Iron Man 3 (2013)

Given the choice, I would definitely rather be Tony Stark than Bruce Wayne...

So, it's finally here.  The conclusion to the first Iron Man trilogy, and the beginning of Marvel: Phase 2.  Right off, I can tell you that Iron Man 3 is definitely a step up from Iron Man 2, so if you're like me and was disappointed in IM2 (and thought it suffered from sequelitis), then you're going to enjoy IM3 a whole lot more.

Iron Man 3 is loosely based on the "Extremis" story arc from the Iron Man comics.  I can't claim I'm super well versed in the Iron Man comics, so I can't comment on how faithful it is to them.  I am a little more familiar with the Mandarin though, so I was initially a little concerned about his choice as the main villain for IM3 and casting Sir Ben Kingsley to play him.  I'm a huge fan of Kingsley, so it's not an issue of ability, but in the comics, the Mandarin was of Chinese descent, where Kingsley isn't to my knowledge.  I just didn't think the character was going to translate particularly well on screen.  Comic book purists may be a little upset with how his arc plays out, but I think that that not only did Kingsley do a great job, they actually did a pretty clever twist the character that made it work.  This is one instance where I don't mind that the movie took some liberty with a known comic character.

In the film, the Mandarin is a terrorist that has the world on edge with a series of bombings and menacing threats.  Little is known about him, or where he even is.  Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), on the other hand, isn't too concerned with this yet.  He's been dealing with severe anxiety issues since the events of The Avengers, and can barely sleep.  The only way he can deal with everything is to constantly tinker and build more Iron Man suits.  He's still with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), who's continuing to run Stark Industries.  Some old associates, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) and Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), approach Stark Industries about working with them on their Extremis project, an experimental treatment that has a variety of uses.  Meanwhile, Rhodey (Don Cheadle) has been rebranded as Iron Patriot (complete with new paint job) and is tasked with finding the Mandarin.  However, when the Mandarin finally hits Stark close to home, Stark threatens revenge on the Mandarin.

There are issues I had here and there, but in the interest of keeping things spoiler-free, I'll hold back on any specific criticism.  A friend and I were discussing IM3 right after seeing it, and we both felt that many of our complaints were nitpicks.  I think you'll understand what I'm talking about when you see the film.  I'll just say this, if I can accept the premise that a super-genius is flying around in a self-made, robotic suit, with a glowing power source implanted in his chest, then I can accept some of the things that bothered me a little in IM3.  They even made a joke about this in the film saying something along the lines of 'everything changed once the big guy with the hammer landed.'  So yeah, in a universe that has Hulk and Thor, I can look past some stuff.  It's the whole Flying Snowman thing.

The one complaint I can talk about is the ending.  Don't get me wrong, it's action packed and a blast to watch for sure, but there's such an orgy of Iron Man suits that at times you really can't tell who is fighting whom.  There's just a little too much going on, but this is just the kind of stuff that will likely get multiple viewings out of fans, and people breaking down these scenes in slow motion in order to catch everything.  I'll admit that I'm going to be one of these people.  Do you see what I'm saying about the complaint being a bit of a nitpick?  I'm complaining that that super entertaining and explosive conclusion had too much going on.

There are several entertaining action scenes in the film, and despite being over two hours, the film is briskly paced and there's never a dull moment.

As you'd hope, the effects are great!  I love these small, independent films that do what they can with a modest budget.  I saw this on IMAX 3D, and maybe I sat too close to the screen, but I could barely even tell the film was in 3D.  It's still worth seeing in a premium format for the overall look of the film and the sound, but I didn't anything out of the 3D.

Besides the action sequences, another strength is the humor.  As I hoped with bringing in Shane Black, his pairing with RDJ would net us some great, Lethal Weapon-like dialog, and that's exactly what we got.  It's a little mean-spirited at times, but that's part of Tony Stark's character.  It's definitely a contrast from Iron Man 2, where I felt everyone was just smarmy and snarky.  This time it's pretty much contained to Stark, and the overall level of the dialog in an improvement across the board.  Shane Black, along with co-writer Drew Pearce, really know how to write snappy, witty dialog, and Black knows how to get the best out of everyone.  There honestly isn't a weak link in the entire cast, and the chemistry is great with everyone.

Robert Downey Jr. was great as Tony Stark again.  Back when originally cast for Iron Man, I thought it was a perfect casting based on his life experiences.  It's a little interesting to note that he worked with Black on Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which many feel was the movie that really got RDJ back on the path to superstardom (check KKBB out if you haven't seen it).  RDJs contract is up with IM3, so I don't know if this is the last for him and Iron Man, but I really hope it's not.  I've heard RDJ is willing to extend his contract and said he has a few more in him, so hopefully they can keep this going for at least another Avengers and IM flick.  If something doesn't happen though, then at least he's going out on a high note.

Iron Man 3 is a great addition to the Iron Man franchise and picks up from the high note left off by The Avengers.  There are lots of great action scenes, and funny dialog, so whether you're a fan of Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr., or just Summer blockbusters, then you're sure to be entertained.  Don't miss this one, true believers!

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Lawless (2012) - Movie Review

I guess with the popularity of Boardwalk Empire we shouldn't be surprised if we see a trend of prohibition-era films.

This review might be a little spoilerific, so be warned.

Lawless is about the Bondurant brothers, Howard (Jason Clarke), Forrest (Tom Hardy) and Jack (Shia LeBeouf), who were moonshine bootleggers during the prohibition. The story is based on the book The Wettest County in The World by one of their descendants, Matt Bondurant. I've never heard of the Bondurant Brothers, so they could have been based off the Bing Bong Brothers for all I knew.

Right away, I can tell you that this movie suffered from not deciding on what type of movie it was going to be.  It never focuses on one character or element enough, and even the tone of the movie is all over the place. Sometimes it's brutally violent, then it's funny, and at other times you aren't sure if you should be laughing.

Forrest Bane...er, um, I mean Bondurant, while being a little unclear as to whether or not he's the eldest Bondurant, is clearly the boss of them.  At first you think this is going to be a bad ass movie about him.  He's kicking ass and telling the new lawman in town (played by a 'dastardly' Guy Pearce) to piss off, but then something happens to him.  This gives Shia the Beef an opportunity to prove to his brothers he has what it takes.  Then, you might think this turns into a revenge flick, but The Beef basically makes a bunch of moonshine runs with his pal, Cricket (Dane Dehaan), laughing all the way.  He's got a little more business sense than his brother, so he's making them more money, but not as much common sense, as he's just spending money all over the place.

While Forrest recovers, both he and Jack have their own romances, but neither added anything to the central plot.  It's shame because I really like both Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska, but they weren't give much to do, especially with Wasikowska, and it felt like both characters where thrown in there just to give the main characters something to do during their down time between moonshine runs.

Gary Oldman shows up for early in the film, and you get a glimpse of what appeared to be another bad ass character, but that's all you get, a glimpse.  He's gone before you even get a chance to blink.

Even though many characters are underused and underwritten, the strength of the film are the performances.  I've been critical of Shia the Beef, but I thought his performance worked very well in contrast to the tougher nature of his older brothers.  I did think it was odd that his main characteristic seemed to be that he got his ass kicked in nearly every scene though.  Tom Hardy was a badass, but for the second time this summer, he plays another character that speaks with a voice that's difficult to understand at times.  Also, it seemed they missed another opportunity with his character, as the fable of Forrest Bondurant was that he couldn't be killed, but it's treated a little more than a gag and kind of glossed over.

Guy Pearce's character, Charlie Rakes, is this silly, over-the-top villain.  It seemed like a caricature of a villian from an old cartoon.  The only thing he was missing was a twirly mustache and cigarette holder.  Pearce appeared to have a lot of fun with the character though, and I thought it was a good performance.  Pearce is one of those actors that I think can do pretty much anything, but hasn't quite gotten that one killer role that he'll always be remembered for.  I hope he gets that chance.

Directed by John Hillcoat, who's directed much darker movies like The Road and The Proposition. I hoped this was going to be similar in tone to those movies, but it simply wasn't.  I never felt any real tension or like the characters were in any real danger.  He teamed up again with writer/musician Nick Cave. The screenplay is extremely straightforward and seems like something you could have seen on TV.  Lawless doesn't take any risks or do anything you haven't already seen before.

What couldn't have been on TV though were the visuals.  There are some really bloody, violent moments and there's also lots of nudity (thank you, Jessica Chastain).  It's a well-made movie as far as how it looks.  The sets are great and the setting felt authentic, but again, there's something in the details that just felt odd to me.

Speaking of which, here's one of the attention to details the bugged me.  Early on, Jack gets worked over pretty hard by Rakes.  He punches him several times on the left side of his face pretty hard, but in the subsequent scenes, he's face is bruised on the right side.  There's also very little swelling.  It was funny to me, because while Jack was getting his ass kicked in the scene I would have bet you any amount of the money that Jack's face wasn't going to look all that that bad after the beating he just took.  When a movie blows a detail like that, it kind of takes me out of the movie.   

Lawless is still an entertaining film, but I can't help but feel a little disappointed in it.  With the cast and all the window dressing, it had the potential to be something special, but it wasn't greater than the sum of it's parts.  It's suffers too much from lack of focus and inconsistent tone that makes it hard to completely get into, and at times it wastes its extremely talented cast.  I'm right on the edge between a matinee and rental on this one.  If you're really interesting in seeing this, then I'd say to check it out on matinee, but if you're on the fence, save it for rental.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

Prometheus (2012) - Movie Review

When are humans going to learn that if you're going to explore outer space, then you should bring an army along just in case?

I was talking to a friend the other day when he questioned what all the hype was about Prometheus, and I said, "It's return of Ridley Scott to the Alien franchise and it has a sick cast.  What's not to like!"  After seeing Prometheus, I'm afraid my friend was right about the hype.  It's not that Prometheus is a bad movie, but I think it's an example of what happens when everyone's expectations are set too high.

While I'm going to try to stay away from spoilers, I am going to start this one off on a bit of a rant.  The problem is this: nearly the entire story, including the climax, is spoiled in the trailers.  This has to stop!  You can watch the 2-3 minute trailers online and you've pretty much seen the entire plot of Prometheus.  Granted, lots of movies do this, but so much of this movie is telegraphed by the trailer that there's little suspense to anything that happens.

The setup for Prometheus starts with two scientists, Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), who find an old cave painting that has a set of markings that matches the same set found in paintings from many unrelated civilizations.  They determine these markings are a star cluster, which they analyze and find that there is a planet they suspect that can support life.

Weyland Industries funds an expedition to the planet to see what they find and maybe get some answers to the origins of life on Earth.  While in transit, you're introduced to David (Michael Fassbender), an android, which is clear by the very fact that he's not in cryo-sleep like everyone else.  Plus, they introduce him to the crew as an android the first chance they get.  This felt odd to me as in Alien the reveal of the android was a surprise to the crew.  David is easily the most interesting character in the movie and Fassbender does a great job with the role.  From the very beginning, you're already curious about what's going on in that computer brain of his.

They arrive at the planet and find ancient buildings and remains that are thousands of years old.  Something bad happened there, but they don't know what yet.  Just as they start to explore, another pet peeve of mine happens.  Why is it always the role of the 'egghead'-scientist character to not want weapons on the mission?  As a smart person, don't you understand that when going into an unknown, it's probably not a bad idea to be prepared for all contingencies?  Of course, they don't take weapons and then later there's always a need for them.  It bugged me a little more this time around, because you don't know what you're going to run into on an alien world.

There's a whole lot of 'what is that?' and 'who are they?' in the movie.  One of the strengths of Prometheus is that this did feel like a true sci-fi film.  The setup and early part of the movie really had me.  When they talk about the Engineers (the famous Space Jockey from the first Alien) and life on Earth, you're genuinely interested in seeing how it all plays out.  What are they going to discover?

However, once the more action/horror elements start, I started to lose interest, as those earlier sci-fi aspects of the film fell by the wayside.  That's the main problem.  Prometheus sets up all these questions and then doesn't answer very many of them.  I left Prometheus still knowing very little about the back story of this universe.  They do setup a sequel, and I actually hope it gets made because maybe that will answer many of the questions left unanswered.

The ironic thing is that there was a line in the movie about being disappointed when meeting your creator and finding out 'why'.  That's how I think a lot are going to feel about this movie: disappointed.

Prometheus does have a great cast, but the characters aren't developed very well and it seems like a waste, as their talents are underused.  For the second straight week, Charlize Theron stars as a bad guy, but this time around it's more of a muted performance where there is doubt about what her true motivations are.  This could have been a more interesting character, but they didn't develop her.  Tom Hardy-lookalike, Logan Marshall-Green, plays his character with a unusually abrasive attitude, especially towards Fassbender's David.  It's never a good idea to be needlessly mean to the outwardly nice, but morally ambiguous android, right?  That won't turn out bad for him at all.

The story focuses on Noomi Rapace's Shaw and I thought she did a good job.  While the comparisons to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley are natural, she doesn't demonstrate the same strength or toughness as Ripley.  Shaw is a scientist, where Ripley seems like a natural leader from the very beginning.  Idris Elba seemed like the only character that had any real personality, but he's not in it that much or given much to do.  I didn't even realize Guy Pearce was in this, as they put him some really awful old man makeup.  I don't understand why they did this, rather than just cast an older actor.  I like Pearce, but he didn't bring anything to the role that made you think only he could have played it.  Fassbender comes out if this looking the best.

The script by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof doesn't develop the story elements it sets up or gives you enough to care about the characters or make them all that interesting.  If you're a Lost fan, as I am, the disappointing payoff may not be a surprise to you considering Lindelof's involvement.  There were just too many thing in the story that didn't add up to me.

I'm glad Ridley Scott is back to the Alien universe he introduced us to back in the 70's.  He really did get the sci-fi aspects down and the movie's visual style is fantastic.  It is a gorgeous movie to look at.  The visuals alone are almost worth the price of admission.  I did see it in IMAX, which helped, but I didn't think the 3D did much for it.

There's been a lot of discussion about whether or not this is an Alien prequel or just set in the same universe.  It's definitely not a direct prequel to Alien.  I'd call it Alien's uncle.  I think it's better to go into this as a standalone film.  I tried to do that, but still felt it lacking.  However, there's a tacked on ending that kind of undercuts their assertion that this isn't another Alien film.

In the end, Prometheus has a lot of interesting ideas that aren't fully realized.  It's a visually stunning movie and has a few interesting performances, especially from Michael Fassbender, but it ultimately left me disappointed and a little cold.  Maybe on a second viewing once it hits Blu-Ray I might get more out of it.  If you're dying to see this, do a matinee and skip the 3D.  Otherwise, it's a rental.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

Lockout (2012) - Movie Review

If only Guy Pearce would have suffered from the same memory affliction he had in Memento, it would have added a nice wrinkle to his character.  Also, having no short-term memory would have likely made Lockout easier to watch.  This review is going to be spoiler-heavy, so skip to the end if you're planning on watching this soon.

Guy Pearce stars as Snow, a former government agent wrongly accused and convicted of a crime he didn't commit.  Lockout begins with Snow being interrogated by Peter Stormare (who seems to be reduced to playing ridiculous characters) and flashing back to the events leading to his capture.  As Snow's recalling the events, you are treated to one of the worst CG-chase sequences I've seen in a very long time.  It looked like something from a bad video game, except video games tend to have better cut scenes.  I've seen better CG on SyFy.

Anyway in this scene, he's riding a motorcycle that doesn't have a front wheel.  It's unsure if they just didn't have the budget to CG in the front wheel, or in the future we have super-motorcycles that no longer need front wheels.  The whole scene was awful looking and you could barely tell what was going on.   At one point the hover-copter he's being chased by explodes for no reason at all.  This also sets up the exchange of some briefcase to Snow's partner that contains something important, but we have no idea what.

Next, we're introduced to Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace), the President's daughter who's on a humanitarian mission to MS:One, a penal colony in Earth's orbit.  She wants to make sure the prisoners are being treated well, as they are held in stasis and it's believed that it has adverse affects on their sanity.  This immediately makes you wonder, if they are held in stasis, then why even bother with an outer space prison?  You can't just have them held in stasis on Earth for much cheaper?  Doesn't having a space station increase the chances of something going wrong by like a million?  They try to explain that the underwriters of the prison are secretly using the inmates as guinea pigs to test the effects of deep space on humans, but seemed like a poor script excuse to justify having the space prison in the first place.  Space exploration is never brought up in the movie again either.

They bring one prisoner (Joseph Gilgun) to talk to Emilie and it's clear that this prisoner is mentally disturbed, so you know it's going to go well.  Again, you have to wonder why did they pick that prisoner?  Maybe pick a prisoner that wasn't nuts before he was put in stasis.  Naturally, things go wrong; the prisoner escapes, manages to bring the prison population out of stasis, and take hostages.  The crazy prisoner is joined by his less-crazy brother, Alex (Vincent Regan), who takes the leadership role.  I don't know what the prisoners wanted, because I don't think they ever actually made any demands.  It didn't matter, because they pretty much killed all the hostages anyway, even though Alex pointed out that they needed the hostages as bargaining chips.

Anyway, forced to act, Snow is tasked with sneaking into MS:One and getting Emilie out.  Snow has no interest in going, but he agrees after finding out that his partner was captured and is on MS:One.  Snow's real goal is to find out the location of the briefcase exchanged earlier, which can now help prove his innocence.

Once Snow gets on MS:One, it's basically Die Hard in space, with Snow sneaking around and crawling through tunnels and air ducts.  In a way, Lockout will remind you of older, 80's action films.  Nearly every line of dialog felt like a bad one-liner.  However, this is one of those movies where you question nearly everything said or done as making no sense or being totally illogical.

For example, once Snow first finds Emilie, he attacks the inmate escorting them in an attempt to rescue them.  Even though he is clearly dressed as a agent and not a inmate, and just finished attacking the inmate that's with them, Emilie's response is to hit Snow in the head with a fire extinguisher.  She doesn't ask who he is first or notice that he was trying to rescue her.

At one point, they make sure you point out the scene is taking place on Earth by putting an "Earth" at the bottom of the screen.  Oh, is that where we are now?  Earth?  I never would have realized that considering everything else in the movie has happened on Earth and they haven't even hinted at being on other planets.

Later in the movie, a space station appears out of nowhere and crashes into the prison.  We're then told that MS:One needs constant monitoring or it will crash back into Earth.  Why have a space station that if left unmanned for even short period of time, will crash into the Earth?  How does that make any sense from a design or safety standpoint?

Finally, at the end there's this big space action sequence where a huge squad of space fighters assault MS: One, but all they do is fly around and not shoot, even though their goal is to destroy the station.  Meanwhile, they all get picked off one-by-one by the station's automated defenses.  One of the fighters flies up the middle of the station and drops a bomb that has a 30 second countdown to add dramatic tension.  In one last ridiculous sequence, Snow and Emilie jump out of the station just in time, manage to not burn up on re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, deploy parachutes and safely land on the street just seconds later.

I feel bad for Guy Pearce.  I think he was really trying here, and even seemed to have fun, but he deserves better.  The dialog he's forced to recite here is eye-rollingly awful.  It's not just his dialog either, the whole movie is a poorly written mess.  Lockout was co-written and directed by Stephen St. Leger and James Mather, and I really hope this isn't the best they can do.  Luc Besson also shared writing duties and we are told that this was based on an 'original idea' from him.  If that's the case, he's run out of ideas, or at least ideas that couldn't have also been conceived by a 13-year-old.  There's also very little blood or language, so it manages to preserve a PG-13 rating and utlimately I think that's who this will appeal to best.

I wanted to have fun with Lockout, but I just ended up getting annoyed with how stupid everything was.  There's never any real tension or anything to make you care about what's going on.  Overall, Lockout is mess.  The actors are doing their best, but they aren't given much to work with.  I've said this already, but it really is a bad video game come to life.  It's a rental at best.

1.5 (out of 5) Death Stars