Predators - Review

One of the questions that has plagued man since the beginning of time... or rather around 1987 is this, "Why is it so difficult to make a decent sequel to Predator?" The classic Arnold Schwarzenegger sci-fi/action flick made quite an impact on moviegoers for its fun, suspenseful, and thrilling concept. It eventually was followed by a mediocre sequel in 1990, with Danny Glover filling in for Arnold. 14 years after audiences finished spitting out Predator 2's bad taste came Alien Vs Predator, a long hyped theatrical crossover between two of cinema's most memorable intergalactic baddies... and it sucked. Now that Predator 2 looked amazing compared to its over hyped successor, Hollywood decided to add some more insult to injury 3 years later with Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem... and then, the shit really hit the fan.

When all hope had seemed lost, a light at the end of the tunnel appeared, a light shined by fan favorite producer Robert Rodriguez, the filmmaker behind cult hits like El Mariachi, Desperato, From Dusk Til Dawn, Sin City, and Grindhouse. Rodriguez has almost always delivered in the world of action and horror movies, and therefore seemed like the perfect contender to produce (but unfortunately not direct) a new entry in the Predator lineup. Is Predators the sequel we've all been waiting for.

Predators takes a bit of inspiration from its sibling series, Alien, in both title and concept. Now instead of one predator preying on a group of people, its a bunch of predators hunting a whole horde of unfortunate humans. Instead of grunt marines, however, this is a group composed of psychos, convicts, and killers all dropped into a predator game reserve planet. On this unknown planet, the group tries to work together, protect themselves from the bloodthirsty predators, and find a way to get home.

That plot description was pretty vague, but to be honest, there really is not much more to it. Like every other film in the series, Predators is essentially a B-Movie. It features a group of human characters being chased vicious monsters. If you were hoping for a more dynamic or original plot, you'll probably be disappointed. Of course, if you're looking for some balls-to-the-wall, bloody, over-the-top action, than there is plenty here for you.

Its been a while since I've seen a brutal and bloody action movie, and I have to admit, it was a breath of fresh air. In terms of action, Predators delivers! It features some of the bloodiest shootouts I've seen in a long time. The fights were hardcore, the Predators are still big and tough, and the whole movie is such a wild rush that hardly ever settles down. Its a roller coaster ride of a movie... fast, fun, and thrilling.

One of the biggest surprises of the film was the talent recruited for the human characters. Leading the ensemble cast is Academy Award winner Adrian Brody! This actor has one of the most interesting post-Oscar film resumes of any award winner I can think of. He went from serious dramas like The Pianist to movies like King Kong, The Darjleeling Limited, Splice, and now Predators. Most of his movies aren't bad, just interesting choices for an actor of his caliber. Other members include Laurence Fishburne, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Danny Trejo, and a few more. By in large, the acting is... there. That's really all I can say about the cast, nobody is particularly bad but none of the performances are by any means great or inventive. Acting-wise, its exactly what you would expect and all you really need. Hey, if the shoe fits...

Overall, Predators has a lot going for it. A fun premise, cool special effects, and sweet action make this the best Predator sequel so far. Still, it fails to outdo the original, and I still can't shake the feeling that the "definitive" predator movie has yet to be made. Its a good movie, but not amazing and isn't likely to wow anyone. Nonetheless, the Predator series seems to be back on track, and with Rodriguez in control, another sequel is very promising.

My Score: 3 Out of 5!

The A-Team - Review

When I heard that they were adapting the campy 80s action series, "The A-Team" into a big budget Hollywood blockbuster... I have to admit, I didn't really care. It wasn't a horrible show, but it was so silly and over-the-top, that its appeal was based entirely on camp, something that a lot of productions can only keep fresh for so long. So, I basically figured would be little more than a mindless summer blockbuster that would, at best, be a fun movie yet ultimately forgettable. After finally watching the flick, its actually a bit better than I had originally anticipated.

The movie follows the same basic plot as the show, updated for the current time period. The A-Team is a group of four elite soldiers with contrasting skills and personalities, currently serving in Iraq (as opposed to Vietnam from the original series), carrying out secret missions and tasks for the US government. The leader of the team is Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), the cigar smoking tactician who "Loves It When A Plan Comes Together." Faceman Peck (Bradley Cooper) serves as the smooth talking, good looking, conman, and ladies man of the group. B.A. Baracus (Quinton "Rampage" Jackson) is the team's gruff enforcer and expert mechanic with a perpetual fear of flying. Finally there's the mentally unstable H.M. Murdock (Sharlto Copley), the team's highly skilled pilot and linguist. After carrying out a covert operation in Baghdad, their superior officer is killed, and the team is framed for crimes they did not commit. The four are sent to separate prisons, in which they all escape in an effort to clear their name.

There's usually an inherint problem with reviewing most summer blockbusters. Each season, you'll generally get one or two outstanding films and a few absolutely dreadful attempts at cinema. I can usually find a lot to say about a movie thats either extremely well made or the train wrecks. Of course, the average middle of the road summer blockbusters are more difficult to review. "The A-Team" definitely falls into the latter category, a stereotypical summer action flick. They appeal to a specific audience: those who love over-the-top action movies, and usually don't care about what critics say. That being said, it does have something of a charm compared to the usual summer lineup, enough to give it a bit of an edge.

That charm falls in the hands of the cast. One of the series' most enjoyable appeals came from the contrasting characters. The four have such different personalities, that their quarrels are often played out for some very enjoyable humour. Each actor plays their respective character perfectly. The two standouts for me are Liam Neeson, who looks like he's having a blast as Hannibal Smith, and District 9's Sharlto Coplay as the over-the-top H.M. Murdock. Of course, all four work off each other really well. Its this brilliant move in casting that give "The A-Team" an edge over the average blockbuster.

Now, a good portion of the reviews for this movie have been fairly negative. Many critics have criticized the movie's excessive noise, explosions, and ludicrous action scenes. My response to that is this... "What the hell did you expect???" Those were the kinds of things that I loved about this movie. Of course the logic makes absolutely no sense, the script is nowhere near free of holes, and that the action is excessive. Its okay, every now and then, to watch a movie for the sake of fun... do you remember that? I'm not giving "The A-Team" a free pass on the general rules of filmmaking, but every now and then, its okay to stop being a film snob and buy into the fun factor of a movie. The action was crazy, the movie was loud, and pracitcally nothing that happens would stand a chance of playing out in the real world, but for a film like this, I could really care less.

Thats really all I have to say about "The A-Team." If you're not a fan of over-the-top action movies, then you can probably skip it, just stop complaining. If you're looking for a fun filled, action packed, adrenaline rush, this should do the trick. I have a feeling that was the filmmaker's plan, and I do love when a plan comes together ;)

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

Toy Story 3 - Review

I want you to think of every threequel you've seen. How many of them were bad? How many of them were mediocre? How many were good but not as good as its predecessor(s)? How many of them were the best in the trilogy? Movies like The Bourne Ultimatum, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, or Die Hard with A Vengeance both had great first entries, but so-so second entries, so a superior third was not too difficult to imagine. Then you have Spider-Man or X-Men which both had great first entries, superior seconds, but a mediocre third part. How about Return of the Jedi, a great film, but is seen as the weakest link in the original trilogy (mainly due to coming off the heels of its two fantastic predecessors.) So with that in mind, think about the past two Toy Story movies. The first was excellent, the second was even better... so when I say Toy Story 3 is the best in the trilogy... that's one hell of a compliment!

The movie picks up 11 years after Toy Story 2. Andy is all grown up and is days away from leaving for college. His toys have dwindled in numbers and haven't been played with for years. There's a growing concern among the remaining toys (which includes Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Bullseye, Slink, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Hamm, Rex, and a few others) regarding their fate. Will they be left in the attic, will they thrown away, or will they be donated or sold?

I don't want to give too much more of the plot away then that. I'll start by saying, Toy Story 3 is one of the most profound, deep, and flat out entertaining family mov... actually just movies in general. Pixar has one of the greatest track records of any studio, when your worst film (Cars) is still an overall critical success and box office hit, that's really saying a lot. I will admit, I was curious if Pixar could make lightening strike three times with this series, and for a while, it looked it was going to fall into the usual traps of the threequel, but it overcame in every way possible, creating a movie that is one of the most satisfying conclusions to a classic series.

As per usual, the voice acting is top notch. Tom Hanks returns as the perfect voice of Woody, the cowboy doll and de facto leader of Andy's toys. Tim Allen returns once again to bring his comic timing to Buzz Lightyear, the space ranger action figure. Other Toy Story alumni includes Joan Cusack as Jessie the Cowgirl, Wallace Shawn as Rex the Tyrannosaurus, John Ratzenberger as Hamm the Piggy Bank, Blake Clark (replacing the late Jim Varney) as Slinky the Dog, Don Rickles as Mr. Potato Head, and Estelle Harris as Mrs. Potato Head, plus a few more. Newcomers include Ned Beatty as Lotso Huggin Bear, ex-James Bond Timothy Dalton as Mr. Pricklepants, Flight of the Concords star Kristen Shaal as Trixie the Triceratops, plus many more. However, the standout newcomer is most definitely Michael Keaton as Ken. Acting alongside the Jodi Benson-voiced Barbie Doll, Keaton brings his spot on comedic timing to a blatantly metrosexual depiction of the popular doll in a lot of the movie's funniest moments.

Pixar's talent for storytelling has always been top notch, with concepts that overshadow practically every other studio attempting to capture the same level of excellence. With Toy Story 3, however, they have really outdone themselves. In addition to the deep characters, hilarious comedy, the threequel boasts some incredibly compelling drama that most family flicks would be afraid to go near. The dramatic themes set forth in the first two come full circle in the threequel, throwing metaphors relating to mortality, death, and the afterlife. The first centered around a concept of self-realization, namely in that Buzz having to come to grips with being a toy. The second tapped on the issue of a toy's existence being finite, demonstrated mainly through Woody realizing that Andy will eventually grow up. Now, with Andy grown up, the movie shifts to a metaphorical presentation of death and the afterlife, showing depictions of toy limbo, reincarnation, Purgatory, Heaven, and even a toy Hell. Its a very profound movie, one I could spend hours interpreting and analyzing. Like any Disney movie, the ending is uplifting, yet very touching. Once the ending comes around, don't be surprised if you see grown men weeping like a little girl... yeah, its one of those movies.

The drama is a central part of the story, but it doesn't overshadow the fun elements from the film. As I mentioned, the movie has far too many hilarious moments to list, with humor bound to entertain everyone from little kids to grown adults. I have not even gotten around to mentioning the action scenes yet. By the third act, the movie turns into something of a prison break movie, taking inspiration from classics like "The Great Escape." By around the halfway point, a villain of sorts presents itself, making for arguably the most intimidating and interesting bad guy of the series. Between thrilling chases, great escapes, and creepy baddies, the story never lets up and never gets boring.

I guess this is the point where I am supposed to find something about the movie I didn't like. To be honest... I can't think of anything I didn't like about the movie... seriously. Everything just works so well, balancing the humor, thrilling, and dramatic moments perfectly. I guess some might say Toy Story might be a little too dark for the very young viewers and might be prone to scare some of them. I will say this, Toy Story 3 is easily the darkest of the series, and some of the villains (particularly the monkey... just watch and see) might be a little much for some. That being said, I personally never felt that it was too much. When I look back at a lot of the kids movies I watched back in the day, a lot of them had much much much more disturbing moments. Look at it like this... this movie is no scarier than practically anything else Disney animation has released (actually, some Disney movies are much scarier that this) ... if your kids are able to stomach those, I can't think of a reason Toy Story 3 would be any worse.

Overall, Toy Story 3 is by far the best movie of the summer and, so far, of 2010. Pixar's standard of excellence continues, bringing another one masterpiece in a classic series. If you haven't seen it yet, go see it right now! You won't regret it.

My Score: 5 out of 5!

Splice - Review

Have you ever seen a movie in which after it ended, it left you thinking, "What the Hell did I just watch?" You don't know right away whether you loved or hated it, but after you get over the initial WTF factor, you realize the inherent brilliance in the film you just experienced. For me, it was movies like A Clockwork Orange, Blade Runner, and now Splice that illustrate that example perfectly. Okay, well I didn't love Splice as much as A Clockwork Orange (one of my favorite movies of all time) and Blade Runner (also a great one) but its perfectly evident that Splice is one of the most interesting, unique, and creative Sci-Fi movies released in the last decade.

The movie centers around Clive Nicoli, played by Adrian Brody, and Elsa Kast, played by Sarah Polley (hehe, I'm liking the Bride of Frankenstein reference). The two are young and ambitious scientists who have achieved fame for the splicing of DNA from different animal species. Despite Clive's initial reluctance, Elsa convinces him to splice animal DNA with that of a human, an act though seriously frowned upon but not technically illegal. The result is Dren, a female animal/human hybrid. The two form an attachment to their new creation but have difficult controlling her as Dren rapidly grows into a far more deadly being.

I've been hearing Splice referred to as a modern interpretation of Frankenstein. It definitely takes some inspiration from the story. Both involve an obsessive scientist who creates a living creature and looses control of it. The fact that the two main characters' names are a reference to Bride of Frankenstein also supports the claim. That being said, the themes and twists and very different, most of which I dare not spoil (trust me, you DO NOT want anyone to ruin the story.) However, instead of a neglectful father-type figure from Frankenstein, the creator in Splice is more of an obsessive mother. Of course, how they develop that characteristic is part of the surprise (again, which I absolutely refuse to spoil). I could write a lot about the story, but there's only so much I can describe without blowing the ending. I'll finish with this, its definitely a science fiction movie that keeps the science in the fiction without letting it overshadow the fiction aspect.

The acting is overall quite impressive. Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley hold their own for most of the flick. You can really feel their characters' personal demons and the struggles they endure. At times their chemistry didn't always flow, but that might have been intentional. The standout performance comes from Delphine Chanéac as Dren. Her natural beauty in combination with top notch make up and cg effects made for one of the most interesting movie creatures in recent memory. Chanéac brings about a very complex personality to the character, one with the instincts of a psychopath but the demeanor and innocence of a child. Its nothing like I expected and must be seen to fully understand.

This is the kind of movie that I wish I could just overlook the shortcomings, but I would not be much of a critic if I did that. Splice is a total mind-trip (with a more profane word), which ends up being both good and bad. One thing I love about independent cinema is that filmmakers are given more freedom and less incentive to censor their artistic vision. Only when you let that said artist get such freedom, its easy to abuse it. Some of the more disturbing moments appear to be done purely for shock value, in a movie that didn't need that much of it. The story itself holds its own with such a immersive and gut-wrenching concept, that some of the scares felt quite unnecessary. Its also a shame to see Splice fall victims to some really overdone horror cliches. Some of the cgi wasn't particularly impressive either. The effects accomplished on Dren were great, but some of the supporting creatures were average at best. A few gaping plot holes did not help its cause either.

A lot of these faults were quite apparent, and unfortunately did hold back what could have been an incredible movie experience. That being said, Splice is most definitely worth a watch. It is easily one of the most interesting and unique cinematic accomplishments in recent memory.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

Prince of Persia - Review

Its no secret that video games and movies have had a sordid past. Most movies based on games are horrible, while a majority of games based on movies are no different. So when a film like Prince of Persia actually accumulates a modest amount of hype... thats a fairly big deal. When you've got prolific producer Jerry Bruckheimer (Pirates of the Caribbean) backing the movie, that instills a bit of confidence for a movie that would have otherwise been just pushed aside. Disney is probably too optimistic if they think this will be as lucrative of a franchise as "Pirates of the Caribbean," but does it at least amount to an entertaining summer blockbuster?

Before I actually review this movie, lets address the elephant in the room. Arguably the most discussed critique of the film has been the casting. The movie is set in ancient Persia, and none of the main cast is of Persian or Arabic descent. Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays the main character of Prince Destan, is Caucasian but also half Jewish. Something another critic pointed out that I find interesting is that Gyllenhaal is the closest thing to a Middle Easterner in the main cast. Most of the other stars like Gemma Arteton and Alfred Molina are clearly Caucasian. The main villain, Ben Kingsley, is half Caucasian and half Indian, making him the only one with a darker skin tone but still with no Middle Eastern heritage. I don't know the reasons behind the casting, nor do I care to speculate whether there was any racial bias in the decisions made. Its just kind of disappointing that the filmmakers were presented with a great opportunity to add some diversity to the typical summer movie season, and they totally blew it.

Okay, with that out of the way, here's the plot of the movie. The film centers around Destan, a young boy who was adopted by the Perisan King Sharaman. Raised among royalty, he grows to become a strong warrior and prince. Now, as an adult, Dastan and his two brothers, Garsiv and Tus, attack the city of Alamut, lead by Princess Tamina, to investigate claims that the city has been supplying Persia's enemies with weapons (oooh subtle :P). The attack is successful, but the King is shortly murdered thereafter, and Destan is accused of the deed. Now, as fugitives, Prince Dastan and Princess Tamina escape from the city and attempt to discover who is behind the King's murder and the mischievous motivations for Aalamut's invasion.

Trying to think of a creative way to review a summer blockbuster like this is not easy. What does the average summer blockbuster mean to you? Do you enjoy over the top action scenes, hokey but fun storylines, and crazy special effects? If so, I can safely assume that Prince of Persia will likely be satisfactory. The acting overall is pretty average. Gylenhaal isn't bad, he does what he set out to do. Gemma Arterton, however, fails to impress. On top her flat line readings, she adds virtually no flair or originality, playing her character totally straight and cliche. One thing I can't help but laugh about is Ben Kingsley's character, Nizam. How many times have you seen a movie that has a guy who is so obviously the villain, yet every character is totally oblivious??? Yeah, that's Kingsley for you right here. Alfred Molina looked like he was having fun in the role, which does make him one of the more animated and enjoyable characters. The cast is hit and miss, but they get the job done.

For the most part, the movie hits most of the important notes for a decent summer blockbuster. It captures the fast pace of the games, has some great action, and very cool special effects. The platforming elements from the games are replicated almost perfectly, with some enjoyable scenes of Destan jumping from wall to wall up big structures. The cgi effects used for any scene involving the dagger of time (a dagger that controls time, also serving as the MacGuffin) are very well done. There is really not much more to talk about here, it does nothing to add to the usual summer movie formula but has it where it counts. Its exactly what I expected it to be, nothing more and nothing less.

The only thing that separates this from most summer movies is the fact that its based on a video game, and that its pretty good. Games are adapted into the movies fairly consistently, but very few adaptations are decent or even watchable for the matter. Aside for a few decent straight-to-video releases, what else is there? Mortal Kombat (cheesy but kind of fun), Tomb Raider (good cast but an ultimately bland movie), Resident Evil (some people liked it, but for me... meh) or Final Fantasy (great animation, but otherwise totally forgettable) are among the better selection. If you're looking for the bad, director Uwe Boll has you covered. Pretty much every game property he touches turns into garbage.

That begs the question, why is it so difficult to adapt a video game into a movie? Is it that they keep choosing games that don't lend themselves to decent stories, is it that most video games are themselves heavily inspired by movies, or is it that directors like Uwe Boll are allow to make movies? While Prince of Persia is by no means a great movie, its the first legitimate step in ages for game adaptations. They chose a game that was inspired by classic Arabian adventure movies, not to mention one that had a fairly generic premise suitable for a Hollywood blockbuster. It captured the fun and pacing of the games, while despite its sub par writing, is the first honestly decent movie based on a game. I don't consider it a huge accomplishment because I never really considered the task to be that difficult. This was a property that lent itself to a film adaptation. Now if a director managed to create a workable narrative from a game like Sonic or Kirby, that would be an impressive feat.

So overall, Prince of Persia is not half bad. If its still in theatres, and you're looking for a fun movie to see, this one's worth a look.

My Score: 3 Stars out of 5!

Iron Man 2 - Review

To my loyal readers, I apologize for taking so long to post another review. I really wanted to post this review right after I saw the movie but I've actually been quite busy working on a film of my own (more details on that coming soon). I know I'm way to late to make a difference on whether you'll see this in theatres or not, but if you happen to be on the fence about Iron Man 2 for this long, here's my review.

Iron Man 2 is arguably the most hyped summer blockbuster this season. The sequel to the critically acclaimed 2007 film, Iron Man 2 reunites cast members Robert Downey Jr, Gwenyth Paltrow, and Samuel L. Jackson as Tony Stark aka Iron Man, Pepper Potts, and Nick Fury respectively. New to the cast is Don Cheadle replacing Terrance Howard as Jim Rhodes aka War Machine, Scarlett Johannsen as Natasha Romanoff aka Black Widow, and villains Ivan Vanko aka Whiplash and Justin Hammer played respectively by Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell.

Iron Man is based on the long running Marvel Comic series. Tony Stark is a wealthy and brilliant inventor who designs a high tech suit of armor and uses it to protect the world. As the first live action adaptation of the comic, the 2007 film was a critical and commercial success, complete with solid performances, fun action sequences, and a unique spin on the superhero genre. Despite being a popular comic, Iron Man was generally unknown to those unfamiliar with comic books, allowing it to be released with minimal expectations. Iron Man 2 is, however, riding off the heels of its super successful predecessor and the hype is substantial. Does it live up to the hype or just crash and burn?

The story picks up about 6 months after the first movie ended. Tony Stark has revealed to the world that he is Iron Man and has been using the armor to fight terrorism and help people around the world. However, numerous officials of the US government, particularly Senator Stern, demand that Stark turn the armor over to the country for military application. Stark refuses, claiming that his competitors are years away from replicating his technology. Unfortunately, Ivan Vanko, the son of a disgruntled former partner of Tony's father, is able to replicate the technology. With his high tech weapons and a vengeful soul, he commits himself to ruining Stark and his legacy, while catching the attention of Stark's competitor, Justin Hammer.

What separates Iron Man from many superheroes is Tony Stark's personality. Unlike the darker persona of Bruce Wayne or the brooding Peter Parker, Stark is a fun loving and eccentric billionaire. Sure he has his dramatic moments, but usually he's partying, hooking up with ladies, and drinking like a fish. As much as I relish darker and more dramatic comic book storylines, its refreshing to see a fun superhero flick that doesn't fall into campy territory. Now, with Stark's health failing due to the palladium in his arc-reactor (the chest piece keeping his heart beating and powering his suit), he lets loose more than usual, leading to concerns from his friends and partners, and making him an easier target for the new villains.

The original Iron Man did have a lot going for it, but what launched it from good to greatness what definitely Robert Downey Jr's portrayal of Tony Stark. Thankfully Downey Jr is back and is just as enjoyable as before. There's also a bit more development with Gwenyth Paltrow's character, Pepper Potts, to go alongside her fine performance. Samuel L. Jackson returns as Nick Fury, head of SHIELD, still putting together a team of superheroes. All I can say is this, its freaking Samuel L. Jackson! Even in the worst movies he's in, he always brings some charm to the table.

The two new major additions to the cast are Don Cheadle and Mickey Rourke. As I mentioned before, Cheadle replaces Terrance Howard as Jim Rhodes, a prominent military official and Stark's closest friend. Rhodes gets some major development, as he takes the mantle of War Machine, Iron Man's sidekick and partner. Cheadle is good in the role, not too much to say. I liked Terrance Howard and I like Don Cheadle too, no better no worse. Mickey Rourke, in the comeback tour of the century, is the main villain, Whiplash. Here's the thing about his character... he's a fun bad guy that's not taken advantage of enough. Rourke is clearly having a good time in the role, and his appearance is dead on for a comic book villain. Unfortunately, his screen time is cut short, making action scenes not nearly as cool as they could have been. Don't get me wrong, when he's in action, he's awesome, but there's not nearly enough of him.

Some other new additions are Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, and Samuel L. Jackson reprising his role as Nick Fury with much more screen time. I won't go into too much detail, but rather say that it looks like everyone was enjoying themselves in the movie. Rockwell's portrayal of Stark's competitor, Justin Hammer, was very enjoyable and made for an interesting, if not somewhat predictable, adversary for Iron Man. Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman aka Black Widow was fairly generic but by no means bad. Jackson is great as always, and I look forward to seeing him give it all he's got as Nick Fury when the Avengers movie finally arrives.

The storyline does make a legitimate effort to develop Stark's character and story arc. At times it works, delving into his alcoholism, strained relationships, and personality conflicts against his superhero duties. Stark's story arc is quite good, but its when the filmmakers feel the need to tack on numerous subplots and characters that the script gets muddled. Unfortunately, Iron Man 2 does suffer a bit on this front. Like I mentioned before, Whiplash is totally underdeveloped, there's too much predictable character drama, and there are a number of plot holes than are left unaddressed. Granted, Iron Man 2 didn't fall victim to this NEARLY as much as a number of other comic book flicks (Batman & Robin, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3). Its by no means a great screenplay, but its still a step above most summer blockbusters.

The action scenes are pretty awesome once again and the special effects are all very cool looking. The cgi may not look as fresh or innovative as it did the first, but the effects team bring some decent designs to the newer guys. War Machine in his armored glory was pretty neat, Vanko's atomic whips were a blast to watch, and the finale was appropriately exciting. None of the action scenes blew me away as much as I hoped they would have, but they were still great fun to see and there's really not a whole lot to complain about.

In a sea of bland and uninspired blockbusters that usually plague the summer movie season, Iron Man has once again shown that he has an edge over the usual crowd. Iron Man 2 is not as great as the first, but a great blockbuster and another solid entry into Marvel's movie lineup. Really looking forward to the Avengers movie coming out in 2012.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

P.S.

There are a ton of hints toward the upcoming Captain America, Thor, and Avengers movies. Stay for a scene after the credits ;)

Kick Ass - Review

There's an inherent risk in naming a movie Kick Ass. Namely in that if the movie doesn't "kick ass," its gonna lead to a lot of infuriating puns and wisecracks at the title's expense. So with that being said, does "Kick Ass" kick ass?

The short answer... Yes! The second question would probably be, how much ass does "Kick Ass" kick? Well, that is the real question I suppose, and it will take more than just a short statement to answer.

Overall, Kick Ass is one of the more enjoyable superhero films to be released in the last few years. Based on the graphic novel by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr, Kick Ass is one of the most amusing self-aware send ups of the superhero genre. This over-the-top and often juvenile action-comedy pokes fun at pretty much every cliche of the superhero genre, from the happy-go-lucky hero, the anti-hero vigilante, teen sidekicks, the girl next door, and the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" concept.

Aaron Johnson stars as Dave Lizewski, a shy teenager and comic book fan who gets inspired to become a superhero. Donning a scuba suit and going by the mantle Kick Ass, he takes to the streets, fighting crime, helping people, and usually getting viciously beaten up in the process. Despite his lack of powers, training, athletic ability, and general lack of skill, he becomes an Internet phenomenon and quickly becomes the target of a powerful crime syndicate. Coming to his aid is the father-daughter vigilante and far more credible duo Big Daddy, played by Nicolas Cage, and Hit Girl, played by the scene stealing Chloe Moretz.

With a relatively low budget for a superhero film, the 30 million dollars works as a double edged sword. On one hand, the lack of budget does present itself on more than one occasion. Don't get me wrong, what they accomplished with it is impressive, and I don't have too many complaints in terms of the quality of filmmaking. The benefit of having a low budget is of course more freedom. Releasing a film through an independent studio gives the filmmakers a greater range of creativity without having to worry about making back 100 million dollars. And by creativity, I mean over-the-top violence and language. Yes, Kick Ass is one of the most violent, gory, and profane superhero flicks ever made. If you enjoy any of the above, then Kick Ass is right up your alley.

With all that said, violence and cursing can only go so far. You still need good performances and a good script to make a movie entertaining, or at least make it look slightly less juvenile. The quality of acting is surprisingly good for a film of this calibre. Aaron Johnson delivers an amusing Peter Parker-esque spoof of the teenage superhero, but his good acting is unfortunately upstaged by the supporting cast. Most of the film's hype has been centered around 12-year-old Chloe Moretz as the criminal killing vigilante, Hit Girl. Every time she's on screen, she steals the show, spitting out some hilariously profane insults right before taking out some random thug. Its hard not to love Nicolas Cage's portrayal of Big Daddy too, with his Adam West inspired send up of Batman. Finally, the last performance worth mentioning is Christopher Mint-Plasse's portrayal of the mob boss's geeky son turned supervillain Chris D'Amico aka Red Mist. He once again brings his Superbad shtick to another nerdy character. I'm not totally convinced that his gimmick will work much longer after Kick Ass, but it was still entertaining nonetheless and proves that Mint-Plasse is one of the most promising young actors in the industry today.

As I mentioned before, the script takes advantage of pretty much every superhero gimmick there is. Because of the teenage-heavy cast, the film is bound to receive comparisons to Spider-Man, but there are plentiful references to the Batman legacy as well. For starters, Big Daddy's costume is clearly modeled after the Batsuit and Red Mist quotes one of the Joker's lines from the 1989 Batman adaptation. Not to mention the Big Daddy/Hit Girl duo is clearly a spoof of the Adult Hero/Kid Hero partnerships such as Batman and Robin. There is, however, one inherent problem with the script. The pacing is a bit erratic, at times it likes to focus on Kick Ass, at times Hit Girl and Big Daddy, and at times the villains without ever firmly establishing one main storyline. The film has difficulty balancing moods a bit too. It ranges from humorous and juvenile to brutally horrific. Again, the excessive violence is one thing that makes the movie fun, but when its done in a tongue-and-cheek manner. When it takes a gritty and dark approach, it just feels a little out of place and drastically changes the feel of the flick. At the same time, the film is consistently brutal, so it wasn't a huge shock.

I've heard Kick Ass described as "Superbad meets Kill Bill." That's actually a pretty accurate comparison. It has the amusing and juvenile sense of humor of a teen comedy, the gore of a grindhouse feature, and the fun factor of a superhero flick. The good performances and fun action help overlook past some of the budgetary limitations and occasionally shoddy pacing. Its been in theatres for quite a while now, I actually meant to write this review weeks ago. If you haven't seen it yet, and its still playing, I'd definitely give it a watch. If you missed it in theatres, its definitely worth picking up on DVD. To answer my earlier question, How much ass does Kick Ass kick? It kicks enough ass to warrant at least one viewing.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5