Iron Man 2 Review

It's here! The sequel to the surprise summer hit of 2008 and the sequel to the movie that could've been our first movie review but we didn't start movie reviews until slightly after I saw the film so... enough of that. But it should be worth mentioning, that opening weekend, in 2008, was the first and last time I saw Iron Man and if I had to judge that film at that time, I'd of given it an 8/10. It was a good movie, and told Stark's story well, and looked great, but I wasn't blown away. But what about the sequel?

Two years later, a brand new movie, with a chance to go beyond the origin story and into the original storyline realm, and it's all a bit of the same really. The biggest issue Iron Man 2 has is the biggest issue that a lot of sequels have (Spider-Man 3, the entire X-Men franchise, those awful Schumacher Batman films), fitting in way too many new stories and characters for one film. Sure, the inclusion of more characters is looked at as fan service, giving fans the chance to see their favorite characters on screen, but it really is more annoying because it just makes things muddy.

So what's the actual story then? Well, I'll try to do this as spoiler free as I can, but I'll fail, and it'll be just as messy as it is in the film. First off there's the story of the film's villain, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), who is made up just for the movie combining elements of Iron Man foes Crimson Dynamo and Whiplash/Blacklash. Vanko's motivation to kill Tony Stark because Stark's father deported Vanko's father to Siberia and gave him a miserable life. Then there's Tony's story, which is all about how he deals with the public image and perception of Iron Man now that he has revealed his identity and then how that effects his companions Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, who takes over for Terrance Howard from the first film).

But that's not all! Then there's the story of Justin Hammer, another wealthy inventor and arms-dealer, but just doesn't have the same edge that Tony Stark has, until he gets the right help. And there's also the little story of Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Natasha Romanoff a.k.a. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) from S.H.I.E.L.D. who are monitoring Stark for the Avengers Initiative. Like I said, a lot, and that's without me even discussing the progression of the story, which I won't do, not after all that.

So, in terms of story, the film is a mess. Samuel L. Jackson is barely in the film despite what one would have thought from Iron Man 1's after-credits scene and all the ads, and the parts he is in are just him being his unintentionally hilarious self. And while I think Don Cheadle did a much better job than Terrance Howard as Rhodey, you barely see the character to even get any fealing for him, plus most of his scenes are in a suit. And Scarlett Johansson's Black Widow comes off as very boring, and lacks the character's Russian-ness, though she is visually appealing to say the least... Point being, all these characters are there, but they don't really do anything. If anything, the film should've really been about the rivalry between Tony Stark and his competitor Justin Hammer, which it was, but without all the fluff and extra characters that ended up getting more of a focus, because really, Sam Rockwell was the co-star here.

Everything else... the CGI was top-notch as usual, I really enjoyed how CG and real-life blended in really well in the first film so it was great to see that still in full effect. And there is a huge final battle scene near the end that animator Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack) storyboarded and it surprisingly shows despite it being live action, definitely one of the highlights of the film. The music? I could have done without all the AC/DC and cheesy guitar-rock, but it was almost fitting for a semi-trashy film that can never tell you when it wants to be taken as a drama or a comedy. Speaking of which, was drunken Tony dancing in the Iron Man suit really necessary? Have we learned NOTHING from Spider-Man 3? C'mon...

Overall, the film isn't bad. If you liked the first film, I think you should see the second, just to see it. But don't expect to be blown away. And to the people that really like the first film... what the hell? Really? You thought Iron Man was that great, what movies have you been watching?

Overall Score: 7.8/10

Sherlock Holmes Review

Surprise! It's a movie review I didn't expect to write. Why? Because I honestly had no interest or plan to see Guy Ritchie's latest film, having not been a big fan of his previous works, nor did I have a big interest in the character/story of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic Sherlock Holmes character. But after seeing Sherlock Holmes, has my opinion on Guy Ritchie or Sherlock Holmes changed at all? You'll have to read on to find out...

Story, where to start? I'm pretty sure everyone has a good idea of who Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his assistant, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), are. Maybe not exact details, but at least some sort of general knowledge as to who Arthur Conan Doyle's characters are. Anyways, the first opens with the famous duo and group of constables confronting the mysterious Lord Blackwood (), who is in the middle of a cult ceremony. But after capturing Blackwood, and hanging him, it seems he's still very much alive. From here, Mr. Holmes uses his creative mind and Mr. Watson uses his general logic to investigate Lord Blackwood's return, even when Sherlock's former love, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) comes back into his life.

I think that's the general, mostly-spoiler free, summary of the film's premise. To be honest, it's been a long day, and I had already watched Burn After Reading earlier in the day, so I was actually dozing in and out of the film. I want to blame that on me being up so long without much sleep, but perhaps a chunk of the film just wasn't all that interesting. Like, I found the opening to be pretty fun and exciting, but once the film passes the hour mark it started to drag, and that's when the on/off sleep started. Come the end I was a bit more interested and entertained, but there were a ton of times where the film should have stopped, but it just kept going. And it's not like I hate long films, like Star Trek I wished was longer because it was a fun and entertaining film, Avatar was nearly three and a half hours, but it was really nice to watch... Sherlock Holmes, did not need to be two hours and fifteen minutes however. Sure, the duo of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law works really well, and their scenes were great, but Rachel McAdams' character, completely useless, and Lord Blackwood looked way too much like Robert Downey Jr. in the Rocky & Bullwinkle film for me to take him seriously.

Aside from the acting, both the good and the bad, my real interest prior to seeing the film was just how Guy Ritchie was going to translate his signature film style of cool guys in suits doing stuff they shouldn't and getting into car chases, into a Victorian-era piece with a character that people are familiar with. So, how'd that go? For the most part, quite well; this is Ritchie's first effects heavy (in comparison to the minimal special effects he's used prior) film, and it blended pretty well with all the live parts, and I think he was able to handle the setting without getting too modern feeling and ruining the period piece that it is. But I also liked that he kept his style despite the change, I may not like his work that much, but I found it amusing that the film's opening of horse and buggies running down the road was shot like his modern day car scenes, and the well-choreographed fight scenes were a nice touch, even if they don't exactly fit the image people of of Sherlock.

And that really summarizes the film, it's a Guy Ritchie film, set in a Victorian-era, utilizing a known character to make the film about. It didn't feel like the Sherlock Holmes I've been familiar with, but that didn't mean Robert Downey Jr. was bad, I was actually impressed with his consistent accent. It's just... I don't know, the acting from Downey Jr. and Jude Law is great, but the directing just isn't all there. It feels like a Guy Ritchie film, but doesn't feel like a Sherlock Holmes film, and quite frankly I think the film lasted too long for it's own good.

Overall Score: 7.5/10

And, sorry if this isn't my standard review quality, but I'm tired as hell right now.

First image from Iron Man 2

USAToday.com has an exclusive first image from Jon Favreau's Iron Man 2, the sequel to last year's surprise hit ... Iron Man (what else?).

As you can see, Robert Downey Jr. is back as Tony Stark, and now has a fancy new lab with four of his suits on display. Though, if I remember correctly ... wasn't that first suit (all the way on the left there) destroyed? Continuuity errors Mr. Favreau? Tsk tsk.

Iron Man 2 is currently filming, but is set to release in theaters on May 7, 2010.