For Your Consideration #9: Under the Skin (dir by Jonathan Glazer)

Posted on December 17, 2014 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Under the Skin is one of the most brilliantly divisive films of the year. To some, it’s a pretentious mess, a collection of seemingly random scenes and obscure themes. To me, however, it is one of the most haunting films that I’ve ever seen. It’s a film that’s full of mysteries and questions, one that often demands that we supply our own answers. It’s one of the best films of the year and anyone who disagrees needs to rewatch it.

From the opening scene, Under the Skin is a dream of dark and disturbing things.

In Scotland, a silent motorcyclist (Jeremy McWilliams) finds a young woman’s dead body lying on the side of the road. He picks up the body and puts it in the back of a van. Inside the van, a naked woman (played by Scarlett Johansson) takes the dead woman’s clothes. As soon becomes apparent, both the motorcyclist and the woman are not human. They’re aliens and they’ve come to Earth on a mission that is deliberately left obscure. Though they never speak to each other, the motorcyclist always seems to be nearby.

The woman drives the van across Scotland. She stops men in the street and, after asking for directions, then attempts to coerce them into her van. (What makes these scenes especially effective is that the majority of them actually feature Johansson talking to nonactors who just happened to be nearby when she drove up.) The woman smiles and flirts and has little trouble convincing the majority of the men she meets to get into the van with her.

She drives them to an isolated building where the men follow her inside. As they step into a pitch black room, both the woman and her latest man start to undress. The naked man starts to walk towards the woman and is so hypnotized by the sight of her that he doesn’t even realize that the floor has become liquified and he’s sinking. As Johansson watches coldly, each man eventually vanishes, leaving behind only his empty skin.

(Warning: The two scenes below are definitely NSFW. Watch with caution.)

Detached from her surroundings, the woman can only watch as real human beings go about their lives. When she sees a man unsuccessfully try to save a drowning couple on the beach, she reacts by striking the man on the head with a rock. She drags the man away, leaving the couple’s terrified toddler on the beach. When the motorcyclist later visits the beach, he too ignores the child. (Perhaps no scene left me more disturbed and inspired more nightmares than this one.)

It’s only when the woman picks up a man with a severe facial disfigurement (a poignant performance from a nonactor named Adam Pearson) that she finally starts to show some emotion. The man is as much of an outsider as she is, with the main difference being that he can’t hide who he really is under a disguise. The woman feels sorry for him and this sudden shock of empathy causes her to reconsider her mission.

However, even as the woman attempts to flee to the Scottish highlands, the motorcyclist is never far behind. And, unfortunately, neither are real humans…

Under the Skin is pure cinema, a collection of scenes that alternate between being naturalistic and surreal, disturbingly serious and darkly humorous. Perhaps appropriately for a film about appearances, Under the Skin is a movie that is full of haunting images, the type that, 8 months after first being seen, remain vivid in your mind. It’s up to the viewers to decide what those images mean.

(For all of the discussion that I’ve seen online about what Under the Skin is truly about, it seems pretty obvious to me that the main message of the film is that guys are so led by their penis that they’ll even allow themselves to sink into a liquid void if there’s a chance they might get laid beforehand.)

Under the Skin has been a player (albeit a minor one) in the precursors leading up the Oscars. A few of the braver critical groups have nominated it for best picture and have also honored Scarlett Johansson for her wonderful work as an outsider who is both slowly discovering what it means to be human while also dealing with the reality that, try as she might, she will never truly belong in this world. However, with all that in mind, Under the Skin is probably too divisive and unique a film to ever truly appeal to the Academy.

But that’s okay.

Under the Skin is also a film that we’ll still be discussing years from now.

‘Lucy’ Review (dir. Luc Besson)

Posted on July 26, 2014 by leonth3duke

You should probably be forewarned – ‘Lucy’ is nothing like the film the marketing would make you believe. It requires one to go in with an open mind…just also be prepared for that mind to be set of fire and stomped into a mush…for better or worse.

The film stars Scarlett Johansson as Lucy, a young American student in Taiwan, who is kidnapped and forced to be a drug mule. The drug she must transport is a new one named CPH4, derived from the chemicals that a mother’s body sends its developing baby, which is surgically placed into her lower abdomen. During the transport she is beaten, causing the bag holding it to puncture, and the drug to be released into her system. The drug begins to change her at a cellular level giving her access to more of her brains potential.

I think it needs to be said that the film is not trying to say we only use 10% of the physical brain (which is the debunked myth) but rather that we only utilize 10% of its potential. Think of it not as an engine only using 10% of its parts, but rather an engine that uses 100% of its parts but only outputs 10% of the power it should and can produce. Then think of the drug, like a more powerful engine fuel, allowing the brain to generate 100% power.

As her knowledge and cerebral capacity grows the film takes some really weird turns as it plays around with the idea of what exactly the human mind could achieve once its full potential is unlocked. Could we control all the cells in our body? Could we control others? Could we feel and manipulate matter and energy? Once you can control both, can you then control time? She begins to be able to see through people, enter their memories, see the energy output of cells, change her hair color, control radio waves…and a whole lot of other crazy stuff. To better understand what is happening to her, and to help pass on the knowledge she is beginning to learn, she sets out to meet a professor who studied and theorized the very changes she is undergoing.

During all this Lucy is also being hunted by the gangsters who want their drug back. This is where the film is arguably at its worst. It leads to some ridiculous shoot outs – and one somewhat out of the blue car chase – which don’t really add much to the overall film. They do create a slight feeling of suspense, but once you get into the scientific and philosophical areas that ‘Lucy’ ventures into, then all the cliché action movie stuff just seems to get in the way.

Luckily none of that really matters as the film’s end approaches and it goes straight past ludicrous speed right into plaid as Lucy, now able to control time, cycles through the history of the earth, right past its creation all the way up to the big bang and beyond. To what end? Perhaps it is to better understand the universe or maybe it is just because she (and Luc Besson) can…there is a lot here that will make you scratch your head. The film definitely tries to be a lot smarter than it is and is built on theories based on theories based on pipe dreams. Still, it never gets any more ridiculous than most superhero-esque films.

The thing that drives it all ( and really keeps it all together) is Scarlet Johansson’s performance. She once again proves to me that she is one of the most interesting actors working right now. She has chosen so many diverse roles in recent years; and as weird as it may sound there are few actors working right now who can express so much through being so completely expressionless in the way she can. She brought more life and emotion to a computer A.I. than most actors did in live action roles last year; and here, as in ‘Under the Skin’, there is quite a lot going on behind her seemingly blank stare.

Her co-star Morgan Freeman sadly does little more than offer exposition. He plays a professor who studies neuroscience and evolution and spends most of the film explaining how and why particular things are happening to Lucy. Freeman seems to be the go to for this sort of role. But that voice really is the only thing that can make this sort of pseudoscience seem convincing.

I have to say it truly is amazing that the film works at all. ‘Lucy’ manages to be just as dumb at times as it is smart. But I was able to overlook the silliness of much of it simply for the fact that the film does attempt to ask some interesting questions, even if they don’t make much sense. From start to finish the film travels down such a fun and exciting tongue in cheek rabbit hole of explosions and trippy visuals and I loved every minute of it. It gets so crazy that at one point Benjamin Franklin’s head literally explodes. It is a mishmash of so many ideas and themes, done with such excitement and ambition, that it is hard to hate any of it. As some critics have mentioned, it really is a Besson action film smashed together with ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ and parts of ‘The Tree of Life’. Even better is that ‘Lucy’ has a fast enough pace and short enough running time to never leave you bored. It is entertainment, definitely not at its best, but surely at its purest and I highly recommend it.

———

More of my nonsense on Twitter.

Quick Review: Chef (Dir. by Jon Favreau)

Posted on May 9, 2014 by Leonard Wilson

One of the cool things about WordPress is that you can write on the go. 80% of this review was written from a cell phone sitting in a packed subway train.

I recently caught Jon Favreau’s new film Chef at the Tribeca Film Festival, where it won the Heineken Best Narrative Category. The story of a Chef who falls big time and then turns a corner, the movie has some fun performances, a great soundtrack and loads of food. When the lights finally came up after the sold-out showing, the film received tons of applause. It’s a cute and compact film, so much so that most of the movie is wrapped up in the trailer. I went into the movie completely blind and loved it. As the hype machine grows, I don’t know if it’ll have the same impact, but I hope it does. Even though you know what to expect, it’s still worth the ride.

After Favreau’s fall with Cowboys & Aliens, Chef is a major scale down from the big budget flicks he’s done. This isn’t Iron Man with all of the J.A.R.V.I.S. hologram interfaces. It’s Ratatouille, minus the rats. You have food, friends, and twitter posts that take flight, spreading some word of mouth. Social Media plays a big part of Chef, and while it can date the film years from now (will Twitter and Vine even be around then?), it makes sense for the moment.

So, what’s the story? Chef Carl Caspar loves what he does, being the head Chef at a major restaurant and expressing his creativity through his different culinary dishes. With his cooking buddies at his side (John Leguizamo & Bobby Canivale) he’s the talk of the town, though it’s at the expense of his relationships, particularly the one with his young son. After a social media meltdown involving a Food Critic (played by Oliver Platt), Casper is forced to come up with a Plan B for his love of cooking. The free time gives Casper a chance to bond more with his son. As the commercials & trailers give away, the result includes a food truck.

That’s what you get, plain and simple.

The story feels a lot like Ratatouille in the way it touches on criticism at one point. The film suggests (or at least I felt I gave the suggestion) that a critic, sitting on the outside, can’t always grasp the effort that goes into creating something. Words can come across as harsh, dismissive and in some case abusive. I’m not sure I agree with that point, but that part of the storyline doesn’t hurt the film overall.

For Chef’s cast, Favreau reached out to quite a few people. From his work on the Iron Man movies, both Scarlett Johannson and Robert Downey, Jr. have small roles here. Also on tap are Dustin Hoffman and Sofia Vergara, who both put through some smile worthy performances. The film, however, belongs to Favreau, Leguizamo, and Emjay Anthony, who plays Casper son, Percy. Anthony in particular is the scene stealer of the movie, with his character introducing his father to the ins and outs of social media while learning a few things in the process.

As it’s a smaller film, there isn’t a lot in the way of visual effects, save for elements where Social Media is in play. Tweets are displayed in windows near characters and transform into blue birds that fly as it’s sent. It’s a cute representation of what many of us do at least once or twice a day. The same can be said for the camera work. It’s very simple, nothing too extravagant. I would almost say it’s an indie film, but considering the other films I saw at Tribeca, this felt like there was a bigger budget behind it.

If Chef suffers from any problems, it’s almost too cookie cutter clean. It’s not very damaging, but if your mindset is more cynical or critical, you may find the Casper route from his Plan A to Plan B a little out there, perhaps too easy. It does show how important networking is, that much I’ll say.

One of Chef’s major standouts is the soundtrack, a mixture of Latin Music, New Orleans big brass, and what I can only describe as “Jazzy Hip Hop”. A band called El Michaels Affair has a version of the Wu-Tang Clan’s C.R.E.A.M. that’s a smooth mix of a classic. The soundtrack is already available for purchase and the songs are all on Spotify. If you can, it’s definitely worth giving them a listen.

Chef is currently playing in select theatre’s in NYC and L.A.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (4 Minute Extended Clip & Trailer)

Posted on March 8, 2014 by Arleigh

It’s just less than a month away from one of 2014’s most-anticipated films. It’s the sequel to Captain America: The First Avenger and Marvel Studios has been kind enough to treat it’s fans to a 4-minute clip/trailer of the film.

This clip from Captain America: The Winter Soldier comes early in the film and helps in setting the tone of the film. This is not the gung-ho and patriotic first film. This follow-up shows the after-effects of the events from The Avengers and how it’s created a sense of paranoia and conspiracy surrounding the very group Captain America has now become a part of.

Where the first film had the nostalgic feel similar to Joe Johnston’s The Rocketeer, this sequel looks to tap the 70’s conspiracy and 80’s technothriller genres. It’s anyone’s guess whether the Russo Brothers succeeded, but just going by this extended scene and the previous teasers and trailers they may have just done that.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier arrives in North America on April 4, 2014.

LeonTh3Duke’s Favorite Films of 2013

Posted on January 18, 2014 by leonth3duke

I have to say, this might be the earliest I have ever posted one of these lists. For once I saw everything I wanted to see before the Oscars; and although I haven’t written as many reviews this year, I have loved A TON of what was released. For me, 2013 was one of the better years for film in a while. Which of course makes creating a list such as this so damn hard. But here goes…

…oh, and I should note, this list is ordered according to which films were my favorite/least favorite, not necessarily the best/worst; yes there is a difference if you ask me.

Least Favorite Films of 2013:

5 – “Star Trek Into Darkness” (dir. J.J. Abrams)

4 – “Don Jon” (dir. Joseph Gordon-Levitt)

3 – “This Is The End” (dir. Evan Goldberg & Seth Rogen)

2 – “Mama” (dir. Andre Muschietti)

1 – “A Good Day To Die Hard” [Just so happens to be my least favorite AND the worst.] (dir. Satan… Hitler?…no wait, John Moore)

Favorite Films of 2013:

25 – “Prince Avalanche” (dir. David Gordon Green)

24 – “Drug War” (dir. Johnnie To)

23 – “The Wolverine” (dir. James Mangold)

22 – “Upstream Color” (dir. Shane Carruth)

21 – “The Wolf Wall Street” (dir. Martin Scorsese)

20 – “Enough Said” (dir. Nicole Holofcener)

19 – “Frozen” (dir. Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee)

18 – “The World’s End” (dir. Edgar Wright)

17 – “Dallas Buyers Club” (dir. Jean-Marc Vallee)

16 – “Blue Is The Warmest Color” (dir. Adbellatif Kechiche)

15 – “An Adventure In Space and Time” (dir. Terry McDonough)

14 – “Stories We Tell” (dir. Sarah Polley)

13 – “Much Ado About Nothing” (dir. Joss Whedon)

12 – “Blue Jasmine” (dir. Woody Allen)

11 – “Mud” (dir. Jeff Nichols)

10 – “Frances Ha” (dir. Noah Baumbach)

9 – “12 Years A Slave” (dir. Steve McQueen)

8 – “Short Term 12” (dir. Destin Cretton)

7 – “Inside Llewyn Davis” (dir. Ethan & Joel Coen)

6 – “Museum Hours” (dir. Jem Cohen)

5 – “Stoker” (dir. Chan-wook Park)

4 – “The Act of Killing” [The BEST of 2013 and possibly beyond.] (dir. Joshua Oppenheimer)

3 – “Before Midnight” (dir. Richard Linklater)

2 – “Her” (dir. Spike Jonze)

1 – “Gravity” (dir. Alfonso Cauron)

These last three were honestly neck and neck and neck, and it wasn’t until I was ready to post this list that I bumped “Gravity” up to the top spot, replacing “Her”. As I mentioned above, this was such a great year for film and my favorite could change anytime in the future depending on when you asked me; but at this very moment I have to give it to “Gravity”.

(Some of My…) Favorite Performances of 2013 [No Specific Order]:

– Brie Larson (“Short Term 12”)

– Sandra Bullock (“Gravity”)

– Matthew McConaughey (“Dallas Buyers Club” & “Mud”)

– Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson & Amy Adams (“Her”)

(Some of My…) Favorite Filmmakers and Writers of 2013 [No Specific Order]:

– Filmmaker: Joshua Oppenheimer (“The Act of Killing”)

– Writers: Richard Linklater, Julie Deply & Ethan Hawke (“Before Midnight”)

Favorite Score of 2013 (Ran a Half Marathon To This Sucker):

– Steven Price (“Gravity”)

Quick Review: “Her” (dir. by Spike Jonze)

Posted on December 28, 2013 by Leonard Wilson

Before you read this, leonth3duke has a great review for “Her” up as well. Please check it out. It’s a great take on a sweet film.

Technology changes the way we communicate with each other. In a city like New York – well, everywhere, I’d imagine – there are individuals walking around with phones and pads, caught up more in their devices than in the people around them. At dinner tables, you may catch whole groups of people seated that are “checking in”, rather than directly communicating. I myself have done that quite a bit. All of these gadgets give us the ability to connect to tons of people, but at the same time there’s this potential for isolation and/or distance. Are we really connecting deeply with anyone or are people just fitting the bill just to kill off the loneliness?

Spike Jonze’s “Her” doesn’t argue whether or not we should be so digitally social, but it does present the audience with examples of the ways we may reach for connections these days. It’s both beautiful, weird and somewhat eerily familiar.

“Her” focuses on Theodore Twombley (Joaquin Phoenix), who works as a letter writer. Though at his job, he creates heartfelt letters for others, in his interactions outside of that he’s somewhat withdrawn (or he’s simply reserved with his words). He’s in the middle of a divorce with his wife (Rooney Mara), and more or less keeps to himself. One day, he decides to pick up a new OS for his computer with an advanced AI. This is how Samantha (Scarlett Johannson) comes into the picture. She helps to organize his day to day tasks and as she’s curious about the world, Theodore explains what he can. As crazy as it sounds, it grows into something more.

The movie was originally done with Samantha Morton (Cosmopolis) as Samantha, but supposedly Jonze felt something was off during the editing and post production. They talked it over and Morton stepped down. There’s nothing at all wrong with Scarlett’s take – it’s sad that she can’t be acknowledged for her performance because of rules – but there’s a part of me that hopes that in the video version there’s a behind the scenes showing what Samantha Morton’s version of the role turned out. I think it would be pretty interesting to see.

Johannson does a wonderful job considering that it’s just her voice. From a bright “hello” to a whispered “Hey.”, as Samantha grows, you can catch subtle changes in her demeanor. Granted, one can say it’s easy to do a voice over, but one only has to look at Julia Roberts’ performance in Charlotte’s Web to know the difference between talking out your lines, and actually conveying them with feeling.

For someone who has to work with a character they can’t see or interact with directly, Phoenix is great here. Coming off of The Master, the role is a complete turn around. He’s the anchor of the film and through him we see all the joys and pains. He conveys this weird sense of curiosity about the world that masks a deeper pain. I rubbed my chin a number of times during this, amazed at how much of myself I saw in the character of Theodore. It was a little jarring, actually. Also coming off The Master is Amy Adams, whose role here reminded me of a guest starring role she had on the tv show “Charmed”. Playing Theodore’s friend Amy, she acts as a sounding board for Theodore. I have yet to see American Hustle, but I liked her here and personally thought she did far better in this film than she did in Man of Steel.

Overall the casting for “Her” is good. Matt Lescher (The Mask of Zorro) has a humorous part as Amy’s husband. Even Rooney Mara comes across well as Theodore’s wife. Other casting choices include Kristen Wiig (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty), Portia Doubleday (Carrie), and Olivia Wilde (Rush).

Cinematographer Hoyt Van Hoytema (The Fighter, Inside Llewyn Davis) and Jonze created a near future that isn’t terribly distant from where we are now. It’s bright, sunny, extremely clean in the daytime scenes. The nights are so well lit that it first reminded me of Roger Deakin’s Shanghai sequences in Skyfall. It’s almost a cozy future. Interfaces with computers are more direct and even funny at times. This is something you’ll notice right from the start. Everyone’s appearance, however, seems a bit frumpy. It’s like everyone just grabbed the first thing in their closet and said “You know what, I’ll go with it.” It caused a bit of a laughter from the audience mostly, which could pull from the story, but it’s hardly unlikely.

The theme of “Her” is loneliness, or at least that’s what I took from it. It was of people looking to connect. Some succeed on different levels, some don’t but there’s a longing there. It comes through as clearly in “Her” as it can, and it’s one of the elements I really enjoyed about the movie. Some of the conversations in the film are deep, those ones you have after you move past all of the small talk about the weather. Sometimes harsh, painful truths come out. At other times, it’s just subtle realizations being voiced.

After the film, I’ve found I’ve spent a little more time interacting with others face to face – something I don’t normally do. I normally don’t feel lonely because there things I can do. Ride my motorcycle, go to the movies, write something. With this, however, it was like someone filmed me, cleaned up the story and presented it better. Though I am somewhat introverted, I also suffer from abandonment issues, and tend not to form too many close friendships of a fear of losing them. I recognized that I do have more moments of loneliness than I ever really noticed before. For me, “Her” is one the best films I’ve seen this year simply because (like “12 Years a Slave”) it felt like it spoke to me directly. It’s humorous in many places, sad in others, but at the end of it all, I left the theatre thinking about the movie and experiencing emotions I hadn’t expected to.

And sometimes, that’s enough to consider a film great. I’m eager to see this again.

Review: Iron Man 2 (dir. Jon Favreau)

Posted on May 9, 2010 by Arleigh

In 2008 Marvel Comics released it’s very first in-house financed film through it’s Marvel Studios. That film was called Iron Man. It was a film that definitely was given buzz and hype by the comic book crowd, but wasn’t highly-anticipated by the general public. Even the prospect of Robert Downey, Jr. as the character of Tony Stark was received by the fanboys with trepidation and by the rest of the film-going public with apathy. When the film finally came out the reaction wasn’t what industry experts had expected. The film became a bonafide hit and it was all due to one man. That man happened to be the very person people thought was wrong for the part: Robert Downey, Jr. His performance as Tony Stark and as Iron Man was one of those which makes a franchise. Robert Downey, Jr. was born to play Tony Stark and it showed on the screen. The film was a major success not just for RDJ but for the fledgling Marvel Studios.

It is now 2010 and the follow-up to Iron Man has finally come out. The road to this second film wasn’t as difficult and mired in trepidation as the first, but now people wondered whether the first film was just a fluke and would lightning be caught once again in the proverbial bottle. The complaints this time around prior to the film’s release was that there were too many new characters both villains and allies being introduced. Would the action scenes be as average and all-too-brief as they were in the first film? Would Robert Downey, Jr. be able to handle the pressure of being the foundation of a world Marvel Studios was building with not just the Iron Man franchise but the other films coming down the pipeline like Thor and Captain America then the big boy in the room: The Avengers. These were all credible worries, but in the end this sequel made a great leap forward into calming down these fears. Iron Man 2 definitely lives up to the first film and improves on certain weaknesses of the first film, but not all which just keeps this sequel from being on the same level as past Marvel superhero sequels like Spider-Man 2 and X2.

The film opens up literally just as the first film ends as we see a Russian TV rebroadcasting Tony Stark declaring himself as Iron Man in front of a crowd of reporters. It’s who is watching this broadcast that moves the story along from start to finish. We meet Ivan Vanko (played with inherent menace by Mickey Rourke) who finds out from his dying father that Tony stark and Iron Man was to blame for their family’s hardship and lost legacy. That very theme of patriarchal and familial legacy becomes a running theme throughout the film. This opening intro sequence shows the audience that Tony Stark wasn’t the only one capable of creating the very power source keeping him alive and powering up the Iron Man suit. The extended intro also does a good job of introducing a main character right from the start and giving us his background, motivations and skill set and why he makes a credible opponent for a one-man army which Iron Man truly has become. But Ivan Vanko, or Whiplash as the credits have dubbed him, won’t be the only problem Tony Stark has to face throughout the film. All the problems he’s having to deal with since becoming Iron Man and publicly declaring himself as such comes from that very declaration.

The U.S. government now sees Iron Man as a problem, despite having stabilized the world by his very existence, and has been trying to force Tony Stark to relinquish the suit and the technology necessary to operate and replicate the Iron Man suit/weapon. Whether it’s his self-inflated and fame-fed ego or his new-found ideals to rewrite his family’s warmongering and war-profiteering past, Tony Stark refuses to give up the suit and even embarrasses the senator (played by Garry Shandling) heading up the subcommittee trying to get Stark to relinquish the suit. The other more immediate and personal problem Stark now has to find a solution for happens to be the very thing keeping him alive. The minituarized ARC Reactor in his chest is gradually poisoning him due to it’s palladium core. While the poison levels slowly builds as he continue to wear the reactor it jumps up in levels whenever he uses the suit. Without a suitable replacement to the toxic palladium all the good work Tony Stark thinks he has done will be for naught as death was something he couldn’t fight against.

Right in the middle of both Vanko and the US government sits one Justin Hammer of Hammer Industries. Hammer (played with weasly and loser aplomb by Sam Rockwell) runs a competing arms manufacturer to Stark Industries. A company who took the opportunity of Stark ending all arms manufacturing and sales to become the government’s newest primary defense contractor. Hammer also looks to replicate the Iron Man suit and arc reactor technology either in-house or through less reputable means. Hammer is instrumental in giving Vanko and the government the resources needed to take on Tony Stark. Most of the comedic aspect of the film involves Hammer trying to help out these two competing antagonists with hilarious and, in the end, lethal results.

Not everything about the film centers on Stark’s problems. The film also works in further building up and rounding out the cast of characters supporting Tony Stark. Pepper Potts has now turned from being Tony’s personal aide and secretary to actually becoming Chairman and CEO of his company by his choice. His military liaison and best friend Lt. Col. James Rhodes (Don Cheadle replacing Terence Howard for this sequel in the role) returns with conflicted agendas as he’s caught between his friendship to Stark and his commitment as an Air Force officer to the military and this to the U.S. government. We get more screentime with S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Nick Fury as he appears in the middle and very end of the film. Another ally to join this core group is Natasha Romanoff as the Black Widow (played by Scarlett Johannson). These people try their best to keep Tony Stark grounded and focused throughout the film.

Iron Man 2 pretty much equals what the first film did in providing the audience with some very good performances from all the actors. Great performances despite another script which definitely needed some help in tightening up the story and it’s many converging subplots. While the screenplay done up by screenwriter Justin Theroux is not bad it does fail to capitalize on the very good origin story of the first. The dialogue was pretty average with some lines bordering on uninspired. The adage of great actors making even the worst script sound great definitely stands with the one for this film.

Robert Downey, Jr. returns to elevate the script and dialogue with his very presence and personality. RDJ is Tony Stark and once again proves that he was born for to play the character and personify it on-screen. Every screentime he has with the rest of the film’s actors pop and sizzle especially those with the two female support of Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts and Scarlett Johannson as the Black Widow. The chemistry between RDJ and Paltrow has improved even though it was already one of the strongest positives of the first film. We see their relationship evolve beyond the mutual attraction from the first film to something much stronger this second time around. Paltrow’s performance was more defined as she goes from being just Stark’s gal Friday to one in a position of power. She becomes the everyman/woman who bears witness to the fantastic going-ons of a world suddenly becoming full of superheroes and the subsequent villains and enemies.

While the two leads in RDJ and Paltrow continue to do a great job in their roles, and the rest of those returning and even the newest faces keeping up with their own performances, the one actor who almost steals the film has to be Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. Some have called his performance as being too campy and over-the-top. I think his work as Justin Hammer was actually one of the best in the whole film. It’s right up there with RDJ’s work as Tony Stark. Where people saw a character that seemed over-the-top was actually an actor playing the role exactly how it should be played. Hammer was a character always in the shadow of the more popular, charismatic and confident Tony Stark. Hammer thought himself equal to Stark in every way when in truth his mannerisms and affectations only made him seem more the loser each and every time he was on-screen.

One thing which the film improved on over the first was the staging of it’s action sequences and the length with which they lasted. In the first film, the action was quite minimum to say the least as the film really focused on Iron Man’s origin. While the action in the first film wasn’t bad in any way the fact that they didn’t last long was a sore point for even the ardest fan of that film. This time around the action had better staging and a much improved choreography. The visual effects work by Legacy Effects Studio (formerly known as Stan Winston Studios) improved on the original with the different Marks of Iron Man suits looking distinct whether it was the newest Mark VI worn by Stark in the climactic battle or the “pimped-out” War Machine worn by Rhodes.

One thing which should excite comic book fans, and especially those who fanatically follow the Marvel line of titles, is the many little references to future Marvel Studios titles. While the script itself could be seen as average with some above-average moments it still was coherent enough that all the little easter eggs about Thor, Captain America and The Avengers didn’t seem out of place. This sequel played less like a sequel to a stand-alone franchise, but more like another piece to the world Marvel was building and adding to with each new film. It is for this very reason that I’m more than willing to give some of the deficiencies in the story and dearth of new characters a break.

I think it would be difficult to look at any Marvel Studio film as a stand-alone or even for a franchise to be self-contained. Both Iron Man films belong in a world where other characters with their own films will inhabit and interact with each other. Thus we get all these little references even though it may bloat up the particular film they appear in. The final judgement will come once all the films planned have been released and the overall effect and payoff has been met or not.

In the end, Iron Man 2 was a sequel which more than matched it’s predecessor but still had problems in its screenplay work to keep it from being great. The performances were excellent from everyone involved with some even elevating their roles to higher levels. The action was better than the original with some great work from the visual effects studios whose task was to keep the action coherent and easy to follow (unlike Michael Bay’s action work). For those who follow the comics this film should definitely be a must-see and shouldn’t disappoint. For the casual viewer the film should be a fun and action-filled two-hours that also happens to have some very great actors doing good to great work. I must also recommend that people not leave the theater once the end credits begin to roll. Like the previous film in the franchise there is a suprise scene at the very end of the credits which should be seen as it hints at a future Marvel superhero film and one that will tie in with this particular franchise.