IRON MAN 2: Still Fun, Slight Step Down, 7/10

Don’t worry, no spoilers.

I recall an interview with Jon Favreau shortly after he signed on as director on Iron Man 2 where he acknowledged the trend of superhero sequels surpassing their originals. A superhero sequel has its world, characters, and rules firmly in place and can jump into a meatier story without the necessary exposition. Popular consensus agrees with this, evident in the favorable opinions of sequels such as X2, Spider-Man 2, and The Dark Knight. So, point blank, did Favreau successfully continue this tradition? No, unfortunately Iron Man 2 proves not to be as enjoyable as the original. Make no mistake, the film is good, but comes up short when compared to part one.

Iron Man 2 picks up shortly after the original concluded. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), fresh from revealing himself as the title character has helped move the world toward peace. Of course, things go south for Stark as he’s faced with opposition from a competing arms dealer (Sam Rockwell), a vengeful Russian stranger (Mickey Rourke), and an investigation by the United States Senate.

The stars of the first Iron Man have mentioned how the script was never really completed which resulted in a lot of improv and on-the-spot decision making. If that was the case, the film’s narrative success is especially amazing and a true credit to Favreau’s direction. Two years later, we have a script by Tropic Thunder scripe Justin Theroux, but the results are more mixed. Despite taking some inspiration from the character’s most interesting tale (“Demon in a Bottle”), Iron Man 2 features a plot that isn’t entirely interesting and surprisingly filled with long lulls particularly in the second act.

The original Iron Man relaunched Robert Downey Jr.’s career and provided him with a character perfectly suited to his persona. For the sequel, Downey doesn’t miss a beat and is clearly the film’s highlight. Tony Stark is the perfect showcase for Downey to ooze his charisma and charm. Gwyneth Paltrow also returns and brings more or less the same warmth as before. Don Cheadle replaces Terrance Howard as James Rhodes but is surprisingly underwhelming. I initially favored the recast but after watching both films, I may have been mistaken. Scarlett Johansson is convincing as Stark’s tough new assistant while Sam Rockwell gets to have some fun, reminiscent of his roles in Galaxy Quest and Charlie’s Angels. As the main baddie, Mickey Rourke does menace well but is underused.

Favreau’s direction is solid like the first despite not really advancing or trying anything new. The action set pieces (of which their are surprisingly few for a sequel) are all executed well, with only the climactic battle being a disappointment. Despite replacing original composer Ramin Djawadi with John Debney, the score for this sequel remains just as forgettable.

In the end, Iron Man 2 is a good way to spend two hours on a Saturday night. Despite being weaker than its predecessor, the film is still a fitting example of solid summer entertainment. Hopefully, for the inevitable Iron Man 3, Marvel Studios won’t impose as quick a production schedule and allow more time to be devoted to the script. However, the foreseeable future of Marvel release dates seems to show this likely isn’t probable.

DATE NIGHT: Fun and forgettable, 6/10

Films often exist in two categories: The prestige “serious” ones and others labeled “popcorn” flicks. Date Night is clearly a member of the latter category, but that’s nothing to be ashamed of. The film only aims to entertain it’s audience and for the bulk of its expedient 88 minute runtime, it succeeds.

Steve Carell and Tina Fey star as Phil and Claire Foster, a married couple who thanks to a case of mistaken identity, are thrust into running for their lives from New York’s crime underworld. The two must clear their names before they wind up swimming with the fishes.

The script isn’t groundbreaking, but moves at a fast pace that keeps us engaged enough. Most everything in the film is ludicrous, but the Carell/Fey tag team keeps us interested and stick with the characters.

If Date Night had featured two weaker stars, the film could have easily been a mess. Thankfully, Steve Carell and Tina Fey rise to the occasion and give the project their all. Truthfully, the script is on a lower standard than what the two get to work with on Thursday nights. Also, the romantic chemistry between the characters isn’t entirely convincing. Still, the committed work of Carell and Fey makes the film fun to watch. In addition, the surprising supporting cast of cameos also helps the film.

Shawn Levy is not known as an impressive auteur. He is certainly capable of putting together a studio film, but none of his past works (i.e. Cheaper by the Dozen, Night at the Museum and its sequel) inspire anything above that. With Date Night, Levy’s track record continues. The film is competently assembled but never strives to be anything more than a quick popcorn flick. Levy’s handling of action is a mostly clunky, except for a chase sequence involving the Foster’s car and a Taxi which is the film’s highlight.

Date Night is not a great movie, but it’s not a bad one either. The film would undoubtedly fall in the middle-of-road category were it not for its two stars. Carell and Fey enhance the pedestrian script with their comic skill and come out carrying the film on their shoulders. Not worth going out of your way to see, but as a Saturday night rental, you could do a lot worse.

KICK-ASS: The Evolution of Superhero Films, 8/10

Since Bryan Singer’s X-Men revitalized the genre in 2000, audiences have been subjected to a never-ending barrage of comic book inspired films. In just ten years, it’s a fair assessment that we’ve reached a level of superhero fatigue. But while studios run out of A-list heroes to cast in their tentpole projects, Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass, based on a relatively low-profile comic book, adds a fresh and unique entry to the category. The film excels at balancing satire with a legitimately compelling superhero origin tale.

Kick-Ass takes a simple question and explores it to its fullest potential: What if an ordinary kid actually attempted to be a vigilante crime fighter? Aaron Johnson stars as Dave Lizewski, the teenager who asks this and eventually becomes the title character. As Dave/Kick-Ass hones his crime fighting skills, he encounters a father-daughter tag team (Nicholas Cage and Chloe Moretz) while becoming the target of the city’s crime kingpin (Mark Strong).

Director Matthew Vaughn has proven himself as a capable and confident director with Layer Cake, and Kick-Ass allows him to have even more fun than his debut film. Vaughn’s high energy style fits the tone and material perfectly. There are obvious echoes to previous genre entries, with Dave’s neighborhood being very reminiscent of Peter Parker’s in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films. There are plenty of memorable sequences in the film, and thankfully the whole is at least equal to the sum of its parts. Although the film generally follows a typical three-act structure, the film keeps you on your feet as it mixes dark wit with tangible danger. The film isn’t based firmly in reality, yet Vaughn’s world feels alive and unpredictable.

Aaron Johnson’s portrayal of the protagonist couldn’t be better. Admittedly, it’s not a showy part, but Johnson is adept at being geeky, vulnerable, and likable... as close to a real teen in recent memory. The showy part belongs to Nicholas Cage as Big Daddy, who after a string of face-palms adds a solid film to his credit. Much has been said about his fun Adam West impression, but at the core, it’s clear that Cage is just having a good time with the material and not merely picking up a paycheck. The controversy surrounding Chloe Moretz’s potty-mouthed homicidal Hit-Girl isn’t entirely unwarranted, but the young actress is clearly one to look out for in the future.

The film features a memorable soundtrack filled with popular songs and pieces from memorable scores. Ennio Morricone makes an appearance, and Vaughn uses a piece from John Murphy’s Sunshine soundtrack to perfect use in a climactic scene.

Like any movie, the film does have some flaws, one being Dave’s unconvincing motivation to become Kick-Ass. Dave’s curiosity and boredom doesn’t seem like enough to keep the character persistent, especially after facing the setbacks he encounters early on. Thankfully the film remedies this later in the film when the stakes are heightened. Also, the film’s final shot rang a little weak. Thematically it made complete sense yet didn’t seem like a satisfying or appropriate way to cap off the film.

Kick-Ass is a love letter to vigilante hero films. There were several moments where I imagined this being the approach Quentin Tarantino would take if he had a crack at making a superhero film. The film’s simultaneous celebration and poking fun at comic book films adds new life to the ailing genre. Much of this lies on the shoulders of Matthew Vaughn, who adds another solid film to his resume. The success of Kick-Ass makes me more curious as to what his X-Men 3 would have been like. While that film will never be, Kick-Ass is a worthy entry in the crowded superhero field that deserves to be seen.

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON: Trailers can be misleading, 8.5/10

Trailers typically do a good job of selling most movies well. Marketing is a powerful tool, evident in occasions when films turn out to be poor despite having awesome trailers. How to Train Your Dragon was the complete opposite case. I saw the trailers in the months leading to its release and wrote it off as a cookie cutter CG animated movie indistinguishable from the dozens Hollywood puts out every year. Thankfully, the film delivered much more than its underwhelming promotional campaign hinted at.

The film tells the story of a young Viking named “Hiccup” who dreams of becoming a dragon slayer like his father and the rest of his tribe. He captures and subsequently befriends a rare dragon, which he dubs “Toothless.” Hijinks ensue as Hiccup learns from Toothless and appears to his people as a master in dragon combat.

No, the film doesn’t break any molds in plot. After the inital set-up, average moviegoers will be able to see where the story is going. But the conventional story doesn’t hinder the film’s pure entertainment value. We’re not watching Dragon for revolutionary narrative storytelling or a complex character study. The filmmakers efficiently establish the setting and its characters and give us a protagonist that is likable and empathetic. We care about Hiccup and his adventure, which is more than can be said for some other films of the same ilk. In addition, there is a general sense of danger that definitely helped the film rise above the forgettable CG animated film of the week.

Jay Baruchel is perfectly cast as the voice of Hiccup. His geeky and anxious nature comes through in his voice acting and helps his character immensely. Also to note is Gerard Butler giving his best post-Leonidas performance. As Stoick, Hiccup’s father, Butler lives up to his name while also providing warmth when necessary.

The animators at Dreamworks must also be given huge credit for their work on Toothless. Despite zero dialogue, Toothless always appears as a believable creature with a mischievous but caring personality via the subtleties imbued in him by the animators. I was often reminded of Pixar’s amazing work in Wall-E when watching Dragon.

And while I’m giving shout-outs, John Powell should be recognized for his music. Powell’s track record is hit or miss; his work on X-Men 3 and Hancock were largely forgettable, but his score for Dragon is memorable and a perfect fit.

How to Train Your Dragon is a reminder of how films can captivate audiences with their magic and charm. To put it even simpler, the movie is just plain fun. The film is well deserving of all of its critical and commercial success and has reinforced the filmgoing lesson I often find myself failing to do, which is to never judge a film by its trailer.

MOON: The Sam Rockwell Show, 9/10

As audiences absorb more and more movies, filmmakers are often inclined to stuff as much as possible in their films. This is perfectly evident in the science fiction genre, as most movies try to outdo their predecessors in every way possible, Yet what results are often films afflicted with unnecessarily convoluted plot lines and CGI overkill. Every once in a while a film like District 9 pops up that takes aim at these high ambitions and manages to buck the trend. And sometimes, a film simply rejects these expectations and instead focuses on delivering a simple, yet incredibly rewarding experience, like Moon.

The film stars Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell, a lone worker responsible for mining material on the moon that provides energy on earth. Sam’s three year contract is almost up and he’s eager to get back home to his wife and young daughter. I won’t disclose any more about the plot because it’s best to enter the film with fresh eyes. Not to say that the story features crazy twists or secrets, but I believe every film to be experienced best when little is known beforehand.

Moon marks Duncan Jones' feature length directorial debut, yet the young filmmaker never shows any signs of being green. Every shot appears orchestrated with precise consideration, and the film's pace is deliberate but never boring. Considering the film’s setting and tone, there obvious influence from sci-fi classics such as Alien and 2001. Yet these homages do not hurt the film, and Jones remains capable of forming his own style.

In addition, Clint Mansell's score perfectly supplements Jones' vision. The composer's past showier pieces have become overused in film trailers, yet like his other scores, Mansell proves that he is a master at crafting subtle yet powerful music that always enhances and never hinders.

Yet even beyond the film's skillful direction, Moon is the perfect vehicle for Sam Rockwell's often under appreciated abilities. As Sam Bell, the actor gets the opportunity to show off his wide emotional and physical range. Being essentially the film’s only character for it’s 97 minute runtime seems daunting, but Rockwell’s performance grounds the film in reality and empathy, effectively selling the audience Sam Bell’s story. Despite a track record of wonderful supporting performances, Rockwell's career hasn't afforded him the luxury of many leading roles. His performance in Moon makes one wonder why this has so long been the case.

I approached Moon without much knowledge (not even a glimpse of the trailer) except that it was a low-budget sci-fi film with Sam Rockwell directed by David Bowie’s son. In hindsight, I’m glad I went in with so little because it enabled me to experience the film with minimal preconceived ideas. Today’s internet-fueled world allows movie geeks to learn almost everything about a film before it opens. Long gone is the mystery of filmmaking, instead replaced with a constant need of instant gratification. Perhaps because of the low-key nature of Moon, the film snuck up and completely enthralled me. I became entranced by the microcosm created by Duncan Jones and his team and even more captivated by Sam Rockwell’s protagonist. Once the credits began to roll, I sat in silence, overjoyed at the awesomeness that I had just witnessed.

TRANSFORMERS 2: Obnoxious and juvenile, 3/10

Michael Bay is one of the few directors who actually regresses as a filmmaker. 1996 marked the arrival of The Rock, which remains his best movie. Not a classic action film, but well-made, memorable and thoroughly enjoyable. Jump forward to 2009 and we find Bay behind the biggest hit of the summer, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. One would expect Bay to naturally hone his craft after more than a decade of making action movies. Yet somehow, the competence and excitement found in the The Rock is non-existant in Mr. Bay’s contribution to the weak 2009 summer season.

Admittedly, I walked out of the first Transformers unimpressed was not looking forward to another installment. Still, I tried my best to enter the theater with an open mind. 0 for 2. I realize these movies are based on toys and I’m not expecting a groundbreaking film like The Godfather. Yet the execution of ideas in Transformers 2 is just mind-numbingly frustrating. Why does a Transformers movie need to have a run-time of 2 1/2 hours? I think it’s safe to say that audiences flock to these movies to see giant robots beat the crap out of each other. Despite some shaky cam and poor direction, the robot action is delivered with top-notch CGI. But why do the filmmakers feel the need to toss in the pointless and annoying human subplots? If Bay and his writers removed most of the humans and trimmed the story down to its bare minimum, we could have a 90 minute light, fun summer flick. Instead, the result is a film akin to a three year old explaining how to fit an elephant in a refrigerator, going off on various tangents and not following any logical direction.

Any positives? Shia LaBeouf plays his part well and continues to be a likable protagonist. He also had one line that made me laugh out loud for quite a while. Wow, I guess you can tell I’m grasping for straws.

Just like its predecessor, as some Linkin Park song began playing from the theater speakers, I realized that these criticisms mean nothing. Audiences apparently love the movie and nothing can stop us from getting Transformers 3 in a couple of years. Stlil, I can’t help but feel sad inside after being subjected to such a loud and obnoxious theme park ride.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER: Not a love story. A story about love, 9/10

People inevitably bring their personal baggage to every movie they see. In it’s simplest form, film is entertainment. Pure escapism. And more often than not, our experiences remain separate from what we’re watching as we sit in the theater. Yet once in a while, a film breaks from the pack that makes you want to ask the filmmakers, “Did you make that movie for me?” Enter (500) Days of Summer.

I’ve never seen a film so finely reflect some of my own personal experiences as (500) Days of Summer. As I strolled out of the theater, I couldn’t help but replay scenes from the film and compare them to experiences I’ve had. Amidst the stale material often churned out by Hollywood, it must be a struggle to successfully craft an honest tale of romance. Yet somehow, the filmmakers behind (500) Days of Summer have done just that. Perhaps the unseen narrator explains it best near the start of the film, “This is not a love story. This is a story about love.”

(500) Days of Summer lives and triumphs in large part to it’s two leads, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel. As “Tom” and “Summer” respectively, the two share chemistry that is atypical of traditional movie love, but much more akin to the real world. I believed them as a couple. Even though the film is told exclusively from Tom’s point of view, Deschanel is still able to create a real, fleshed out character. Actually, she is really playing Tom’s idealized view of Summer, which may be more difficult than playing the real thing.

First-time director Marc Webb does a fantastic job supplying the honest and real screenplay with some brilliant visuals. One sequence featuring a split-screen comparison between Tom’s “expectations” and “reality” is among the most realistic and sincere moments I’ve seen in recent movie memory. In addition, the non-linear structure worked especially well to capture the sometimes schizophrenic nature of relationships.

One of the most arresting aspects of (500) Days of Summer is its setting. The story is set in LA, yet everything about it felt east coast. The filmmakers went out of their way to avoid the cliches associated with “Hollywood” and made Los Angeles into the beautiful and fascinating city I sometimes wish it could be.

As wonderful as the film was, there were minor flaws. The tone sometimes reached too far for the cliched odd-ball indie feel. Specifically, the little sister of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character seemed like a forced effort to be quirky. Also, there were brief moments during the second act of the film where I felt less connected to the characters. However, this thankfully changed as the story unfolded.

My opinion of (500) Days of Summer is uncontrollably biased. Prior to the screening, I was looking forward to the movie, but had no idea how emotionally invested and relatable I would find the characters and their story. During much of the film, I WAS Tom. I was caught off guard, as the film forced me to revisit and relive emotions that I had put away for some time. Obviously, I had a personal response to (500) Days of Summer that is unique to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if other people didn’t share my enthusiasm for the film, but that’s understandable. But combining how I connected with the film along with it’s awesome cast, writing, and directing, I have no doubt that this will be high on my end of the year list. Summer may deny her belief of love in the beginning of the film, but I have no problem exclaiming that I loved this movie.