Iron Man 2 (2010)

D: Jon Favreau
W: Justin Theroux
C: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, etc.

I thought the first one was pretty good overall, had it's obvious flaws and rested too much on the shoulders of Downey Jr.'s performance, but even despite that I found it to be one of the best comic book films in quite awhile. I didn't plan to watch Iron Man 2 in the cinemas at first, but curiosity and impatience got the best of me.

The main reason I find any enjoyment in watching these films is Robert Downey Jr. He is the film and that hasn't changed with the sequel. This man's career and life was in the shitter at one point and the man has risen from that as someone who takes nothing for granted and bares a kind of aura of complete indifference. He brings spice and attitude to a performance and treats it as if it were his last. With that said, the character is treated way too lightly in this installment, setting it off balance and tilting it towards cheap amusement rather than something more meaningful as in the first film. Yes the character was essentially dying, but this film never manages to create a real sense of drama despite the character's predicament.

The other phoenix actor in Iron Man 2 is of course Mickey Rourke. His career was even worse off than Downey's at one point, but certain people believed in his talent and the guy made an incredible comeback. While his Russian accent is the usual sloppy American take on it, the man has a presence about him. I know some people hated those whips of his when they first saw the trailer, but personally I found his weaponry pretty badass. While some of his slow-motion stuff is friggin' awesome, some of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, like the crash behind him on the Monaco Grand Prix track for example. The man is greatly underutilized in this film. The character ultimately comes off as too emotionless and as a man of few words, in other words just poor. The end of the film was definitely more exciting than in the first one, but this certainly had room for improvement as well. As Obadiah Stane in Iron Man, Ivan Vanko is an underdeveloped villain.

I can't stand shallow films and both films have that kind of aura to them. It's a blockbuster in the most direct sense of the word and while it does provide a good enough plot and solid entertainment, it can't shake off that smell. I don't give a shit how many real life personalities they throw into the mix, it's not something that adds believability, it's just a meaningless connection to our own reality. The use of licensed music comes off as a little tacky, cos it's more about waving the money dick than actually having the right song play at the right moment. The best use of a licensed track has got to be Daft Punk and "Robot Rock", which fit the fight scene very nicely. The whole AC/DC campaign is as shameful as a cash-in can get though. Would've been perfectly normal to use those two tracks without releasing a whole compilation album + DVD and a music video. Don't get me wrong I love AC/DC and the songs fit the film's attitude, but that Iron Man 2 album is just fucking disgraceful. Aerosmith had 4 songs on Armageddon (including one original track) and no Aerosmith Armageddon album was necessary, to give you an example.

Supporting cast is nice, but most of them don't provide a memorable performance. Pretty much all of them are there to fill a spot and that's embarrassingly true for especially Don Cheadle. None of the side characters are developed enough to warrant any emotional investment. Gwyneth Paltrow and Sam Rockwell are the only one's who serve an actual purpose, while Paltrow remains a little disconnected as in the first film, but Rockwell provides both comic relief and plays a good conniving loser. Scarlett Johansson has a nice fighting sequence, heavy on wire use, but nice nonetheless.

I like Justin Theroux more as an actor than a writer to be honest and the same goes for director/writer Jon Favreau. Dialogue does the job and then there are those witty comebacks of Tony Stark, but I remember the first one as a more polished package in that regard. The main problem with this film is that it's more shallow, more smoke than fire, so to speak. A potentially great sequel is tipped towards quick and easy popcorn entertainment and once again the film relies too heavily on Tony Stark's character and Robert Downey Jr.'s performance. A few plot holes here and there don't help either. In a nutshell, it's even more off balance than the first one.

6/10

Shutter Island (2010)

D: Martin Scorsese
W: Laeta Kalogridis
C: Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow, Michelle Williams, etc.

A friend talked me into seeing this and I didn't really put up much of a fight at the time, since I was planning to watch it sooner or later. Martin Scorsese directing seemed like a good enough reason.

This is a very long film, not just looking at the total running time of 138 minutes, but how long it actually feels. Most of the scenes are so unnecessarily drawn out that I felt like I was watching a 4 hour movie. Shutter Island is heavy on dialogue and unfortunately it's nothing memorable. Laeta Kalogridis is no Quentin Tarantino, who can pull off long scenes with refined dialogue, while keeping the tension going.

Trailer gives the impression of a horror movie, when it's actually a surprisingly slow-paced thriller. Shutter Island belongs into the category of mindfuck movies such as Fight Club and Memento. First half of the story tells the audience a lie that is then turned upside down and rendered obsolete. Your enjoyment depends a lot on whether you can figure out the turn or not. Unfortunately, Shutter Island is also heavy on exposition, which makes the drawn-out dialogue-heavy scenes feel like you're constantly spoon-fed. That coupled with figuring out the story way ahead of time, can really ruin this movie for you. And for me, that was pretty much the case.

If you're lucky, then the biggest moment of exposition will come as a surprise and you're able to enjoy it as a straightforward thriller. With the right mindset, this would be an enjoyable ride. My mind, at the moment of watching it, was slightly hung over from the night before and mildly tired. In other words, my tolerance level was lower than usual. While Martin Scorsese brings with him his expertise, he's a little out of touch with the contemporary horror/thriller genre. Editing and camera work is nice, some beautiful dream sequences here and there, overall polish and production value is present. Scorsese hasn't written much in the past 10 years and here he seems almost disconnected from the project. With The Departed, you could feel the weight of his contribution to the project as a whole. This thing lacks a certain level of emotional investment.

Shutter Island is the fourth collaboration for Scorsese and DiCaprio; the $40.2 million opening weekend is also a career best for both. These two seem to enjoy working together just as Burton and Depp. Nothing wrong with that obviously, but what exactly drove both to this particular project ? Handed over from director Wolfgang Petersen to David Fincher to Martin Scorsese, it's a studio cash-in and certainly not a labor of love. It's one of those films you can enjoy watching, but there's 5 or 10 others every year that are just as good. The amount of positive feedback has left me a little puzzled, even though I wasn't in the clearest of moods while watching it, but what exactly differentiates Shutter Island from the rest of the mediocre/decent horror/thrillers of recent years such as The Ring (2002) or Gothika (2003) ? The only reason people are going to remember this 5-10 years from now is that it was directed by Martin Scorsese. Laeta Kalogridis's writing was forgettable and her writing credits in general are far from impressive (Alexander, Pathfinder).

I was expecting a thought-provoking mystery that would leave me baffled, but instead Shutter Island mostly depends on a couple of moments of exposition, some nice CGI sequences and Martin Scorsese's bag of tricks. The long spoonfeeding scenes of unnecessary explanation of the plot and it's characters do a lot of harm. When the truth comes out, the rest of the film is standard wrapping up of what's left that feels even more drawn-out than some of the longer scenes. There's too much excess dialogue here; the film should have been considerably shorter. 4 or 5 people walked out of the theater halfway through and even though I felt the same way, I was with friends and I prefer to finish a movie that I payed to see. I hope others enjoy it more than I did, cos it can be enjoyable in the right state of mind. With that said, there's not much here that would justify multiple viewings or to be even remembered if it weren't for a masterful director. And I seriously hope that no one cried at the end of this.

6/10

Avatar (2009)

D: James Cameron
W: James Cameron
C: Sam Worthington, Zoë Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel Moore, etc.

James Cameron returns to sci-fi after 18 years, a script brought to life that was penned 14 years ago, a film with an estimated budget of $280 million. The man who brought us the record holder Titanic 12 years ago (set to have a 3D relaunch in 2011), has broken his documentary combo of three films and returns as a technical innovator. Lot of big numbers, big names and therefore, massive expectations. 3D is the new craze, perhaps bringing us to a new era of cinema, although it's too early to tell if 3D is here to stay and weed out 2D films entirely. One thing's for sure, Cameron proves there's potential here and money to be made. Without a doubt, 3D remakes will be the new cash cow for movie studios, a contingency plan of sorts.

The general consensus has been that Avatar has got a weak story and sloppy dialogue. These fears came true to a degree, but Avatar is more about James Cameron playing it safe inside a really expensive tech demo. I don't refer to it as a tech demo in a derogatory way, definitely not, but this is what it essentially is. This is proof that 3D has got massive potential, not limited to cutesy animations, concert movies and documentaries. The list of live-action full 3D movies is a very short one: The Final Destination, My Bloody Valentine, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Night of the Living Dead, The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl and Spy Kids 3D: Game Over (should be all). Avatar steps boldly into the uncanny valley, but not having an eerie effect as the last three films by Robert Zemeckis. Simply because, in this case, we aren't dealing with humans. The Na'vi are humanoid, but their slender, blue bodies look almost regal and certainly not off-putting. Cameron has created a believable world and showing impressive detail at that, all interwoven into a disappointingly straightforward storyline. The biggest problem Avatar has, from a story aspect, is that there's nothing here that will take you by surprise.

This being my very first 3D cinema experience, putting on glasses to watch a film, is weird to say the least. The glasses were surprisingly light, not weighing down on my nose to annoy me, but the immersion was easy to break when I had to adjust my glasses, quite a few times actually. I'm sure they have better glasses out there though. Whether it's a cost or a comfort issue, seeing the frames of the glasses is something they ought to avoid in future designs as well. After seeing Enter The Void by Gaspar Noé in the cinema (where it's meant to be viewed), which is more or less the same in length, the visuals actually gave me a headache. Hearing people getting headaches from watching Avatar in 3D wasn't reassuring, but those fears didn't come true, thankfully. Both films are a trip like no other, the latter one is just easier on the eyes, provided you keep your focus, literally. It'll take some time getting used to yellow subtitles dragging along with the focus though. Overall, 3D in Avatar pulls you in and after awhile you already take it for granted. If you haven't seen it yet, 3D is the only way to go.

After the initial amazement at the visuals had passed, the viewers expedition and discovery of Pandora concluded, the story almost came to a complete halt. Sloppy dialogue was an indication that this boat would run out of steam at one point and the only way it could pick up again, was through a glorious war sequence supported by an epic score and short-lived dramatic scenes. The story takes it's natural, predictable, logical and straight path to it's conclusion. A lot was riding on this, so it's not surprising that Cameron plays it more on the safe side. Perhaps Battle Angel is where he'll spread his wings a little more. How much the script changed during those 14 years, I have no idea, but what's left is a straightforward story with predictable plot twists. On the other hand, lot of work went into creating the Na'vi culture. The beautiful, not too outlandish language, the design of all creatures on Pandora, the social undertone and subtle political message that never felt in your face or forced. It felt superficial, for sure, with such simple presentation, but overall I think it's commendable what Cameron has done here. With that said, when it comes to more satisfying sci-fi in 2009, both District 9 and Moon stand ahead of Avatar, when it comes to the message.

I can not help and make comparisons to both The Emerald Forest and Dances With Wolves. It's more or less the same plot, with themes of imperialism and biodiversity. All is connected and those not in tune with nature, will work against it. The charm and essence of the entire Na'vi race is unfortunately carried mostly by Neytiri's character. Zoë Saldaña gives the best performance from the lot and pretty much saves the whole movie from any further embarrassments. Sam Worthington is at close second and it's good to hear that Worthington has improved his American English, with no signs of his Australian accent left, unlike in Terminator Salvation. It's a shame that most of these characters are unable to get under your skin and stay in your thoughts long after you're done with the film. Neytiri and Jake Sully are the only ones worth mentioning, but I can't help feeling that Sam Worthington is holding himself back or not able to push his character more than what the script "allows". There's more to this Aussie.

The visual appeal of Avatar is obviously the main attraction here, that goes without saying, but I didn't expect it to look and feel that good. The depth of field, the CGI and the amount of detail that is presented here is a feat unmatched by anyone. Avatar will be taking home most of the technical Oscars coming March 2010. Even though the Na'vi look CGI, the scene where Jake jumps off the cliff, into the waterfall and followed by the most realistic looking wet clothes I've ever had the privilege to see in CGI, I was sold from that point forward. It's not on the same level throughout the entire film, but a few moments like that really make up for it. In my case, the appeal lies more in their design than anywhere else. The 3D effect is obviously a massive bonus, taking the gorgeous visuals to mesmerizing lengths.

James Horner's score for Avatar really shines in some parts, but most of it is either too subtle to notice or too cheesy, epic to enjoy. Once again, this is where Avatar doesn't take necessary risks in order to stand out and stay with you after it's over. When it comes to casting, Sigourney Weaver (very) slowly grows on you as Dr. Grace Augustine, but she never really arrives, so to speak. Stephen Lang as Colonel Miles Quaritch is pretty badass overall, for his appearance alone, but once again, what comes out of the mouth of a character (as with most of them), is not as impressive. Most of the cast underperforms due to the script, with Zoë Saldaña managing to carry most of the drama on her own, with the assistance of Sam Worthington of course. No matter how well it does financially, this was a venture worth pursuing. Avatar, along with Star Trek, District 9 and Moon, is one of the more successful attempts at sci-fi this year, even though all four have their pros and cons. Without a shadow of a doubt, Cameron's return to sci-fi has been a glorious one, but with more emphasis on the aesthetic value and technical achievements than storytelling.

8/10