to Queens to find a woman who loves him for him and not because he is a prince. The film is directed by John Landis (who was probably the greatest comedy director of the era: Animal House, The Blues Brothers, Trading Places, Spies Like Us, and Three Amigos – Coming to America is probably his last great film, though he is still directing). Composer Nile Rodgers (a member of the group Chic) provides a good score, but his music for Soul Glo is fantastic (and really funny). Landis also worked with cinematographers Sol Negrin and Woody Omens and production designer Richard Macdonald (who does great work) on the film. It stars Eddie Murphy (who also developed the story) and Arsenio Hall (each playing multiple characters). The supporting cast is great too with James Earl Jones, John Amos, Madge Sinclair, Shari Headley, Eriq La Salle, Frankie Faison, Louie Anderson, Samuel L. Jackson, Don Ameche, and Ralph Bellamy. Murphy is known for playing multiple characters in his movies – this was the first. Coming to America is one of the best comedies from the 1980s and Murphy’s career. It is a must-see for fans of Murphy. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

The Other Guys (2010) – Review

The Other Guys is funny, at times – and mainly due to Will Ferrell – but not all the time, and not nearly enough. The film does not really have an identity that the audience can get behind and follow. Is it an absurdist comedy, a buddy-cop action comedy, a parody of the buddy-cop action comedy, or just a messy un-cohesive mixture of all these things? The film plays like a buddy-cop action comedy for the majority, but falters when it gets sidetracked by overplayed comedy bits (that often are not even funny) and genre parody that contradicts the themes and tones set in place in other parts of the film. For example, there is a sequence in which the two main characters go for a drink after a tough day. The scene is presented in a series of flowing stills throughout the bar depicting ever escalating events as the night goes on. This scene makes no sense in context to the rest of the film, thus alienating the audience from the characters and the narrative. There are cues that inform the viewers that really this is a parody, but then the next cue tells them no wait this is really a buddy-cop action comedy genre film, no wait this is a parody of the genre – director Adam McKay does not seem to know what film he wants to make. Worse, the main characters are poorly teamed (and this is the primary killer of comedy, things that would otherwise be funny do not play nearly as well when there is a lack of timing and interplay between the actors, which come from chemistry). There is almost no chemistry between any of the actors in the film, but especially between Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg – they just sort of yell at each other in varying degrees of volume and intensity and that is supposed to be funny. This lack of chemistry only compounds the issue with many scenes that do not work causing them to stick out even more.  The lack of identity leaves the viewer on guard, trying to decipher the language of the film rather than enjoying the jokes and the film. With no clear identity every plot point, action beat, line of dialog is questioned, thus the audience cannot fully invest in the film. On top of all the narrative issues, lack of chemistry and many suspect gags, the plot of the film is completely underwhelming. The audience does not even care about whether the plot is resolved or not, especially since they are not invested in the characters. The shooting style of the film is also odd. The film feels alienating like the viewer is an outsider the whole time. The action scenes particularly seem disconnected from what is on the screen and what the audience should feel due to the visuals. Everything is a bit off here. But, Ferrell has quite a few moments of hilarity. He is the only reason this film works at all. Any funny that this film offers is directly due to Ferrell’s work, despite all the problematic components. The film is disappointing given the talent involved (principally the collaboration between Ferrell and McKay, which have, up until this film, all been good). On the technical side, McKay is off completely directing this film. His narrative is an utter mess structurally, thematically and tonally – the audience has no idea what kind of film they are watching – and again it seems as if McKay has no idea what film he is making. He also completely fails to get his cast on the same page – nothing gels, there is no chemistry, and the result is a lot of funny people and good actors not delivering, and more importantly not coming together to provide a cohesive performance for the film. Michael Keaton for instance, alone, his performance is funny, but it is sort of abstract – a deconstruction of the buddy-cop captain character, but since tonally, the viewer does not know for sure if this is that type of movie, Keeton’s performance just seems sort of strange and does not really work or bring anything to the film (which is a shame, because this performance in the right film would be great). Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson give caricature performances of hero cops, but then this is turned on its head in a scene that sets the tone really for the whole film to be confusing (as you literally watch it and think, wait what is happening right now and why is this happening – and not because the plot is complex).  Rob Riggle and Steve Coogan have been funny in other films, but neither works in this (Coogan is almost anti-funny – scene killer). Ray Stevenson, who has been brilliant in other things (um, like Rome) is given nothing to do and is completely wasted. Jon Brion’s score is messy as well (not surprising given McKay’s direction). There are serious themes and then self referential nods to the buddy-cop genre that do not even work in the context of what is on the screen or has happened in the film. Oliver Wood’s cinematography (which is usually good) is awkward and disengaging; the audience never feels like a part of the film emotionally. And Clayton Hartley’s production design is adequate – though some of the locations are interesting. The Other Guys is a clutter-filled film of thematic and tonal chaos and plainly just does not work – however, there are a few bits that are very funny and Ferrell does some strong work. 6/10

Iron Man 2 (2010) – Review

Iron Man 2 is full of sleek visuals, large action pieces and humor, and yet the film’s narrative is poorly structured – leaving it with noticeable peaks and valleys. Mostly the film works, the cast is great and the technical aspects of the film are generally good – the film is entertaining and most will be quite satisfied. The issues with the film arise from its story and overall structure. The film drags noticeably in parts and seems as if it was pieced together from a series of ideas rather than flowing seamlessly throughout. Thus, the film plays wonderfully in moments – there are a number of memorable lines, performances and scenes – but it is not cohesive. The timeline of the film, while seemingly to take place over a number or days or weeks, is muddled in that logically the events more likely take place over the course of a full year, but there is no sense of the passage of time – everything is immediate yet there are clues that large gaps of time rationally must have passed. The story itself is average, the villain is a bit weak, and his motivation and character not nearly evolved enough to make the viewer care. Another issue with the film is in the characterization of Tony Stark. While Robert Downey Jr. is good again in the role, the film seeks out to dive more into the character, yet for those that have seen the first film the character is well established and thus here in this film he feels more like a caricature of himself than a real person. This leaves the viewer disconnected during moments of character development, because since the character is not real or does not feel real (aside from the film being fictional, of course) the viewer does not have a stake in the outcome, in the journey, and thus the film drags. Sure, the viewer will still enjoy the action and laugh at the humor, but for the film to be great there must be a bond formed between the characters, especially the lead, and the viewers (and this is not asking too much of a blockbuster or comic based film, see Spider-Man 2 or Christopher Nolan’s Batman films for reference). These aspects of the film leave the narrative pacing slow (in a film that is not that long), which hurts the film as a whole. But there is a lot to like here too. The action scenes are big and well constructed (though there does seem to be a lot of casualties of innocents that are not referenced). Jon Favreau does have an eye for fun yet cinematically interesting action, which is nice to see amongst many other films with often overly generic and boring action (the final action scene in the Japanese garden is pretty awesome). The best part of Justin Theroux’s script is the humor. There are a number of very funny scenes and lines throughout, and this humor mixed with the awe of the action saves the film from mediocrity. Like with Iron Man, this sequel is mostly good but again suffered from a poor structure, should Favreau return to helm a third, hopefully he can produce a film that flows well (which is really the hardest thing to do in filmmaking). Technically, the film has many triumphs – the score is not one of them. John Debney’s work tries to hard to be like other superhero films (noticeably like a mix between Batman and Spider-Man), it does not have its own identity, and thus not memorable. It is lost to the background instead of enhancing the film. Matthew Libatique’s lighting was both good and awkward (something I noticed more the second time). The sets were lit very well and the Iron Man costumes looked great too, the use of shadows in many of the action scenes was great (and Scarlett Johansson looked great, so I am sure she appreciated the lighting too). However, some of the actors did not fair as well. Sam Rockwell in the hanger scene looked beyond tan (if you look at his hands they look like they are caked in mud), meaning that Libatique’s use of the white scale in the scene was either a bit off or he intended the characters to look like they had spray on tans. J. Michael Riva did a wonderful job with the production design. The sets were great. The film had an overall slick look to fit with the character of Iron Man, and thus Tony Stark. The visual effects are also top notch in the film. The cast was fun and there were a number of solid performances and great bits too. As stated above, Downey Jr. was good, though his performance was hindered by the story a bit. Don Cheadle is every bit as good as Terrence Howard, bringing a lot of the same feel to the character. Mickey Rourke plays a Russian version of himself and his character is vastly undeveloped. Gwyneth Paltrow, Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson are all good and fitting for their parts (Jackson has a great stare in the film). And, Sam Rockwell is up to his zany goodness. There are also a number of small enjoyable segments featuring John Slattery (always awesome), Favreau, Kate Mara, Leslie Bibb, Clark Gregg, and Garry Shandling. Iron Man 2 is a lot of fun and full of entertaining moments, no doubt, but sadly it is a step below the best blockbusters and superhero films. 7/10