Tony Stark Returns!

So I finally got to see Iron Man 2 and I loved it. I even loved it more than the first one. Ever since I saw the first Iron Man back in 2008 I was in love with it. Iron Man was not the conventional superhero movie. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a narcissistic and cocky weapons designer who becomes a superhero after a life changing experience. Stark has no super powers just like Batman, and builds his own weapons. However, unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark is not all dark and brooding. It maintains a good balance of seriousness and comedy, but without it being corny like the Fantastic Four films.

The second Iron Man takes all of the best elements from the first movie and makes it bigger and better. The best thing about the Iron Man movies is Tony Stark, who was born to play Tony Stark. He is very likable and brings a whole lot of charisma to the big screen. Robert Downey Jr. has always been a good actor and it help make the character more three dimensional. The rest of the performances are solid too. Gwyneth Paltrow isn't given much to do, but she and Downey have good chemistry on screen. Although I like Don Cheadle I found myself missing Terrance Howard. Maybe because Howard was in the first movie and not this one. Still, Don Cheadle is a good replacement.

One weakness in the first Iron Man is that the villain was okay. Jeff Bridges played the menacing Obadiah Stane a.k.a. Iron Monger. Jeff Bridges was great because he had a simple objective, but not much depth in that plan. Mickey Rourke is really creepy as Ivan Vanko, who claims that Tony's father stole the arc reactor technology from Ivan's father. So Vanko goes after Tony with his own Arc reactor and uses electric whips to try to take him down.

Another villain is Justin Hammer, who is Stark's rival. Hammer wants to destroy Stark and realizes that Vanko can build computer controlled robot suit weapons to make a profit. I loved Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, but he gets too much screen time. He hams it up as Hammer, but this guy can't be taken seriously as a menacing villain. The main conflict should have been between Vanko and Stark.

To be honest, this film is a mess, but its not a disaster like Spider-Man 3. Unfortunately, I blame the screenplay by Justin Theroux, who also co-wrote the screenplay for Tropic Thunder. I was always hesitant about the decision, but did not count him out. The script is not as stellar as it could have been, but this story had so much potential. There are moments of brilliance, but too many plot points. Plus, unless audiences pay attention really well then some things can be confusing. For example, Sam Jackson appears in the movie as Nick Fury, Agent of S,H.I.E.L.D. Unless you stuck around to the end of the credits in the first movie you'll be scratching you head saying "who the fuck is this guy?".

The movie kept me entertained, but it is more flawed than the first one. The film improves on the action and Robert Downey Jr. is as good as ever. This is a good effort and hopefully Iron man 3 will be more focused. I like how this film, along with the original Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk are in the same universe and setting up for an Avengers movie. Thor and Captain America are coming out next summer and The Avengers is coming out in 2012. There are hints in the film like you can briefly see Captain America's shield in Tony Stark's lab. In addition, if you stay until the end credits there is a scene which sets up for the next Marvel movie, Thor. I just hope more Marvel characters can be incorporated into this universe.

The 3-D Epidemic (Don't Waste your Money)!

Back in the '50's television was stealing audiences away from the theaters. Obviously the studios and theater owners were concerned so they developed a number of methods to improve the theater going experience. This is 3-D was born. At that time 3-D was a joke. In fact you looked like a jackass wearing those lame glasses. Then of course the studios put out some bad 3-D movies. Eventually, this fad ran out of steam and disappeared forever, well until they made a slight comeback in IMAX theaters and theme park attraction.

It's 2010 and 3-D has taken the throne again. In fact the first 3-D film that I saw was not at a theater, but in a theme park. Times have changed so much. 3-D has left a generally taste in my mouth. I used to love it, but now I almost despise it. One of the main reasons is that the 3-D effects overwhelm the story. A whole lot of 3-D films have things popping out a screen and totally distract from the story. That annoys me so fucking much and it is ridiculous.

However, there are rare exceptions when 3-D is actual integrated into the story very well. A very good example is Avatar. The most beautiful film that I have ever seen in my life. The 3-D just doesn't pop out at you and the film just immerses the viewer into the movie. It feels so natural that viewers forget that they are watching in 3-D, James Cameron spent 12 years working on the film and while Cameron is an average director at best, he knows how to use the newest technology to its fullest. He know how to use 3-D and is damn good at it.

IMO Avatar, Beowulf, X-Mas Carol, and possibly Tintin are the only films that I have been satisfied with seeing in 3-D. A whole lot of other films do not need it at all. Disney was one of the first to hop the 3-D bandwagon. I saw Meet the Robinsons (bad film) in New York and it did not make the movie any better. In fact it made it worse. I saw Disney's latest film version of A X-Mas Carol and it did look nice, but did not really convince me why I wanted to see it in 3-D.

It also kills me that some film will get released and have only 20 minutes or so in 3-D. Superman Returns and Harry Potter 6 are examples of this. If I am going to pay for a 3-D movie I want it to be in 3-D for the whole damn time. These movie weren't designed in 3-D and the studio throw some 3-D paint on the film in post production and market it as a 3-D experience. It looks fake and rushed! It's a waste of money!

Thanks to the success of Avatar, How to Train Your Dragon, and Alice in Wonderland, the studios are trying to strike while the iron is hot. There are plenty of 3-D films that are going to be released for the rest of year like Shrek 4, Toy Story 3, Step-Up 3-D, Cats and Dogs 2, Piranha 3-D, Resident Evil Afterlife, Legend of the Guardians, Alpha and Omega, Jackass 3-D, Saw VII, MegaMind, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Tangled, Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Trader, Tron Legacy, and Gulliver's Travels.

That is just ridiculous. That is 17 more unnecessary movie converted into 3-D. Seriously, do we need to see a shitty dance movie in 3D or a shitty horror movie that has been declining since the first movie in 3-D. Also do we need Cats and Dogs 2 in 3-D? I speak on behalf of everyone in saying FUCK NO!!! Next thing you know they're going to make a Yogi Bear movie and put it in 3-D. Oh wait, they are making a Yogi Bear movie and it's going to be released in 3-D this December, and Justin Timberlake is going to voice Boo Boo bear. I am not joking! Justin Timberlake is going to voice Boo Boo and Dan Aykroyd is going to be Yogi. Real shit!

If you think that's fucked up then check out 2011 where there are already 25 films guaranteed to be shown in 3-D. Tat body count will increase dramatically, trust me. Hollywood is a business and 3-D is a very profitable move right now. However, people do not think about the long run. 3-D was a gimmick back in the '50's and it is still a gimmick now. This is not the future of the film experience and unless the film is directed by Zemeckis, Cameron, or Spielberg, I will not even consider watching a film in 3-D. The 3D train is going to derail, crash, and burn to the ground. When that happens I am going to say I told ya sold....you greedy Hollywood bastards! Don't waste your Money!