RED 2 Review

I liked the first one.  The premise of quirky, past their prime spies running around and blowing stuff up while delivering witty dialogue appeals to me.  But, I knew when it was over that there would be a sequel and that it would be an ill-advised venture.  I was right.  This had all the potential to be quite good with a good cast.  But it ended up being very disappointing.

I've said before that a good sequel has to take the things that were successful in the first one and build on them.  After all, you should want to give people more of what they want.  It's what made The Empire Strikes Back better than Star Wars.  People wanted more Darth Vader so that's what they got.  In RED 2 I can see that they were trying to give us more of what made the first one good.  In RED, it was all John Malkovich.  He stole every scene and was hilarious.  They did give us more of him but his character went from being delightfully insane to just a bit quirky.  He still delivers it well but it isn't the same character that we wanted to see more of.  The same goes for Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker.  Their characters were off from what we saw before.  I'd say that Bruce Willis might be losing his edge but it only seems to happen in sequels (A Good Day to Die Hard, The Whole Ten Yards, etc.).  And Parker played inconsistently between sassy, badass, and demure.  It was just all over the map for both of them.

Helen Mirren and Anthony Hopkins both deliver but they could phone it in and still be the best thing on any screen.  Catherine Zeta Jones is what she is: very average in every way.  Finally, I liked Storm Shadow.  He fit the role quite well.

As for the plot, it is very thin and shallow.  There are no surprises and it's actually quite mundane and boring.  I guess a movie about retired spies would have to deal with digging up stuff from the past.  But Cold War grudges and such just aren't interesting any more; especially when you try to intertwine it with relationship therapy between Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker

Don't see it.

The Wolverine Review

I guess it's just time to stop.  The first three X-Men movies were OK but did get progressively worse.  The origins movie was quite forgettable.  There were significant problems with First Class.  But, in spite of all of these warning signs, I still wanted to see The Wolverine.  It's probably because Hugh Jackman as the titular character still seems pretty badass to me.  And, in this movie, he's still badass.  But that's really the only thing that is.

Jackman, as mentioned, delivers.  But, after playing the character five times, he would have to have it down.  He oozes cool and has always had the right look.  There is a lot of witty, sarcastic dialogue from him that adds to a decent level of comic relief.  So, on that front, it's OK.

The problem is the rest of the film.  It's an action movie and should deliver on that.  But the action sequences are few and far between.  When there is action, it's very good; especially the bullet train scene.  But if they are going to have so little of it, they need to rely on the story to keep the audience interested.  The Wolverine does not do this.  The story is very thin, predictable and, frankly, quite boring.  The villain has no personality and are pretty pathetic.  There is nothing that happens that makes you care about the fate of any character past Logan and you know that he's going to survive because Hollywood refuses to do anything against the same old tired formulas.

Don't bother seeing it.  I'm sure you'll be able to watch the next one without much need to catch up.

2 Guns Review

I knew very little about this movie going in.  All of my information came from the TV ads.  I thought the idea of Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington engaging in witty dialogue and shooting a bunch of stuff would be fun.  As it turns out, I was right.  It is fun.  But it is also pretty basic too.

One thing you need to know about this movie is that it is based on a series of graphic novels.  I didn't know that until the end credits.  If I had known that going in, I would have had an easier time accepting the over the top comic-like qualities of the villains.  In that, it is reminiscent of The Losers.  It isn't enough to make you dislike the movie but it does take away a bit from the experience.  Had that been changed to be a bit more realistic, it would have made a better movie throughout.

That being said, the dynamic between Washington and Wahlberg is top notch.  Denzel has always been able to deliver terrific dialogue especially when working with another strong actor.  Wahlberg is decent at what he does especially when he's allowed to be a bit quirky and comical.  In 2 Guns, that's exactly what they did and it works as long as the two are on screen together.  When they are separated, the pace slows a lot and neither one performs as well as they do when together.

At the start, I felt like I was almost watching a remake of Bulletproof with some elements of the Last Boy Scout thrown in.  This made me think that I wasn't going to like it at all.  But then they moved past that with a couple of twists that grabbed my attention again.  Even though it did slow down at times, they were able to hold that attention throughout and make me care about the outcome of the film.  This is largely due to the fact that both leads were engaging.  And Wahlberg's fast talking is better than anything Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans can deliver.

It's nothing that is going to set the earth on fire but it is still worth a watch to see Washington and Wahlberg work together.  See it.

Man of Steel Review

The popularity of comic book movies combined with reboots and remakes made this a foregone conclusion.  Superman is the iconic go to superhero in most people's minds.  So, the question is: did they do a good job of modernizing Superman for today's movie going audience while still maintaining his everyman superhero status?  I think they did.

You can't do much to alter the origin story of Superman or most other superheroes.  The hard line fans will kill you if you do.  So, you know that you're going to have to sit through a long, drawn out story of Krypton's destruction and Clark kent growing up in Kansas while learning to come to grips with his powers.  They alleviated this somewhat in two ways.  First, they made all of the stuff on Krypton very nice to look at.  While we can turn our minds off while they tell us a story that we all know, we can just sit back and enjoy the view.  And they are visuals that are superb all the way through.  Second, they wove the coming of ages stuff within the movie with flashbacks.  This allows the story to move forward with a decent pace while still showing the viewer the entire struggle that Kal-El faces on earth.  It made a 2.5 hour movie move fairly quickly.

The action sequences are a little sparsely placed.  But when they do show up, they are done very well with minimal shaky camera work.  There are a lot of exposition and slower "brooding" scenes which could have slowed the movie down.  But this version of Superman is very well cast and the actors really do step up to the plate.  I had never heard of Henry Cavill but making him Superman was absolutely brilliant.  He has the perfect physique and look to play the All-American hero.  Amy Adams isn't the stereotypical Lois Lane but Lane takes a different direction in this version.  I love that they didn't make her an idiot who can't tell the difference between glasses and no glasses.  Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe are both solid as Kal-El's fathers.  Finally, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White was a very good choice.  He has a air of authority and father figure that plays very well as editor of the Daily Planet.

Lastly, I want to give a nod to their portrayal of Metropolis.  There are numerous famous buildings from around the world in the shots of the city and this gives it a real "every city" feel.  Their use of the International House of Pancakes works in the same way for Smallville.  And having Clark go to Canada to work on the fishing boats was a nice touch when they could have easily just sent him to Maine.  While they do Americanize the whole story a bit, these elements do allow for Superman to be a hero for the whole world.  It's something this Canadian reviewer appreciates.

See it.

Iron Man 3 Review

I don't read a lot of comic books.  When I do, I tend to lean more towards the heroes of the DC universe.  So my understanding of the entire Avengers franchise is really limited to the movies and what I read on Cracked.com.  I can't compare this to the comics and have no idea if Iron Man 3 is staying true to any canon regarding villains, heroes or other such things.  I can only review it as an action movie and judge it against the numerous other films about the Avengers characters.

Looking at it in that light, I would have to say that this one lies in the middle of the road.  The main problem with it is that it takes forever to get moving into any kind of real plot.  The introduction and exposition into the actual crisis is really quite long and boring.  The best action movies are able to build these elements while throwing the action at us throughout the whole movie.  This one spends a little too much time brooding on Tony Stark's mental issues in dealing with the events of the Avengers.  While it does humanize a superhero character somewhat, it causes the movie to wait a little too long to give us what we paid our money to see.  But when it does start to deliver that, it does it very well.

Like the other two in this Avengers vein, it delivers on a strong mix of action and comedy.  We've come to expect a certain level of wit from Tony Stark and Iron Man 3 is able to bring that.  I found myself laughing out loud at a lot of his witticisms just like in the other two movies.  Another performance that I thought was done very well was that of Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian.  I would never say that Pearce is the cream of the crop in Hollywood but he has the look and attitude to play this character quite well: the guy who was ignored and bullied but has done good with a chip on his shoulder.  Him and his band of Extremis powered villains provide a very chilling evil that is played perfectly.

The rest of the performances are decent but nothing to write home about.  I've come to make peace with Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard as Rhodes and with the amount that the character is actually in this movie, they're pretty much interchangeable.  I normally find Gwyneth Paltrow to be rather annoying but she was tolerable here.  Ben Kingsley is quite entertaining as the Mandarin and I would have liked to have seen more of him on screen because he is such a great performer.

Ultimately, these movies are about watching Robert Downey Jr be Robert Downey Jr while a lot of stuff blows up in your face.  It takes a little long to get there but it does.  See it.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation Review (Spoiler Alert)

Nobody has been in the gym for years yet the power works.  That pretty much sums up the inconsistencies and nagging little questions that this movie has.  If you can get past those, you may enjoy it.

Many people (especially purists) did not like the first G.I. Joe movie.  And I'm guessing that many will not like this one for the same reasons.  It strays a bit from the canon of the franchise.  But, look at it this way.  If you made a G.I. Joe movie that was true to the campy 80s toy/comic book/cartoon franchise, it would flop completely.  G.I. Joe always had technology and weapons that were just out of reach of the time it was made.  They've actually done a very good job of doing the same thing and bringing it into the 21st century.  They have updated the uniforms, technology, and weapons to fit with the not-too-distant future feel that the original franchise had.  Anyone who says they need to stick to the character-specific uniforms and physically impossible vehicles needs to accept that these are movies, not comic books, toys, or cartoons.  As kids, we were able to accept and even embrace every outrageous aspect of the fantasy military world Hasbro thrust upon us.  But now, we are grown up and part of the disposable income masses.  As grown ups, most of us have left our puritanism behind and demand some sense of believe-ability and realism while still being to accept that it is an unlikely fiction.  When you look at it in that light, the G.I. Joe movies are actually quality updates to the franchise.  They upgraded the technology but kept the over the top cheesiness and camp that made G.I. Joe so enthralling for us as kids.  They've also kept the Snake Eyes vs. Storm Shadow story which was a very compelling aspect of the comics.

This is first, and foremost, an action movie.  Writing, acting, continuity, and story is secondary.  In the action elements of effects, makeup, etc., Retaliation gets an A+.  All of the action sequences are top notch and edited perfectly.  It also turned out to be a good thing to delay it so they could add the 3D.  Not only does a lot of stuff fly around and make you move, it really gave the rest of the movie a depth that was well done.  Sadly, as for the rest of the technical aspects, this movie is actually quite poor.  The film is mainly buildup to the plot and very little actual plot happens.  With the exception of Dwayne Johnson, the acting is quite poor.  Johnson was a great choice for Roadblock.  But the rest of the cast goes from phoning it in to downright hard to watch (RZA - who should never be on screen again).  The overall story seems pretty weak but it is actually something Cobra would have tried so I could actually embrace it.

But, the action outweighs the crappy acting so I give it a see recommendation.  If you don't want spoilers, stop reading.  But now I will address their use of characters.

G.I. Joe is very character driven.  It's a unit made up of very specific and unique soldiers.  I was and am a huge fan of the franchise and, as a result, have my own favourites.  I am disappointed in how the movies have used them.  They have killed off some of the most important characters in the franchise.  Duke, Hawk, and Zartan (especially Zartan) are some vital characters and they have all been killed.  Duke and Hawk are the leaders.  Roadblock, while important, is not a Joe leader.  (But Johnson makes a better leading man than Channing Tatum so I see what they were doing.)  (I also lament that Firefly is gone but that's just because I liked him.  He's not overly important.)  But what is worse is that they declined to use the Baroness and Destro for Cobra and Scarlet for the Joes.  In the overall story of G.I. Joe, these are vital characters that need to be included.  Scarlet has a calming effect on Snake Eyes that Jinx just cannot fulfill.  Destro is Cobra Commander's Starscream in the fact that they have the same goals yet hate each other.  The Baroness is a fantastic right hand for Cobra and they killed off the Commander's other two (Firefly and Zartan) in this one.  If they go with the idiotic Mindbender in the next one I may write a nasty letter (an probably not send it).

So I had to take a step back and realize that this is a film franchise and not a comic book that can go on indefinitely.  As a film franchise, it has a life of one (maybe two) more installments.  Then it may get a reboot a la Spiderman where they can go in a different direction and resurrect all of these characters.  If they keep this franchise as a contained story like that, they have to do something with these characters like kill them off or write them out.  There's only so much screen time to go around and in a franchise where everyone is a compelling star character in his or her own right, some difficult choices have to be made.  It's not like we have one hero with multiple villains.  We have a group of heroes fighting one group of villains and an insatiable demand from the audience to see all of their favourite characters.  The biggest problem is that same audience will also demand some sort of resolution in the story and we can't just leave a character in the background and bring him back 10 issues later when the comic book story allows for it.  So, the characters' shelf life falls dramatically.  Once I saw it as a smaller, finite story and not a video version of the action figures that I could play with over and over with new plots, I was able to accept the death of Zartan (and Firefly).

The Fantastic Four Review

When this movie came out, I thought that the effects were really good.  For the most part, they have stood the test of time.  The invisibility, flames, and human rock are all still very good.  However, the stretchy skin aspect of Reed Richards has not aged well.  This is supposed to be a super hero movie and whenever he does his thing, it comes off looking like something from The Mask.  It's more comical than anything and the leader of a super hero group should not be the comic relief.

Overall, the acting is as good as can be expected with the weak and quite lame and cheesy writing that has occured.  Chris Evans plays cocky quite well but was given absolutely moronic lines and the character suffered for it.  Jessica Alba is passable and Michael Chiklis delivers well for a character that is outside of his comfort zone.  He's at his best as a badass and Grimm is a more tenderhearted character with a rough exterior ( a cheesy allegory given e whole rock skin thing but that's the MO of Marvel).

The story is a good telling of the origins of the group but it is just that: only the origins.  The whole film is exposition and doesn't move on into a more self-contained story.  Building the whole thing for a sequel is a risky proposition.  Given at there is a sequel, I guess it paid off.  When I finally watch it, I'll review it too.

It moves fast and has a lot of good action sequences.  So for a comic book movie, it is good enough.  See it if you haven't already.

V for Vendetta Review

In this movie, Natalie Portman is a lot like Sampson.  While she has her hair, this is actually a decent little thriller set in a dystopian society.  She plays an unsuspecting person who is accidentally caught up in one man's quest for vengeance against the evil, fascist regime that turned him into a monster and ruined so many lives.  There is also the policeman chasing him who starts uncovering evidence that the government he serves so faithfully may be responsible for atrocities.  It's a basic story but with the right writing and good acting, it could have been a good thriller with some very nice fight scenes.

Then, V shaves Evie's head and the entire movie goes completely off the rails.  V goes through this elaborate and completely useless facade to turn her into a less violent version of himself for his plan. Then, she's rendered almost irrelevant for the remainder of the movie right up until the end when she is conveniently needed for the final act of vengeance.  Evie should be a central character in this movie.  Instead, sometimes she's needed and sometimes she's swept to the background.  The relationship between her and V is so inconsistent that it hurts the story too much.

Finally, I will talk about the character of V.  I don't mind having a calm, sociopathic attitude to these anti-heroes in movies.  After all, they are people who have been messed up and are consumed with one goal.  But Hugo Weaving takes this one to a whole new level.  It's like there's no emotion in the character at all.  Even Bane had some passion in the Dark Knight Rises.  V is taken too far to the calm end and he becomes a boring character that you just don't care about.

There's some decent action and the cinematography is quite good.  The emotion brought into the viewer through the society being reminiscent of Nazi Germany is strong in parts.  And if they had stayed on the track they started on, this could have been fantastic.  But they veered off and ended up making a poor movie.  Don't see it.

Iron Man 2 Review

Iron Man 2 follows some of the basics of action sequels.  The effects are bigger, the dialogue and one liners are more stylized and frequent and they got rid of a lot of what didn't work in the first and amped up the rest.  At least, that's what they tried to do with this one.  I would agree that the effects are bigger, but marginally.  They didn't do a whole lot more than just have more of them.  But, when you think of it, there's not much more they could do than just have a lot of robot suits flying around.  There are a lot more one liners and, for the most part, they're just as well written and delivered as in the first one.

The one thing they didn't do is the proper tweaking of what didn't work and fix it.  Ultimately, Tony Stark ends up having to fight a villain that is wearing a more weaponized suit than his own.  Sound familiar?  That's because it's the exact same thing that happens in the first one.  Granted, they had a better actor and villain in Mickey Rourke playing Ivan Vanko than they did with Jeff Bridges playing Obadiah Stane.  Vanko was a much more cold and ruthless villain because of his motivation for revenge rather than world domination.  But Justin Hammer had the domination motivation so Hammer and Vanko are essentially just Stane rolled into one (sort of like William Riker and data working together to make up Spock for Star Trek: The Next Generation).  Doing this isn't necessarily bad because it allows for more focused performances from Rourke and Sam Rockwell and you know where each one stands.  The performance they got out of Rourke in this instance is very good.

So, with that, they tweaked the right thing.  However, they did some more tweaking that was unnecessary and actually made it worse.  Terrence Howard was a very good Rhodes in the first one.  Replacing him with Don Cheadle was a mistake.  Don't get me wrong, Cheadle is a very fine actor.  But Howard suited the role better and they should have kept him.

The film is a bit too preachy in its "America can have toys but nobody else can because we can be trusted and you all cannot" message.  But it is a comic book movie made for American audiences.  If non-Americans don't like it, they need to step up and make their own films with their own message.  We're playing in their sandbox here.  It's just something we have to deal with.  Fortunately, it didn't dominate the movie as much as it could have and they turned more of the focus to Stark trying to cure his Palladium poisoning and his own growth as a hero.

It is very similar to the first one.  But the first one was a very good movie.  Ultimately, so is this.  There is less drop in quality than, say, the difference between Die Hard and Die Hard 2 but more than Rocky to Rocky 2.  See it.  Especially if you like all of the Avengers movies.

Iron Man Review

This is what a comic book movie should be.  It has the unrealistic universe that is also supposed to make us believe that it could happen for real at any time.  I think part of why it is so good is that Tony Stark doesn't have any supernatural or unreal scientific powers.  Yes, I know that he's kept alive by technology that doesn't exist.  But are we really that far away?  That's an argument for another time.  Given that, the two things that make it superior to most comic book movies is that they cast the perfect actor as Stark and had a great director.

Robert Downey Jr is at his best when he's a slick a-hole that, for some reason, we all like.  That's what Tony Stark is and it's just a natural for him to play it.  And he does it to perfection.  Jon Favreau was a great choice to direct.  He proved his worth with this one bringing the suave one-liners that made the movies Swingers and Made so good (he was Vince Vaughn's foil for the one-liners in those) and brought them to the action arena.  He wasn't the first to do it and he won't be the last.  But he did a very good job at spacing them out and making them part of the film and not the film itself.

As for the rest of the film, it is all pretty solid.  When I first saw it, the effects blew me away and, even though I have seen many movies with the same effect quality since, it's still pretty damn good.  The acting was decent but nothing to write home about.  I'm not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan but will admit she is good.  I like Terrence Howard and am disappointed that he was dropped for the second.  Jeff Bridges needed a bit of help but he's not a comic book villain.  They went with name over ability for the role and that was a mistake (he was also reminiscent of Lex Luthor if he was trying to see how many marbles he could fit in his mouth at one time).  But comic book movies are about action, effects and comic relief.  Acting is secondary.  In the primary objectives, Iron Man is fantastic.

See it.  It is the comic book movie that most modern ones should be judged against as a benchmark.

The Dark Knight Rises Commentary

Any movie that has Anne Hathaway dressed in tight leather and bent over the Bat Bike automatically gets a See recommendation.  Now, on with my opinions.

This is one hell of a James Bond movie.  It's got a ridiculous plot about destruction, unrealistic villains, two hot girls and a perfect opportunity to make the evil plan airtight without the hero getting in the way only to let him off the hook and come back to save the day by exploiting the loophole so obvious that even I was able to see it.  That being said, it's actually quite entertaining and, for my money, the best of the three.  First, it wasn't oppressively dark like Batman Begins.  Second, it didn't push a political agenda like the Dark Knight.  The Dark Knight Rises is a basic superhero story of hope and vindication in a harsh world and I liked that.  There's also the fact that they made a 2:45 minute movie go by really quickly.  That means it entertains all the way through and, therefore, does its job.  In the other two, I kept feeling like they went on too long.  And this one even has some long, drawn out exposition that could have been cut.

I also have to keep reminding myself that these are comic book movies.  And as comic book movies, they are going to have some ridiculous things in them.  First, the ancient prison that you can only escape from if you are worthy of climbing out of it borders on the idiotic.  No, it is idiotic.  Second, I'm not sure why Bane had to sound like Sean Connery on his deathbed.  It wasn't really sinister enough.  But I will concede that it works because Bane (at least in this movie) has a detached nature about him that makes him a bone-chilling villain.  So the odd voice really adds to it.  While the Joker was this psycho who's motivation seemed to be only his own entertainment, Bane was a calculating and distant sociopath and had an ideological purpose (as twisted as it was).  And Tom Hardy got the mannerisms and body language down perfectly.

I also must lament about the location.  Gotham City has gotten to the point of being its own character in these movies.  Everything is done for the good of or destruction of the city.  Having it obviously in New York with the wide sweeping shots of famous landmarks - a flaming bat symbol on the most famous bridge in the world - (and have their football team play all the way out in Pittsburgh) is just distracting; especially when the last movie did the same thing with Chicago and the first one was completely fictional in its scenery.  But, in order for this plot to work, they needed the city to be on an island and, thus, painted themselves into a corner.  To have the same film makers take such an integral "character" and manipulate it to suit their own whims is too sloppy for me.  (You can argue about the symbolism of a changing Gotham to have the city represent some universality about us all needing to be saved all you want.  Save it.  I'm not buying it.  I'll take consistency over weak allegory any day.)

Finally, I will mention Christian Bale.  it is well documented that I do not like the man.  It is also well documented that I do not know why.  In this film, I did not have a problem with him.  I actually thought he did very well.  And they kept the absolutely idiotic and annoying gravelly Batman voice to a minimum so that made me happy too.

The bottom line is that this movie is entertaining and balances a moral with (finally) not trying to be too deep.  See it.  Unfortunately, to know all of what's going on, you have to invest the time in the other two.  But seeing as how I'm in the minority on the quality of the first two, you probably won't mind.

The Amazing Spider-Man Commentary

I would almost be willing to bet that if I asked 100 people to give me the basic origin of Spiderman, about 90% would be able to tell me that he was bitten by a spider and received spider-like powers. Why, then, do we need an hour and a half of an origin backstory for a reboot of this franchise? I know that the essence of a reboot is to start a story over. But we all know the origin. I'm not saying get rid of it completely. Just don't make it most of the movie. By the time they got moving into any kind of plot, I had pretty much lost interest and did't care about the fate of any character anymore, good or bad. And that's a shame because, weak story aside, this movie is quite good.

Andrew Garfield is a fantastic Peter Parker. He looks like a more mild mannered person with potential for greatness whereas Tobey Maguire just looked goofy most of the time. I also liked how they developed Parker to be flawed in that he doesn't make a quick jump into knowing how to be a superhero and separate Parker from Spiderman (it just took too long to do). Garfield and Emma Stone have a great chemistry and are good on screen together. The comic relief is very well done in both writing and delivery. It blends the spoken with the physical perfectly and makes the movie light when it needs to release some of the tension. And it's got probably the best Stan Lee cameo of any of the Marvel Comics movies.

I must say though that I was very disappointed in the villain. I do need to put a disclaimer that I do not know the Spiderman franchise very well. I just know about how he got his powers and that he takes pictures for a local paper. I don't know the villains at all and had no idea about the Lizard. To me though, this villain seems very, very weak for a super hero franchise; especially one to start off a reboot. Add in that the CGI and makeup effects for the Lizard were downright laughable and it really disappoints. (I hate to say that because I am a Rhys Ifans fan.) Otherwise, the effects are very good. They could have taken some of the money spent on web effects, etc. and put it towards a better Lizard. The fight scenes are well done and Spiderman swinging used some very good camera angles and the 3D judiciously. I did roll my eyes at the whole thing with the cranes as that was a bit too cheesy for my taste but I've said many times that I can forgive some of that in a comic book movie.

All in all, it disappointed simply because they dwelt on the origin and Spiderman learning to harness his powers for way too long. Most people go to see these films because they want to see more of the kick ass action that is in the trailers. And they want to see their favourite superheroes fight their favourite villains. It took way too long to get moving and, when it did, it was like they never really had an idea as to how they wanted it to progress in the first place.

After I saw it, I would have given it a Don't See recommendation as a knee jerk reaction. After reflecting further though, you may want to give it a look for the effects. Just know that you're going to have to sit through the tired old origin exposition again.

The Dark Knight Commentary

This movie was well received for two reasons.  First, it was a highly anticipated sequel to a very successful movie.  Second, it centred on a pop culture villain that is only slightly less popular than Darth Vader.  Add in a very good interpretation of that villain by Heath Ledger and it was destined to be remembered as better than it was.  I don’t want to speak ill of the dead but, if Ledger hadn’t passed away shortly after this movie, it would still be remembered as a good performance.  But it wouldn’t have the legendary status that it has received as his swansong legacy.

Again, I don’t want to take anything away from it because the performance is top notch.  We’re used to the Joker being a real clown with no basis in reality.  Instead, Ledger seemed to take Jack Nicholson’s Joker from the 1990 Batman, threw in some Johnny Depp inspiration and made him devoid of any morality.  The end result is a sociopath that just wants to make the world a worse place.  The only problem I had with the performance was that, about halfway through, Ledger started constantly licking his lips for some unexplained reason.   That was very distracting.  I also didn’t care for the teasing of the audience with him “explaining” how he got the scars.  In a genre of film where character background is so important, they took a big one and completely changed it from the canon.  But that isn’t Ledger’s fault.  He took what was written and made it chilling.

It’s the fault of the writing and film making in general.  I really think Christopher Nolan dropped the ball on this one.  The writing and story is a not even thinly veiled commentary on giving up civil liberties in the face of terrorism.  The absolute preachiness of this film made it difficult to watch.  Then, there’s the model of Gotham itself.  Nolan took a city that he portrayed as dark, cramped and depraved in Batman Begins and made it a much lighter and less congested Chicago (oops … I mean … Gotham).  I believe he was trying to show how the city was digging itself out of hell but the change is just so drastic for a period of one year.  It also really takes away from the continuity of the series.  That’s something almost unforgivable when both movies are made and written by the same director.

Finally, with the exception of Ledger, the acting is quite poor.  Christian Bale took his annoying gravelly voice of Batman from the first one and managed to make it even more difficult to listen to and believe.  It was almost as if the new suit Fox made for him was cutting off circulation to his brain.  Then, they decide to bring in one of the worst big name actors Hollywood has in Aaron Eckhart to play Harvey Dent.  The combination results in very forced and cheesy dialogue, especially when any kind of emotion from either Batman or Dent is involved.

It needs to be seen if you want to watch the trilogy.  But, if you want to watch a stand-alone movie, don’t see it.  There’s nothing better in the action or story to make it stand out from Batman Begins.  The great performance from Ledger is outweighed by the poor film making and political agenda.

Batman Begins Commentary

I know I’m late to the party with this one but I wanted to watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight again before going to see the conclusion this summer. 

I was sort of a Batman fan growing up.  While I didn’t collect the comics, I did have a few and had some action figures.  He was my favourite super hero but I wasn’t super excited when the 1990s movies came out or when this reboot happened (I still haven’t seen the second 1990s one with Danny DeVito as the Penguin). But the new ones looked cool and I like Batman so I gave them a shot.  To be honest, I don’t understand why they are so highly regarded and super-successful.  I will concede that the first one is a well-made movie with a decent story.  Although one beef I have with these super hero reboots is that they constantly beat us over the head with origins exposition that we already all know.  In Batman Begins, we do have that but it is woven well into the character motivation buildups.  Overall, though, Batman Begins does take a little too much time to get to any actual plot with a typical comic book villain that Batman has to fight.  That makes it suffer as a stand alone movie.  However, when you realize that it is the first part of a trilogy, you can see it as an introductory piece and forgive that aspect of it. 

I did notice that some of the acting and writing in this movie seemed over the top and forced.  But, even if they tried to get away from the camp factor, it is still based on comic books and you can never fully get rid of that aspect.  Given the source material they had to work with I’d say they did a decent job of minimizing the camp and still delivering Batman to us properly. 

I also found the movie somewhat difficult to watch.  In showing the dark depravity that Gotham has descended into, I think they may have gone a bit too far.  Everything in this movie is so bleak that by the time you get to the end, the viewer is so depressed and feels that there is absolutely no hope.  Even the stuff that was supposed to be a little lighthearted (like the train ride with Bruce and his father or the scene at the hotel) comes off as oppressive.  So you can imagine that the scenes that take place in the Narrows and at Arkham are even more so.  I know the intent is to make the viewer feel like they are immersed in a story of a saviour bringing society out of an absolutely hopeless situation.  In many respects they hit it spot on; maybe a bit too spot on because the visuals get very depressing at points. 

I think the biggest problem I have with these movies though is the fact that Christian Bale is in them.  I will admit that I am biased in the fact that I have this irrational and unreasonable dislike for the man’s work.  (Yet I still go see many of his movies because the movies themselves look decent.)  He just irks me for some unexplainable reason.  And his acting as Batman irks me even more.  I know Batman has to talk different than Bruce Wayne to keep his identity a secret but Bale’s version of that is pretty annoying.  He does this gravelly, mouth breather thing that irritates me.  I know it’s irrational. 

All in all though, this is a decent movie if you like the dark aspect of the Batman saga.  It also has some decent action and some very good supporting performances from Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman.  See it.  But know that if you do, you must invest time in the next two movies because it is a setup piece.

Men in Black 3 Commentary

Ah, the third movie in a series.  If it isn’t a planned trilogy, this is usually a big disappointment (X-Men III, Rocky III, Godfather III etc.  Although I liked two of those movies – Godfather III is horrible - they are considered disappointing).  I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by this one.  I think the main reason Men in Black 3 is as good as it is is due to them waiting ten years to make it.  That gives the film makers time to develop a more creative and unique story rather than just relying on the same old recycled material that led to their success in the first place.  It also allows the viewers to sort of forget what happened in the others and makes it newer to us.  Finally, it allows for a new crop of viewers to emerge who may not have seen the older ones.  In any case, for the most part, MIB3 seemed pretty fresh.  There were some hold over jokes and gags from the previous films but that is expected and unavoidable because it is a sequel after all.  I did think there was a little too much of “things you see every day are actually alien” but that’s the franchise for you.

Another reason that MIB3 is decent is due to the acting.  Josh Brolin is absolutely fantastic as the young K.  He nails the mannerisms of Tommy Lee Jones’ older K perfectly and mimics Jones’ voice to the point that you would swear it is dubbed.  (I watched an interview with Brolin regarding this and they swear it isn’t.  When you hear Brolin’s normal voice you can see how he can mimic Jones without too much of a stretch.)  Second, Will Smith is very decent in this role.  He starts out like he’s going to do nothing but the tired “aw, hell naw!” acting that he has made famous.  But he combines some of that with the emotion that we saw in The Pursuit of Happyness and I, Legend to make a very balanced character out of J.  (As an aside, Fresh Prince of Bel Air fans will almost instinctively want to say “mind your business, that’s all.  Just mind your business” when they hear him say, “Back up!  Back up!” at one point.  I know I did.)  Finally, Michael Stuhlbarg was fantastic as Griffin.  You almost believed that he could see every possible future and contingency.  It was a surreal experience every time he was on screen.  There was one performance that stuck out as particularly bad though.  Jemaine Clement as Boris the Animal was absolutely painful to watch.  It was wooden and inconsistent and I was very disappointed in an otherwise decent actor.

You cannot review an MIB movie without talking about effects and makeup.  Overall, they were just average.  Brolin’s makeup was very well done to make him look like a young Jones.  However, Jones’ makeup (in what I assume was an effort to make him look like an older Brolin) was very pancakey and made him look like a cartoon character and it was distracting.  But they had to do something.  Have you seen Jones lately?  The alien effects were odd.  They seemed both real and cartoony at the same time.  While there was no obvious green screening, etc. they did look a little out of place.  But overall, I’d say they were good enough for the theme and tone of the movie.

Overall, see it.  It starts slow and like it’s going to be just a rehash of old jokes but it becomes better than that.  There’s just one nagging problem with the movie regarding the time travel that I found annoying.  If you don’t want any spoilers (although it’s minor), stop reading.  But I need to mention it for my own sanity.

At one point, they look like they’re going to address why J remembers K but nobody else does after Boris goes back in time to kill K.  Then, they just drop it completely and give none.  Then they come back briefly and drop it again.  It’s almost as if they wanted to address it but couldn’t think of a resolution for it.  This is pretty major in a time travel story and has to be addressed.  Otherwise it’s just annoying.  If it was addressed and I missed it, it was too confusing or subtle to be effective because I was looking for it the whole time after J feels “the disturbance” in his apartment.

The Avengers Commentary

The worst thing about going to a comic book movie is that there is always some a-hole geek sitting near you that feels he needs to give his companions a full volume running commentary during the film.  But I can't judge the film on that.  I just needed to vent.

A friend of mine saw this on the first weekend and said it was nothing more than you expect it to be but more than you want it to be.  I would change that to it being not everything you want it to be but about what you expect it to be.  Over the past few years, we have been innundated with comic book movies; especially the lead ups to this one.  So we've come to expect a certain formula of action, comedy and more action with fairly thin stories.  That's pretty much what we get.  We also get a lot of hype and (at least I do anyway) seem to want something that is going to come out of left field and absolutely blow our minds.  Instead, we get decent effects and lots of things getting destroyed.  And we're OK with that.  The Avengers doesn't do anything that the others leading up to it didn't do.  It just took all of them and made them into one movie.  But it did it well.  There's good and bad but the net result is positive.

Being an ensemble story from other movies, they have to spend way too much time getting them all together.  As a result, the story takes too long to get going and I had to wait too long to see the destruction and smart assery from Robert Downey Jr that I used good Scene points on.  There's too much time spent reintroducing characters.  If you haven't seen the others, you should know better than to come into this one completely blind.  But once it gets going, it moves well.

Second, the characters and acting is pretty much what you would expect.  You get over the top dialogue from Thor, great, sardonic wit from Tony Stark and the Great American heroism from Captain America (even though they don't throw American values as global values at you which I appreciated).  You also get a very good villain performance with Tom Hiddleston as Loki.  The best decision though was casting Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner.  And it pains me to say that because I am an Ed Norton fan and thought the Incredible Hulk was the best of the lead ins.  I was disappointed to hear he wouldn't be included in the Avengers.  But the way they took the Bruce Banner character would not have been good for Norton.  Ruffalo does a fantastic job as a more neurotic, mild mannered Banner than Norton did or could play.  So I'm happy with that.  I am not happy, though, with Scarlett Johannsen. Her character was completely useless right down to fighting the invaders with tiny handguns.  Her performance was even worse.  It was wooden, lifeless and all attempts at comic relief were downright terrible.  That is outweighed by two absolutely fantastic comic moments from the Hulk that I will giggle about for a long time yet.

Finally, a couple of observations.  First, am I the only one who sees a huge logic flaw with having a flying aircraft carrier as a headquarters?  I mean, come on!  The only added element was making it fly and, therefore adding one more way it could become a disaster.  Second, the battle resolution is stolen straight from another action movie (I won't spoil it by saying which) and lacked any originality.  But it was visually cool and it's a comic book movie so I can let that slide.

So, it lacked some originality and surprise.  So what?  We got to see stuff explode and laugh at Robert Downey Jr doing the only thing he can: be an a-hole.  And that's really the only reason we go see these movies.  So see it.

The Adventures of Tintin Review

When I heard this was going to be a motion captured film rather than a live action one, I thought, "oh, great.  They're going to ruin perhaps the best memory of my childhood by making it look like Beowulf."  I'm so glad that motion capture technology has come a long way since 2007.  And we're even more fortunate that, for Tintin, they got the extra clout of Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson behind it.  Because when you add those together, you get a film that they took time and spent some money on making it look real.  Don't get me wrong.  There's still some times when motion capture looks like Shrek riding a horse.  But there are times in Tintin where I actually forgot I was watching animation.  it is that detailed.  Some of the action sequences in this film would have actually suffered in a live action environment.  With live action, there's a lot of green screening and adding art in behind the real thing.  So, you often get a picture that looks really out of place.  By making the whole thing a very detailed animation with human movements, the entire set could be set up and done in a way that looks very seamless.  You also get to have Nick Frost and Simon Pegg play twin detectives without having to resort to bad makeup jobs.  And any time you get to have them on the screen together, you get comedy gold.

As far as the story goes, the main shell is there from the book.  They tell the story of The Secret of the Unicorn while adding some Crab With the Golden Claws to allow for the introduction of Captain Haddock.  But the writing team takes it to a new level with added comedy and dialogue and some much more intense action scenes.  My gut reaction to this is to be disappointed because they aren't staying true to a book; especially one that I loved in my childhood (and still love today).  After all, a comic book is basically a story board for a movie.  But, when you think about it, as long as the basics are there like the adventure story, the characters and some of the outlandish outbursts from Haddock, why not let them play around with the action and make it more intense.  It works.  The chase scene through the streets with the falcon had me riveted.

From an acting standpoint, it's hard to tell if it was good or not.  The motion capture cannot get every detail of an actor's gait and movements.  But from a dialogue delivery standpoint, it is very strong.  Not once did anything come off as cheesy.  Some of that may have to do with the context of an adapted comic book but I know I have a lot of eye rolling moments in most of the Marvel and DC movies out there.  The fact that Tintin didn't have that is a testament to very good writing and superb performances from Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis and Daniel Craig.  I really want to give a lot of praise to Pegg and Frost because I think they are the best comedy duo since Wayne and Shuster.  But they really weren't on screen enough to make or break the film.  I will say, however, that their time on screen did make me laugh out loud every time.

Definitely see it.  If you have the option for no 3D, take that. I didn't think the 3D added anything of real value.  But it is definitely a movie you should see.  Even if you weren't a Tintin fan, it is an entertaining adventure story.

My childhood memories of Tintin are safe.

Captain America Review

I must be suffering from some sort of Comic Book Movie Fatigue or something because I should feel a lot better about seeing this movie than I do.  It really was not what I expected.  First, I expected it to be a lot more "hey Johnny" 1940s than it was.  With the exception of the big USO production number, it really wasn't at all like that.  I also expected it to be a lot more American patriot than it was.  After all, the character is Captain America.  If ever there was justification for over the top American patriotism in a movie it was here.  But, thankfully, they stayed away from that and made it more of a good vs evil type of story that audiences outside of the United States can enjoy just as much.

The best part of this movie is Tommy Lee Jones.  He really steals every scene he's in.  I think part of that has to do with most of the good one liners going to his character.  But he delivers them with his signature "deadpan yet oddly animated" style that only he can do.  As for the rest of the actors, there's really nothing bad except for maybe Stanley Tucci.  His German accent was slightly less worse than Vincent Schiavelli in Tomorrow Never Dies.  Between that and his look, it kind of reminded me of a caricature of my Dad's cousin, Bernd who is actually from Germany.

One thing a comic book movie has to be is visually appealing.  While Captain America didn't knock this one out of the park, it isn't bad either.  There are some shots where I thought they could have spent a little more money on the CGI to make it a bit smoother (especially when he's jumping) but, as a businessman, I understand the need to stay within budgets.  Most of the other effects are decent as well.  For example, the Hydra's weapons are well done.  The effects aside, the fact that this movie is set in the 40s doesn't actually help it.  Most of the costumes, props and lighting, etc. are overstylized and give it more of a Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen feel to it.  This is because they combine old analog technology with stuff that just didn't exist back then.  As a comic book movie, it needs to be a bit over the top but it doesn't seem to fit with the other Avengers movies in that regard.

If you are planning on doing the whole "Avengers" movie thing, it is obviously essential to see this movie (and, yes, stay until the credits are done).  But, if you are just looking for a stand alone action movie, you should probably not see it.  Especially with all that has come out this year.  And that's a shame.  If they had waited until they were out of the wake of Thor and Green Lantern, I'd probably feel different.  But, if you want to release the Avengers next spring, you have to cram as much of the preliminary material in before that as possible.  I just feel like we're being saturated with action this summer.

Cowboys & Aliens Review

John Favreau knows what he's doing.  He can take a comic book story, make an action movie about it and also make you care about the characters and story.  At first with this movie, I thought it was taking a bit long to get going and that there should be more action.  But, as it progressed, I realized that they were letting the story come to the audience and have it unfold naturally with action scenes used as a compliment.  Too often in these alien action movies, there are these big expository scenes that they rely on to explain things.  If you are anything like me, you tend to start tuning out long dialogue parts in action movies because you go in with your brain half turned off.  Often, I wind up confused because I missed something that was said and, if there isn't enough action going on through the whole movie, I come away disappointed.

With Cowboys & Aliens, a lot of the explanations are done visually and they don't get too deep.  Part of that I think is attributed to Favreau and the executive producers (Steven Spielberg and Ron Howard in particular).  But I think part of it can also be attributed to the subject matter itself.  The premise of an alien invasion taking place before our own technology has taken off is very interesting.  The gap between the alien technology and our own causes a lot more confusion on the part of the humans and they cannot develop any strategic defense or extract any knowledge from the alien technology (like they did in Independence Day).  So, the story becomes a bit more shallow and focuses on survival rather than any higher meaning.  There is no patriotic crap or underlying political message to this movie because of that.

Speaking of visuals, Cowboys & Aliens has some of the better ones I've seen in a Western for quite some time.  The locations that they used combined with the bright lighting are absolutely breathtaking.  Combine that with some really good special effects and you have a very appealing movie, visually.

The only real problems with this movie are, first, some of the sound editing was out of sync.  Sounds of fists hitting faces didn't match up with the shot in a few instances.  But the main problem was Harrison Ford.  I do have to give him some credit because he was saddled with a ridiculous character.  Is he good?  Is he bad?  Is he misunderstood?  Is he a schyster?  Make up your damn minds.  There were too many layers to his character and it didn't fit with the aforementioned shallower story and, therefore, became a distraction.  But, that notwithstanding, Ford's delivery of the character was still pretty bad.  Somebody get that man a lozenge please.  Or, just go off set, hork up that big loogie and let's move on.  Combine that with his wooden and cheesy deliveries and it's not his best work.

But, overall, see it.  It is well worth your money and time.  Even with Ford's performance, it is a very entertaining movie.  The other performances are really quite good even from the latest Maxim flavour of the week.  Favreau keeps the pace going and, before you know it, the two hours is up.  The climax even moves quite fast which is something that tends to drag on in an action/alien movie.

The Smurfs Review

The Smurfs franchise has really done nothing new since the 80s.  So the film makers had the challenge of making a movie that would appeal to both the nostalgia of my generation and today's kids.  While they may not have hit a home run with the Smurfs, I think they did a decent job and made a solid movie.  It is definitely the best movie with blue people that I have seen in the past year and a half because it is definitely better than Avatar.

First, the acting.  Both Hank Azaria and Neil Patrick Harris are very solid in their roles.  This is especially true of Azaria.  He hit the Gargamel character spot on with his role.  His interactions with Azrael are perfect.  He stays true to the original character while making it very fun for kids to watch.  Harris' character is completely new so he didn't have anything to build on.  The character itself was a bit weak and without depth.  But it's a kids movie so that's OK and Harris played it very well using his strong likability.  The voiceovers, while nothing to write home about, were decent throughout with one exception.  Having George Lopez do the voice of Grouchy just didn't seem right.  I can't put my finger on why.  It just didn't fit.

Overall, the production quality was good.  The CGI in the Smurf village and forest was well done and looked quite cartoony without looking drawn on paper.  In this respect, it was modernized quite well.  But when the Smurfs were in New York (which is most of the movie), the green screening becomes quite obvious.  I know it is hard to make it all look real but there are times when the Smurfs look a little too added on to the actors and sets.  Maybe I have come to expect too much from CGI though.

I really only have two problems with the movie.  First, I know it's a fantasy story and they need to bend reality a lot.  But that doesn't mean that you should just break rules and reality for the sake of a cheap laugh if it doesn't serve any purpose for the story.  There's no way Gargamel would wind up in maximum security prison for taking a leaf blower and engaging in mischief in an FAO Schwarz.  There was nothing in that scene that necessitated the maximum security prison or other inmates and it should have been scrapped.  Second, Gutsy Smurf.  I know that they were trying to create a quirky, trendy character that would provide a lot of laughs etc. and make it fun for the kids and also provide better merchandising possibilities.  But this could have easily been done by utilizing an original Smurf in Hefty.   He could have provided just as many jokes and we would have been spared a tacked-on Scottish Smurf that was just unnecessary.  It would have been able to appease kids and purists alike.  Gutsy's jokes were only "funny" because he was Scottish (that makes him say, "mind the gap" when jumping onto the subway.  They say that in the United Kingdom.  That's funny, right?  Right?)  (But I'm beginning to think I'm the only Smurfs purist out there.)

Thos two fairly minor issues aside, see it.  If you are a fan of the comics and old cartoon, it's close enough to be entertaining.  If you aren't a fan, it's still a good distraction with some good laughs.  And it's still decent for kids.