Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Good Hair
Directed by Jeff Stilson.
2009. Rated PG-13, 96 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Rock
Nia Long
Sarah Jones
Rev. Al Sharpton
Tracie Thoms
Raven Symone
Ice-T
Lauren London
Andre Harrell
Maya Angelou
Melyssa Ford​

Plot: A documentary in which comedian Chris Rock explores the world of Black hair, particularly of Black women.

The Good: It takes an in-depth look at a subculture of Black society and shows its effect on Black culture as a whole, as well as its far reaching economic impact. Though it obviously favors one side over the other, it does manage to give us a fair amount of the opposing view and benefits of what’s going on to achieve a solid balance. It’s also funny. Chris Rock does generate a solid amount of laughter but most of it actually comes from the people he talks to in the barbershops, beauty salons and at the hair shows. This keeps things light even as the subject becomes heavy. The coverage of one particular hair show, the Bonner Brothers show really adds little to the movie but it’s over the top fun in a reality TV train wreck sort of way.

The Bad: The movie flinches twice. First, it rightfully makes a big deal about how toxic hair relaxer is, yet it never presses the issue with the execs at a Black-owned hair care manufacture that Rock spends a lot of time with. Nor does it present the information to mothers of the really young girls we’re shown having it put in their daughters’ hair. Second, the issue of employability of Black women who choose to wear their hair natural as opposed to straightened is also raised. Again, it’s a subject that needs to be explored but we never find out how any employers feel about this. Even if they only would’ve said “the right things” or hit us with a “no comment” we’re robbed of the opportunity to gauge their body language.

The Ugly: What happens to a soda can when it’s left in a vat of relaxer.

Recommendation: Since its subject matter is so relevant to its target audience, I feel comfortable saying this is among the most important documentaries the Black community has ever seen. If you think I’m overstating things, drive through a predominantly Black neighborhood anywhere in the United States. Pay attention, not only to the craftsmanship of the hairstyles you see but to the amount of salons and what’s on the advertising posters. Ultimately, it probably won’t change anything but it is vital information that is made entertaining and easily accessible. If you’re not Black, it’s a look into a world you may not have known anything about. That said, if you just can’t understand the relevance of a documentary about hair, knock my score down at least two points.

The Opposite View: Melissa Anderson, Village Voice

What the Internet Says: 6.9/10 on imdb.com (5/9/10), 94% on rottentomatoes.com, 72/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 9/10​

 

[dell71]

Angels & Demons
Directed by Ron Howard.
2009. Rated PG-13, 138 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Hanks
Ewan McGregor
Ayalet Zurer
Stellan Skarsgard
Pierfrancesco Favino
Nikolaj Lie Kaas
Armin Mueller-Stahl​

Plot: Mere days after the Pope has died, someone claiming to be from the secret society of the Illuminati kidnaps the four cardinals who are candidates to take over the papacy.

The Good: Like its predecessor, The Da Vinci Code, it gives us lots of twists and turns as Professor Langdon (Hanks) chases ominously cryptic clues. The chase highlights Vatican City and briskly moves us through it and the movie. By the end, we get a solid, but not completely unexpected twist that works pretty well. And yes, Tom Hanks’ hair is much less heinous this time around. There is also some wonderfully disturbing imagery.

The Bad: Much like the first movie, and the National Treasure movies, the clues simply fall like dominoes. As one is decoded, the next falls dutifully into place. The question becomes not “can our hero save the day”, but does he really have enough time to? Time is another issue. It hardly seems possible, much less plausible for Langdon and his crew to accomplish all that they do in the brief time allotted. From the time he arrives in the Vatican, he has quite a bit less than a full day to figure out the what, where, why and when.

The Ugly: The guy down the hole.

Recommendation: It’s pretty much on par with the original. In fact, I like this one slightly better. It’s free of the overwhelming hype, both good and bad, that surrounded the release of The Da Vinci Code, even though Catholicism is still its main target. Yes, I'm one of the six people that actually liked TDVC. In any event, use how you feel about that movie to determine if you want to see this one.

The Opposite View: Rene Rodriguez, Miami Herald

What the Internet Says: 6.7/10 on imdb.com (5/11/10), 36% on rottentomatoes.com, 48/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10​

 

[dell71]

The Blind Side
Directed by John Lee Hancock.
2009. Rated PG-13, 128 minutes.
Cast:
Sandra Bullock
Quinton Aaron
Tim McGraw
Jae Head
Lily Collins
Kathy Bates
Ray McKinnon
Tom Nowicki
Melody Weintraub
Sharon Morris​

Plot: The Tuohy family, at the urging of fiery matriarch Leigh Ann (Bullock), take in Michael Oher (Aaron), a homeless and academically challenged boy who attends the same school as their children. Michael turns out to be a highly sought after football prospect. Based on a true story.

The Good: It bends the sports underdog genre on its ear by making the person who helps the underdog the protagonist. In this case, that person is Leigh Ann Tuohy, played brazenly by Sandra Bullock. It’s perhaps the best performance of her career. Accordingly, it earned her an Oscar for Best Actress. As a whole, the movie knows when to utilize its sense of humor and when to press our emotional buttons. That timely alternating keeps us locked in, fully vested in the Tuohy family mission.

The Bad: Alas, genre clichés still abound. We think we know every obstacle before it approaches. Moments later, our suspicions are confirmed. This combines with the fact that the story it’s based on is of extremely recent vintage to sap the film of any real sense of mystery. The questions of race and budding sexuality are too neatly wrapped up within one scene. As far as race is concerned, it's content to be another film in which near-perfect white people save a damaged black kid from the ghetto. Both race and sexuality are quickly swept under the rug by a short speech in which Leigh Ann shouts down her naysayers. Perhaps more importantly, because we knew the racial dynamics going in, the question of just how Michael’s grades rose so quickly is never really addressed. They need to be because of a scene in which Leigh Ann confronts one of Michael’s teachers and says “All the other teachers are on board. What’s your problem?” Hmmm, is there something else we need to know? The movie as a whole just seems too afraid to veer from the path to “happily ever after” to tackle the tough issues.

The Ugly: Now, that’s how you finish a block.

Recommendation: This is probably the best “feel-good” movie of 2009. Like a good football team, is has a game plan and executes it well. It never surprises us one bit, but that’s okay because it entertains us and engages us. If you’re prone to crying over movies, keep some tissue nearby.

The Opposite View: Melissa Anderson, Village Voice

What the Internet Says: 7.7/10 on imdb.com (5/14/10), 67% on rottentomatoes.com, 53/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10​

 

[Palooza]

I was actually pleasantly surprised by Angels and Demons. Muuuuch better than the Da Vinci Code, IMO.

 

[Maynard]

Read your new moon review. Still haven't seen any of the movies or read any of the books. Quite proud of myself for that... And I read the spoiler. FUNNY.

Frankly though, I don't understand any of the TEAM JACOB, TEAM EDWARD shit. Do any of the fangirls read the books? EDWARD WINS. THEY GET MARRIED. (I'd spoiler this, but you're all 18-34 year old males, so this movie isn't targeted at you, and thereby you don't give one shit, let alone two.)

dont assume...always use spoilers.

I was actually pleasantly surprised by Angels and Demons. Muuuuch better than the Da Vinci Code, IMO.

a newer tom hanks film that i dont remember hearing a word about. weird. It must not have done well at the box office cause u usually always know when a big name like hanks has a new film

 

[dell71]

a newer tom hanks film that i dont remember hearing a word about. weird. It must not have done well at the box office cause u usually always know when a big name like hanks has a new film

In the US, it was solid but not spectacular - grossed about $133 mil. Huge overseas, grossed another $352 mil worldwide.

 

[Fox1994]

Loved Good Hair, liked Blind Side. Didn't see the Da Vinci Code, but I saw Angels & Demons... I guess it was cool. I didn't have any expectations going in.

 

[dell71]

Loved Good Hair, liked Blind Side. Didn't see the Da Vinci Code, but I saw Angels & Demons... I guess it was cool. I didn't have any expectations going in.

Pretty much sums up what I said...except I did see The Da Vinci Code...it's okay, Hanks' wig is much worse, though.

 

[Champ]

Check out Bigger Faster Stronger. Its a documentary about Steroids.

 

[dell71]

Bandslam
Directed by Todd Graff.
2009. Rated PG, 111 minutes.
Cast:
Gaelan Connell
Vanessa Hudgens
Alyson Michalka
Scott Porter
Ryan Donowho
Charlie Saxton
Lisa Kudrow
Tim Jo​

Plot: Will Burton (Connell) is suddenly thrust into high school popularity when local “it” girl Charlotte Banks (Michalka) drafts him to manage her band and help get it ready for “Bandslam”, the local band competition in which top prize is a record deal.

The Good: Despite the presence of Vanessa Hudgens, high school and music, it’s definitely not High School Musical. In fact, though there’s lots of music it’s not really a musical. No one spontaneously bursts into song on the way to homeroom or in the cafeteria. All singing is done from behind a mic and/or on stage. Surprisingly enough, the music isn’t terrible, either. It’s certainly edgier than the HSM stuff but still tame enough for top 40 radio. As for the rest of the movie, it tells a familiar tale but adds a decent twist or two. Lastly, Will Burton is just pathetic enough to root for. He’s a character that does have some actual issues to deal with. He also has trouble adjusting when his rung on the social ladder changes. Actually, most of our main characters have real issues that many teens deal with, far above and beyond anything in the HSM universe. All of this works to give the movie a hard to resist charm and surprising intelligence.

The Bad: Our popular girl, Charlotte, is often insufferable. Within five minutes of meeting her, his infatuation with her should’ve dissipated and rendered the rest of the movie null and void. On top of this, his mom – played by Lisa Kudrow, is a total figurehead of a parent. She’s so impotent that when it comes time for her to dispense some motherly wisdom to her youngling it feels not like she’s drawing from a life full of experiences but, sadly, from a movie script. Oh, wait…

The Ugly: What Sa5m (Hudgens, and the 5 is silent, duh) says about Will in class.

Recommendation: This is solid pre-teen and tween girl fare. It’s a little heavier than your standard Disney flick, but nothing that will require therapy. Guys, watch it if you must. It’s not nearly as painful as it could be.

The Opposite View: Kevin Carr, 7M Pictures

What the Internet Says: 6.3/10 on imdb.com (5/14/10), 80% on rottentomatoes.com, 66/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10​

 

[dell71]

The Box
Directed by Richard Kelly.
2009. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Cameron Diaz
James Marsden
Frank Langella
James Rebhorn
Holmes Osborne
Sam Oz Stone
Gillian Jacobs​

Plot: A couple with some new financial concerns is given a mysterious box by an even more mysterious man. They are then told if they choose to press the button on top of the box they will receive one million dollars in cash. However, someone they don’t know will die.

The Good: The choices with which our heroes are faced are incredibly fascinating. This holds true for not only the initial decision but the final one, as well. Because of this, it’s a great conversation starter. Throw in that it’s a religious (anti-religious?) parable and it not only starts conversations but can keep them going. The movie itself moves very well and presents one startling situation after another to bring you to the edge of your seat. As our villain, of sorts, Frank Langella is sufficiently aloof and detached from the proceedings. If you haven’t seen it, that sounds bad but it’s precisely what the role calls for.

The Bad: As interesting as its beginning and ending are, there are several points in the middle that might make it easy to give up on. The problem is the way it chooses to build its metaphors and try to be creepy feel kind of hokey. The basic pattern goes like this: something happens, you roll your eyes, then something else happens to explain what you rolled your eyes at and you’re okay with it. Well, it’s going to lose lots of people during one or another of those eye-rolling moments. I can hear tons of people saying “I just couldn’t get into it.” Lastly, I could also see people thinking this movie hates women. There is certainly a case to be made. At the very least, it seems very upset with them over that whole getting us kicked out of the Garden of Eden thing that happened a while back.

The Ugly: Southern accents seem to come and go as they please.

Recommendation: I thoroughly enjoyed this but understand many will quickly dismiss it, leaving me alone on an island. I was intrigued from the start and I almost always like movies that leave you something to debate, as this one does. Go in with an open mind but if you don’t like it, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

The Opposite View: Claudia Puig, USA Today

What the Internet Says: 5.9/10 on imdb.com (5/16/10), 45% on rottentomatoes.com, 47/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Whip It
Directed by Drew Barrymore.
2009. Rated PG-13, 111 minutes.
Cast:
Ellen Page
Alia Shawkat
Marcia Gay Harden
Kristen Wiig
Juliette Lewis
Drew Barrymore
Jimmy Fallon
Eve
Carlo Alban
Ari Graynor
Zoe Bell
Landon Pigg​

Plot: Bliss (Page), a small-town Texas high-school girl who hates the pageants her mother makes her compete in, discovers a new passion when she sneaks off to nearby Austin to join a roller-derby league.

The Good: Bliss feels like a real teenager. She’s not over-stylized and ultra-snarky like Juno (also played by Ellen Page). Nor is she super-happy and carefree. Her character is very well written as is that of her mom, played with stern faced resolve by Marcia Gay Harden. First time director Drew Barrymore paces her movie well. This enables the main characters to breath and places the roller derby scenes at nice intervals. And those scenes are quite fun.

The Bad: The relationship between Bliss’ parents is done a disservice. We get hints that there is much more below the surface, but we’re never shown. Basically, this boils down Dad’s reason for existence to one heroic action. Similarly, we learn curiously little about Bliss’ teammates on The Hurl Scouts. There’s plenty of potential for great characters and they’re given great names like Maggie Mayhem (Wiig) and Rosa Sparks (Eve) but it’s never taken advantage of. At the very least, we should’ve gotten to know the aforementioned Maggie a lot better.

The Ugly: Play number three.

Recommendation: It’s kinda the best of both worlds: a chick flick/sports movie. Sure, there are some clichés from both genres present, but it’s fun and engaging. Despite its faults, this is an enjoyable ride and a solid directorial debut for Barrymore.

The Opposite View: James Berardinelli, ReelViews

What the Internet Says: 7.1/10 on imdb.com (5/17/10), 84% on rottentomatoes.com, 68/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10​

 

[dell71]

Why Did I Get Married Too?
Directed by Tyler Perry.
2010. Rated PG-13, 121 minutes.
Cast:
Janet Jackson
Jill Scott
Tasha Smith
Malik Yoba
Richard T. Jones
Tyler Perry
Sharon Leal
Lamman Rucker
Michael Jai White
Cicely Tyson
Louis Gossett Jr.​

Plot: Four couples reunite for their annual couples retreat. They’re unexpectedly joined by Sheila’s (Scott) ex-husband Mike (Jones) who hopes to win her heart back, even though she’s already remarried.

The Good: As in most of his movies, director Tyler Perry gets very strong work from his cast. Perhaps, it’s because his scripts offer ample opportunities for big, showy moments. With lots of screaming and/or crying, performers are simply encouraged to go for it. So far, that’s worked well for him. His female players, in particular, put the petal to the metal and hardly let up. The near-constant outpouring of emotion seems to foster a strong attachment from his audiences. There are also moments of real humor, mostly through the relentlessly loud mouth of Angela (Smith).

The Bad: The Janet Jackson character, Patricia, dominates the second half of the movie but is ridiculously written. For a relationship expert, she’s curiously incapable of maintaining one, though I’ll admit that seems to be part of the point. She’s also psychotic. Her behavior hardly feels warranted. In fact, she’s all she accuses her husband of being, yet she’s the one we’re supposed to feel for. It’s hard to empathize with a person whose problems, even dating back to the first movie (Why Did I Get Married?), are all of her own making. Another problem is the numerous breaks in real dialogue so that one character or another can deliver a PSA. It’s distracting in the sense that it sounds nothing like real people talking.

The Ugly: Everything leading up to and including the car crash.

Recommendation: As usual, if you’re a fan of TP then have at it. I will say that like its predecessor, it’s a cut above the rest of his catalogue. It’s still not as good as that one, not really even close, but delivers similar thrills.

The Opposite View: Michael Ordona, Los Angeles Times

What the Internet Says: 2.3/10 on imdb.com (#91 on Bottom 100 as of 5/18/10), 39% on rottentomatoes.com, 43/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10​

 

[Palooza]

I always tell myself I hate Ellen Page, but I always seem to be drawn to her movies (I'm sure I've seen most of them).

I'm a confused boy.

 

[dell71]

The Invention of Lying
Directed by Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson.
2009. Rated PG-13, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Ricky Gervais
Jennifer Garner
Jonah Hill
Rob Lowe
Louis C.K.
Jeffrey Tambor
Fionulla Flanagan
Tina Fey​

Plot: In a world where man has never developed the ability to lie, Mark Bellison (Gervais) suddenly does.

The Good: The first two acts of the movie are incredibly original. In addition to being brutally honest, every person is also way too forthcoming with unsolicited information. The result is deliciously over the top dialogue during some hilarious exchanges. It also has fun pointing out the mixed messages of religion. Through this, which is essentially the invention of theism (or atheism?) and the aforementioned exchanges, the writing is top notch. There are also two very strong cameos. Jonah Hill’s turn as Mark’s suicidal neighbor is morbidly funny. As Mark’s secretary, Tina Fey absolutely steals every scene she’s in.

The Bad: The third act is dreadfully predictable. It eschews everything that made the earlier parts of the movie such a joy, in favor of recycling the same crap we’ve seen in countless other romantic comedies. We switch from watching a sharp, innovative comedy to a run-of-the-mill chick-flick. Let me tell you: it’s quite the letdown to go from one to the other.

The Ugly: Moses’ tablets are replaced by pizza boxes.

Recommendation: Again, the first two-thirds of the movie are more than enough to make this worth a look. It’s sort of a flip side to Liar Liar and works terrifically. Who knows? You might even like the last twenty or thirty minutes more than I did.

The Opposite View: Kyle Smith, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 6.5/10 on imdb.com (5/20/10), 57% on rottentomatoes.com, 58/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10​

 

[Palooza]

I agree 100% with everything you said about The Invention of Lying. It had potential to be a great movie, but it became too cliche at the end. It went from extremely original and witty to a paint by numbers rom com. (which is almost exactly what you said here - "We switch from watching a sharp, innovative comedy to a run-of-the-mill chick-flick.")

 

[A Tasty Burgerr]

It's next on my Blockbuster queue, hopefully now I won't be as disappointed by the ending now that I'm not expecting much.

 

[dell71]

Paper Heart
Directed by Nicholas Jasenovic.
2009. Rated PG-13, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Charlyne Yi
Michael Cera
Jake M. Johnson
Demetri Martin
Luciano Yi
Lydia Yi​

Plot: Charlyne doesn’t believe in love. She travels across the country getting ideas about what love is and if it really does exist. Along the way, she starts a relationship with Michael Cera (both are playing themselves).

The Good: The documentary style works well. It frees the movie of having to confine itself to many of the conventions of romantic comedies. Because of it, we’re not only interested in whether or not Charlyne will find love but also in the film within the film. It is at least as interesting watching Nicholas (Johnson) try to piece together a movie as it is watching Charlyne and Michael’s awkward companionship.

The Bad: While the various elements seem to work well individually, they never quite gel into a cohesive unit. It’s like watching three separate movies that deal with the same subject but have little to do with each other. Also, even though it wants us to believe her relationship with Cera is real, it feels painfully staged. We never feel any real connection aside from an odd fascination with one another. Instead of a developing romance, they seem to be on a perpetual first date. This makes our big dramatic moment near the end feel overly manufactured.

The Ugly: Am I the only one not sure if the biker dude’s joke about beating his wife was “only” a joke.

Recommendation: It’s an interesting movie with a lot of charming moments. Charlyne appears to have an adorable, if quirky, personality and seems to bring out those same qualities in the people she talks to. This gives the movie many of it’s cute anecdotes about love. However, the blurring of the lines between fact and fiction don’t work well here as it does in other “mockumentaries”. This makes it a frustrating watch and may lead some to tune it out.

The Opposite View: Angie Errigo, Empire

What the Internet Says: 6.1/10 on imdb.com (5/23/10), 60% on rottentomatoes.com, 54/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Revolutionary Road
Directed by Sam Mendes.
2008. Rated R, 118 minutes.
Cast:
Kate Winslet
Leonardo DiCaprio
Kathy Bates
Michael Shannon
David Harbour
Dylan Baker
Richard Easton
Zoe Kazan​

Plot: Frank (Di Caprio) and April Wheeler (Winslet) are an unhappy couple. They suddenly decide and start planning a move to Paris in hopes of chasing their dreams and rekindling the flames of their marriage.

The Good: First and foremost, both Winslet and Di Caprio turn in powerhouse performances. They are two of the very best in the business and they do not disappoint, here. To support them, director Sam Mendes surrounds them with an excellent cast and does a masterful job telling the story. The standout among the supporting players is Michael Shannon as the supposedly mentally ill John. I say supposedly because he seems less crazy than he does simply lacking a filter between his brain and mouth. As far as telling the story, Mendes carefully weaves a tapestry of issues until they seem almost singular and explode simultaneously.

The Bad: The focus on our main couple is so strict, other potentially interesting elements are brushed aside. In particular, the Wheeler’s neighbors are profoundly affected by what’s going on. However, given a certain event there could be much more shown. They certainly could’ve had some explosive moments of their own. Also, the Wheeler children are conveniently ushered off stage and easily spared the drama. It feels as if they’re not at all aware of what’s going on in their home, much less bothered by it. As a father, I can tell you it’s just too tidy an area of such a messy relationship.

The Ugly: The reason there is blood on the carpet.

Recommendation: This is a tough drama with three brilliant performances. It not only depicts a crumbling marriage, it raises questions. Though it clearly comes out on one side over the other, the pro-life/pro-choice debate eventually comes to fuel the movie and leaves us something to chew on.

The Opposite View: Stephanie Zacharek, Salon.com

What the Internet Says: 7.6/10 on imdb.com (5/23/10), 68% on rottentomatoes.com, 69/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10​

 

[dell71]

Iron Man
Directed by Jon Favreau.
2008. Rated PG-13, 126 minutes.
Cast:
Robert Downey Jr.
Gwyneth Paltrow
Terrence Howard
Jeff Bridges
Clark Gregg
Shaun Toub
Faran Tahir
Sayed Badreya
Leslie Bibb​

Plot: When ultra-rich weapons expert/tycoon/playboy Tony Stark (Downey) gets abducted by a band of terrorists he escapes by building himself a fully-loaded suit of armor. Of course, this gives him the impetus to not only perfect his prototype but to become a superhero setting the rest of the story in motion.


The Good: Robert Downey Jr. really sets the tone. His portrayal of Stark as a guy who can’t help but be a pompous a$$ is so good it bleeds into the rest of the film giving the whole thing an arrogant sarcasm that serves it well. It actually teeters on the edge of being condescending to comic book fans but never goes quite that far. Like any summer blockbuster worth the butter on its popcorn, the action scenes are loud and fun. Lots of stuff goes boom. As a bonus to geeks everywhere, other facets of the Iron Man history and the Marvel universe are introduced well. For those in the know, we get nice hints about what could be coming in the sequel(s).


The Bad: It’s hypocritical to the point that it bites the hand that feeds it. Essentially, it paints large corporations as the villain while simultaneously doing a boat-load of product placement for those same corporations. For many viewers that may be a bit subtle. More obviously, it suffers from how’d-he-know-itis. A number of times characters show up precisely where they’re needed despite there being no logical explanation for how they knew to be at that precise spot at that time. Iron Man’s first actual flight in the new suit is a perfect example of this but to keep from spoiling anything I won’t go into it. I will say it’s a minor problem in this case and serves to get us to the action quicker. Visually, it occasionally suffers from the same problem that has plagued the Spider-Man franchise. At times, our hero appears to be a cartoon character in a real world. That works when done purposely in something like Who Framed Roger Rabbit but it’s a bit distracting when it isn’t. I know Iron Man isn’t real. However, he should look real in his world and from time to time he doesn’t. Finally, Jeff Bridges performance was just too hammy for me.

The Ugly: The first time Tony tries to land in his new suit.

Recommendation: Most people probably already know if they want to see this or not. It is one of the better comic book movies you’ll see. It has its problems but what it does well, it does extremely well. That way, even without much in the way of action early on, the two hour plus runtime zips by.

The Opposite View: Lori Hoffman, Atlantic City Weekly

What the Internet Says: 8.2/10 on imdb.com (#166 all-time as of 8/13/08), 93% on rottentomatoes.com, 79/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10​

Iron Man 2
Directed by Jon Favreau.
2010. Rated PG-13, 124 minutes.
Cast:
Robert Downey Jr.
Gwyneth Paltrow
Don Cheadle
Mickey Rourke
Scarlett Johansson
Samuel L. Jackson
Jon Favreau
Sam Rockwell
Clark Gregg
Garry Shandling
John Slattery
Leslie Bibb​

Plot: The United States government wants to get their hands on Tony Stark’s (Downey Jr) Iron Man suit, a new villain pops up on the scene and the reactor implanted in his chest is killing him.

The Good: The sequel takes the story in an interesting direction. We see Stark dealing with his daddy issues and his seemingly fast approaching mortality. Once again, Robert Downey Jr. is the perfect personification of Tony. As his opposite number, Mickey Rourke makes a formidable and menacing villain. The action scenes might actually be better this time around. This includes some surprisingly convincing fighting from the normally dainty Scarlett Johansson (yes, I’m allowing for the probable involvement of a stunt-person).

The Bad: Like the debacle that was Spider Man 3 there’s just too much going on for its own good. Much of the clutter stems from the fact that this movie is basically a two hour setup for the apparently upcoming Avengers movie. It just gets in the way, at times. Some of it is nicely incorporated but a few things could’ve been left out. Aside from that there are more subplots than you can shake a stick at. The Sam Rockwell character, Tony’s rival in the weapon’s industry Justin Hammer is annoying, lame, very nearly irrelevant and given way too much screen time. He does draw the occasional laugh but he seems like a poor attempt at comic relief, especially since Tony handles that just fine on his own. Finally, while I absolutely love Don Cheadle as an actor, his version of Rhodes just doesn’t have the same playful chemistry with Tony that he had when Terrence Howard played the part.

The Ugly: it me, or does Rhodes learn how to use the suit awfully fast.

Recommendation: The first IM was surprisingly good. Its sequel isn’t quite as good but it is a solid effort. Even through the convolution, it’s a fun watch and manages to keep us engaged. For you comic book geeks, or comic book movie geeks, if you can sit still through the excruciatingly long credits you get a small treat.

The Opposite View: Ann Hornaday, Washington Post

What the Internet Says: 7.5/10 on imdb.com (5/23/10), 74% on rottentomatoes.com, 57/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10​