TEFB RANDOM REVIEW: RESCUE DAWN

Directed by Werner Herzog



Starring Christian Bale, Steve Zahn, Jeremy Davies




The story of Dieter Dengler is one that director Werner Herzog loves so much that he felt the need to tell it twice. In 1998 Herzog directed the documentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly, which told the story of German emigrant turned American Navy pilot Dengler, and which relied heavily on the magnetic and joyous personality of its subject.

Herzog approaches the material this time around with a more traditional narrative telling the story in a more polished, Hollywood, style with famous actors portraying the roles of Dengler (Christian Bale) and his prison-mates. While "Hollywood" and "polished" aren't usually words associated with Werner Herzog, Rescue Dawn still contains elements of the director's obsession with man versus wild, exotic location filming (utilizing native peoples), and moments of absurd humor.

Excited to fly his first reconnaissance mission in Laos (pre-Vietnam War), Dieter Dengler is an magnetic and intelligent young man. Popular on his ship, the USS Ranger, Dengler is shot down during his air-run and subsequently captured by Lao troops. Paraded through towns, tortured, and humiliated, Dengler is finally taken to a POW camp, where he is introduced to the other prisoners, including Air America pilots Duane Martin (Steve Zahn), and Eugene DeBruin (Jeremy Davies). Refusing to be held captive, Dengler soon begins to devise a plan of escape, meeting resistance from no man in the prison camp except for Eugene.

Although Rescue Dawn is intense in parts and features scenes of surprising violence, it's obvious that Herzog isn't interested in making a by-the-numbers prison escape film. The near-misses of being discovered by the guards and the escape itself is first-rate nail biting stuff, but the director spends little time on build-up or post-violence carnage. Instead Herzog is curiously fascinated with minutia such as a little boy holding a wing-beating beetle on a string up to Dengler's face, or an ant-nest tied to Dengler as he dangles upside-down from a rope. What interests Herzog isn't the mundane day to day prison camp living or the treatment the prisoners received from their fellow man, but how being let-loose in nature (in this case the dense, wet jungles of Southeast Asia can be more of a prison than being held against one's will in a bamboo cabin.

All throughout Rescue Dawn we sense Herzog's desire to get the men out of the prison camp and into the wild (it is no spoiler to say that they escape and are rescued - but exactly who I will not say). Eugene, who threatens to sabotage Dengler's plan as he believes the military will come for them shortly, is as much an annoyance to the director as he is to Dengler. The character's fortitude to escape the camp goes hand-in-hand with the director's need to escape the movie set (an on-location set, but a set nonetheless) and shoot in the unpredictable and dangerous wild.

There are many things to like about Rescue Dawn, not the least of which is the character of Dieter Dengler. Christan Bale isn't the first actor you'd think of to play a jolly, good-natured man like Dengler, but his performance downright brilliant. When Dieter gives a monologue to Duane about why he left Germany to become an American pilot, it's as great a moment as any Bale has had in his career, and not since he played Patrick Bateman in American Psycho has the actor been so engaging. It helps that Herzog is completely in love with Dengler, but it's hard not to fall for an individual as effervescent and relentlessly positive as this one. (The real Dengler can be seen in great detail in Little Dieter Needs to Fly. The documentary rests very heavily Dengler telling his own story, and the man is a master storyteller.)

Surprisingly, Steve Zahn holds his own against his more lauded co-star. As the vulnerable and broken Duane, Zahn's performance is at times heartbreaking, and it's great to see the mostly comic actor do some serious, affecting work.

Davies brings a New Agey, incredibly fragile psyche to Eugene DeBruin. The actor's usual ticks and mannerisms work to his great advantage here, as Eugene's psychosis evolves throughout the film's running time.

Although it's by far Herzog's most mainstream film to date and, in the end, relies on a cliched Hollywood inspirational coda (which is actually fine with me - the story of Deter Dengler is so inspiring and magnificent anyway that it deserves a sentimental send-off), Rescue Dawn is a finely crafted and fascinating film. Werner Herzog continues to show the world that he is one of its best and most consistent filmmakers.

TEFB RANDOM REVIEW: GEORGE A. ROMERO'S SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD

Directed by George A. Romero





Starring Alan Van Sprang, Kenneth Welsh, Kathleen Munroe



Even if you don't know the name George A. Romero you're certainly aware of the impact he's had on cinema since the late 1960's, horror cinema specifically. The influence of his 1968 classic Night of the Living Dead can still be seen in everything from your local low-budget indie films to high-concept and polished films like Zombieland. While he didn't quite invent the zombie genre, Romero's early films define it, and you'd be hard pressed to find a horror director working in the medium today who doesn't owe a debt of gratitude to the grandaddy of zombie horror.

After abandoning the walking dead after 1985's Day of the Dead (sequel to 68's Night and '78's Dawn of the Dead), Romero returned to the world of undead flesh eaters with 2005's Land of the Dead, the only "Dead" film to be financed by a major Hollywood studio. A modest hit at the box office and well received by both critics and fans alike (including this one: Land of the Dead, although no Dawn, is classic Romero with studio backing), the almost 70 year old director decided he wanted to keep returning to zombie land. He followed Land up with another independently produced production, Diary of the Dead. An abysmal and shoddy piece of work, Diary failed to generate much interest from just about anyone. Anyone besides its director, that is. Undaunted by the reception to Diary, Romero went ahead with plans to make his first direct sequel to a Dead movie (Night, Day, Dawn, Land, and Diary, while all taking place in a world full of zombies, are not related character, plot, or storywise, therefore the latter four are technically not sequels to Night or each other), which resulted in Survival of the Dead.

Survival of the Dead begins with the introduction of a minor character from Diary of the Dead - National Guardsman "Nicotene" Crocket (Alan Van Sprang). While he and his men learn to cope with the oncoming onslaught of the undead, a separate story is taking place on an island off the coast of Delaware. Here, the residents of Plum are sharply divided between two families: the O'Flynns and the Muldoons. Patrick (Kenneth Welsh), head of the O'Flynns, believes the undead should be wiped out, as they only pose a danger to the living. Seamus Muldoon (Richard Fitzpatrick), on the other hand, is of the mind that zombies can learn and become human again. Therefore he keeps them around - some as slaves, some locked in a barn, most chained up - until either a cure can be found or they can be tamed. After a spat at a local farmhouse, the O'Flynns are banished from Plum Island by the Muldoons. The O'Flynns soon run into "Nicotene" and his Guardsmen and, with trained military men and powerful weaponry at their side, travel back to Plum to reclaim their place on the island.

Romero has always, with his Dead films, buried social commentary in horror genre trappings. Night of the Living Dead dealt with race relations, Dawn took a bloody screwdriver to gluttony consumerism, Day of the Dead's nihilistic view pitted science versus the military with sickening results, a microscope was held up to class warfare in Land, and Diary of the Dead grappled with the ups and downs of Generation Youtube. Survival of the Dead is no different, although the lessons Romero is trying to teach are a little more convoluted this time around. It doesn't help that Survival is the second Romero Dead film to use voice-over, which the screenwriter (Romero himself) is terrible at. The first four (and especially three) Dead films work because the viewer isn't bludgeoned over the head with themes and soap-boxing. Diary and Survival's messages are diminished in overwrought prose designed to make sure the dumb get the point. Therefore, Survival's commentary on war and land-ownership is subdued by tepid narration and stilted delivery (admittedly the second part of the statement is not the fault of Romero).

Thankfully, the social commentary (normally something Romero is brilliant, if a little overbearing, with) is just about the only thing in Survival of the Dead that doesn't work. The rest of the film (all 90 minutes of it) is just about the best zombie film you're going to see outside of a Comedy Central showing of Shaun of the Dead. This time, Romero has decided to slip another genre into his zombie story: the Western. Taking cues from William Wyler's The Big Country, Romero has spliced in elements of the Old West into the tried and true Zombie Survival Story.

The best thing Survival has going for it is brevity. This may sound like a knock at first, but it's not. At an hour and a half, Survival of the Dead knows when to quit. It's the tightest film Romero has been a part of, and it breezes by. I'm not sure if the fat was cut in editing or if the original screenplay was as lean as a venison steak, but the movie is as economical in storytelling as they come. It's crackerjack pacing, and I was surprised when the film ended, after being tortured with the laborious effort it took to get through Diary of the Dead. Romero may not have won any fans with that previous work, but he certainly learned how to pace his next film better.

What also makes Survival work is both the acting and the humor, the former creating the building blocks for the latter. Romero's Dead films have always had a darkly funny streak (save for Day, which is so bleak and unrelentingly mean I imagine Hitler would tell it to lighten up), and Survival might be the funniest. It helps that the kills are creative (seriously, what would a zombie film be without creative and fun examples of how to kill the undead/have the undead kill the living?) and that the actors (especially Kenneth Welsh) play along with Romero's black comedy game. Not all of those in the cast can act, necessarily (a few run the emotional gamut from A to B), but they're all good sports, and as classy and fine as a Romero film can get in the casting department. Land of the Dead may have had movie-stars to its advantage (Dennis Hopper, John Leguizamo, Simon Baker), but Survival has the D-grade, just about works, could be good if they really tried cast that Romero's films have had from day one.

Because Survival of the Dead is such a solid and tight film, it's a shame that Romero relied on computer generated effects to complete some of the more elaborate kills in the film. This is the third film the director has used CG in, and it's unfortunate that he's just not very good at incorporating it into the story. The visceral, comic-book violence of Dawn of the Dead and the graphic in your face kills of Day are memorable because they're practical; done in camera and on set. While I appreciate that doing the effects by computer is faster and, most of the time, cheaper, but when the CG is as noticeable as it is in Survival, well, George, pencil in some extra hours on location to make sure the shot looks at least serviceable.

I have to say I'm excited to have George A. Romero back on his game. Survival of the Dead was a film I enjoyed very much, and although it has numerous flaws and is somewhat workmanlike in the direction, it's a worthy entry into the Dead series, and a high water mark in the latter half of a legendary director's career. Congratulations, George. You're back.

Trailer here.

MACGRUBER (JUAN'S TAKE)

Director: Jorma Taccone.

Cast: Will Forte, Kristen Wiig, Ryan Phillipe, Val Kilmer.

Celery up butt cracks, mullets, cheesy 80's music and a villain by the name Dieter Von Cunth? Art, complete #$%^ or something in between? Let's take a look, shall we?

MacGruber (played by actor Will Forte) first appeared in SNL as a 3 minute skit and is a parody of the 80's TV hit show character "Mcgyver". The original Mcgyver was a secret agent that could get himself out of any situation, diffuse killer bombs and save the world by concocting solutions made out of regular household or easy to acquire items. Apparently, any threat could be averted by a cleverly created mish-mash of duct tape, kerosene, paper clips and soap (I'm both kidding and not at the same time). The show was quite popular back in its day and ran for 7 seasons, eventually ending in 1992. MacGruber makes fun of that character's antics and kicks it up 10 notches with crude humor, vulgar jokes and deviant behavior characteristic of this generation's brand of comedy movies.

The question on many of our readers mind's right now probably is: "How did they turn a 3 minute skit into a 90 minute movie"? The answer: By taking the safe route and using the generic story template of a retired secret agent forced back into action due to news that his arch-nemesis (Val Kilmer in a funny turn as the malevolent Dieter Von Cunth) is planning to nuke Washington D.C. Oh yeah, Von Cunth was also responsible for ending the life of one of MacGruber's loved ones. Thus begins our adventure and I was quite surprised as to how well executed the film is. I laughed. A lot.

The movie's appeal lies in its sometimes hilarious story elements and character interactions. Ryan Phillipe plays the part of MacGruber's partner and their back and forth banter's believable, funny and irreverent. Kristen Wiig, MacGruber's female spy counterpart, chews every scene she's in and carries on her shoulders what is probably the best scene in the movie. Her facial expressions say it all and she makes me laugh just by looking at her. Powers Boothe (from the show "24") is perfectly cast as James Faith and plays the part of the US Colonel that brings MacGruber out of retirement in a competent manner. As generic as the plot of the movie may sound, it works. The required story elements are there, the plot twists work and the uncouth gags are plenty. I chuckled through most of the movie and even laughed out loud several times. I had a very good time.

In spite of all of that, I can't recommend you pay the $10.25 required to watch this movie. Had it not been for the fact that I had a free ticket, I would have been a bit upset at having forked the cash for it.

I think the movie works, but as a rental.

MacGruber will gather steam and become more popular after its run in the theaters. In about 4 months, round up a bunch of your buddies together when it comes out on DVD, grab some beers and get ready to have a wonderful time. There may even be moments of uncontrollable guffaws and disbelief at the insanity your virgin eyes will be privy to. Just wait 'til you see the cemetery scene. It will warp your fragile little mind.

Is the movie a bit to much? Maybe. I'll let you be the judge of that. The only thing I'll promise you is a good time. My recommendation is you have it at home and let "Survival of the Fittest" do its thing at the Cineplexes.

Discuss the movie here

TEFB REVIEW: ROBIN HOOD (MARK'S TAKE)

Director: Ridley Scott






Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow



Before sitting down to watch Ridley Scott's new film, I hadn't the faintest desire to see a story about the man behind the legend of Robin Hood. I can safely say that when the credits began to role and the lights went up, I still do not have that desire.

Robin Hood '10 is a long, uninteresting, and tedious film that comes from talent that should know better. What had started out as an interesting project - the script began its journey as a flipped take on the tale that would posit the Sheriff of Nottingham as the hero and Robin as the villain - has been turned into another armor and sword epic that hits every cliche and brings nothing new to the screen. This is the Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull of Robin Hood films - both have a director going through the motions, a script touched by too many hands half baking ideas, and a cast that seems to neither care nor take interest in the material.

The film begins as Robin Longstride (a grumbly and pudgy Crowe) fights as an archer alongside Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlett (Scott Grimes), and a war-worn King Richard (Danny Huston) in Muslim territory in the Third Crusade. When the King dies mid battle and his Knight, Robert Loxsley (Douglas Hodge) is slain by robbers while returning the crown to England, Robin and his men seize a chance to get back to their home land, steal the Knights' identities, and board a ship bound for London as noblemen. Robin makes a promise to Loxley that he will return Robert's sword to his father Sir Walter in Nottingham. Once there, Walter asks Robin to take the identity of his son, which means acting the part of husband to one Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett). Meanwhile, spoiled and bratty Prince John (Oscar Isaac) takes the place of his brother, and bombards his land with oppressive taxes. The muscle to enforce these taxes comes in the form of the villainous Godfrey (Mark Strong, acting all villainy but not as villainy as his Kick-Ass villain), whose men rape and pillage town after town, collecting revenue for the King.

Oh yeah - there's also a sub-plot involving the King of France and his assassination attempts on King Richard, and an impending invasion of England by France. I gloss over these aspects of the story because, well, they just don't matter.

In fact, nothing in this movie actually matters. Neither Scott nor the screenwriters (the screenplay is credited to Brian Helgeland, with a story credit to Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris, but I've read a few other names rumored to be involved in the final draft) seem particularly interested in any one of these elements (except for the battle scenes, which Scott could stage in a coma), and each scene passes by with a casualness that's borderline audience insulting. It's one thing to have a cliched "man rising up against oppressive forces" storyline, but to have people involved that are simply going through the motions is sad.

Scott has never been a director adept or even interested in finding and exploiting the emotional core of a story, instead focusing on extreme technical precision and cold detailing. But when he does make the effort to find the right amount of heart to inject into his films, he's a master at it (see the underrated Matchstick Men for an example). Robin Hood is Scott's coldest and most distant film yet. Very rarely do I find myself so disconnected with the images on screen. At one point the movie became nothing more than distilled to its literal form: individual frames being passed in front of a lens at 24 frames per second. I couldn't connect with what was in front of me on any level. I might as well have been staring at a spinning zoetrope, watching a man riding a horse for eternity.

Perhaps some day I'll come back to Robin Hood and find something to enjoy about it (the one glimmer of hope I saw in it was Max von Sydow, who is literally never bad. In anything). For now, however, I consider one of the lowest works Ridley Scott has ever been involved with. It's a disappointing slog of a film, and a grave misstep for a talented filmmaker.

Discuss this review here!

TEFS REVIEW: ROBIN HOOD (JUAN'S TAKE)

Director: Ridley Scott:

Starring: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow, Mark Strong, et al.

I love this movie. I truly and honestly had a super awesome time at the movie theater this past friday when I went to watch this, for all intents and purposes, prequel story to one of the most popular characters of the past century. And herein lies the reason why many people will not like the movie.

This is not the Robin Hood you know and love. Forget about the "Adventures of Robin Hood", forget about the Disney iteration of the character. That's not the story Mr. Ridley Scott wants to share with you. This is the telling of the harsh, backstabbing, politically charged and war torn times of England in the 12th century. This is the story of how a common archer, one of many soldiers in King Richard Lionheart's army, comes into his own. This is the story of how one man's promise and commitment to his inner word leads him to become a better version of himself. This story is about a man finding and connecting to his purpose and himself while inspiring others to rise to the occasion and be self-sufficient, fully functional and noble human beings.

This is admirable and it's a message not many movies portray nowadays, especially the ones in the summer movie season.

Remember in my Iron Man 2 review how I mentioned I didn't like to check my brain in at the door when I watch a summer blockbuster? Well, this work of art is proof that there are people out there with the intent to engage their audience in smart, plot-driven stories. To me, everything here just clicks, like well oiled cogs in a machine. The cinematography is beautiful and fits the period, the production design is exquisite and the attention to detail and costuming is a thing of beauty. The performances are believable, soulful, funny and honest. Everyone has a clear motive and they veritably change. The editing is well paced and moves the story along smoothly and the directing is solid, tempered where in needs to be and frantic when it is required.

This movie works and believe me, you need to pay attention to get the most out of this flick. If you want a visual smorgasbord of fast cuts, incomprehensible camera placements, loud, overly kinetic and detached editing... walk away from this movie.

If you want to be riveted, treated like a smart audience member and enjoy a combination of elements helmed by a master filmmaker, run, don't walk to your nearest theater and support this movie. I payed a full price admission and I demand to be treated like an adult audience member. Mr. Scott, I thank you for respecting your audience and gifting me with what is now, along with the fabulous "How to Train your Dragon", my favorite movie of the year so far.

Watch this movie.

Discuss here

TEFB REVIEW: IRON MAN 2 (MARK'S TAKE)

Directed by Jon Favreau


Starring Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell



Marvel Comics's film production arm, Marvel Studios, previously announced that, with the ability to cross their characters from one film to another, they will create what president Kevin Feige calls the "Marvel Cinematic Universe." This means that any character in any film produced by Marvel can show up in any other Marvel-related film. It's pretty much unprecedented, what Marvel is doing. We've already gotten a taste of this cross-pollination when Robert Downey Jr., as Tony Stark, showed up at the end of 2008's The Incredible Hulk. Samuel L. Jackson has signed an unheard of nine picture deal with Marvel Studios to play S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Nick Fury.

While it's an interesting and ambitious prospect on Marvel's part, it might also hurt individual films produced by Marvel, as fans will come to expect their favorite characters to cameo in films that aren't their primary vehicle, even if it means shoehorning them in inorganically. Such as the case with Iron Man 2.

For all intents and purposes, Iron Man 2 shouldn't (and doesn't, really) work. Marvel Studios' insistence on making sure the film connects to the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" hampers the arduous and inane second act. Pages of screen time are given over to setting up future Marvel films and ultimately The Avengers. Although there are interesting concepts and ideas in Iron Man 2, these are abandoned in favor of scenes that don't build on Tony Stark's story but end up being easter-eggs for comic fans. It's amazing, then, that I ended up not only liking Iron Man 2, but overall enjoying it more than the previous film. The sheer enthusiasm of the cast and character chemistry makes up for the gigantic shortcomings of the screenplay.

The film picks up six months after the first with Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) defending his Iron Man weaponry against the U.S. government, which seeks to co-opt Stark's technology and utilize it for military purposes. In a long but funny and well-done senate hearing sequence, federal officials explain that they are worried that other weapons manufacturers will create their own Iron Man-esque technology. They are proven right when Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian weapons genius with personal ties to Tony Stark, builds a suit of his own and attempts to assassinate Stark, wreaking havoc at the Monaco Grand Prix in the process. Impressed by Vanko's handiwork, rival billionaire and weapons-tech junkie Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) recruits the puffy-faced Russkie to improve Hammer's line of Iron Man suit rip-offs.

For being such an imposing and outrageous looking villain, Rourke is given very little to do in Iron Man 2. Vanko is essentially driven by revenge, but he spends more time being yelled at by Hammer (who becomes frustrated when Vanko doesn't follow orders) than he does actively pursuing Tony Stark. When Vanko finally does take a pro-active approach to going after Stark, he spends twenty minutes of the film behind a computer, remotely controlling drones in hot pursuit of Iron Man. Many shots consist of Rourke finger-pounding a keyboard while the camera swoops back and forth. He's then given a chance to take Iron Man on one-on-one (or one-on-two, with War Machine in the picture) in an ending battle so short and anti-climactic as to be mind-boggling.

Meanwhile Stark is being consistently poisoned by the palladium in his arc reactor (that thing in his chest) and the constant threat of death hangs over his head. This causes him to act irrationally and, in a hilarious birthday-party bash sequence (seriously, Stark in Iron Man suit scratching "California Love" is one of the funniest images so far this year in film), an intervention is made on his behalf by his best friend James Rhodes (Don Cheadle) who steals Stark's War Machine suit and battles it out with his drunk belligerent friend in the middle of Tony's beach side mansion.

It is the relationships between Vanko and Stark and Stark and Rhodes that are dis-serviced by the addition of Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury and the S.H.I.E.L.D. sub-plot. Not that the information doesn't contribute to Iron Man 2's main thread, but much of it feels tacked on shoe-horned in, against the better judgment of screenwriter Justin Theroux and director Favreau. There is a scene in which S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) advises Tony that Coulson is going to New Mexico. The scene exists simply as a set-up for Marvel Studios' next movie, Thor. It's a short scene, but it's one of many that could be excised with no damage to the plot or structure of the film.

It's a good thing, then, that Iron Man 2 has the cast that it does. Downey Jr. has found the role of his lifetime in Tony Stark, and the banter between him and his assistant Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow) is delightful. Potts is more than just a bit player in Tony's world, she's he's support, and the two display their years of history through the time honored cinematic tradition of good acting and solid dialogue. Scarlett Johansson (never looking better) is convincing as the dangerous S.H.I.E.L.D. member Black Widow. She gets some amazingly choreographed fight scenes towards the end of the film. Cheadle and Rourke are fine in their respective roles but unfortunately, as previously mentioned, their roles are reduced and truncated.

The film's secret weapon (and probably the main reason I enjoyed it so much) is Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. I've long been a champion of Rockwell; without a doubt one of the finest actors working today, and in Iron Man 2 he doesn't disappoint. Justin Hammer is Tony Stark if Tony Stark had to act like Tony Stark. Everything that comes natural to Stark is foreign to Hammer. Watching Hammer try to one-up Stark in every department (especially showmanship wise) is one of the best features of the film. It's clear that Favreau and Rockwell see Hammer as the true villain of the film and not Vanko, and Rockwell relishes every moment.

With some script revisions and some heavy editing, Iron Man 2 could have been the sequel that everyone was expecting after the solid first film. As is, it's good but frustrating film. It is not a better film than the first one, but it is one I personally enjoyed more. There are fascinating and fun elements of this film that I couldn't help but love, and these elements were enough so that I could forgive the film for its multiple flaws.

Discuss Iron Man 2 here!

TEFS REVIEW: IRON MAN 2 (Juan's Take)

Director: Jon Favreau

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell

The summer movie season is officially here, that time of the year where soda runs free, popcorn pops aplenty and big, fun, engaging blockbusters entrance our imagination and show us the power cinema has to excite us and take us to new and far reaching worlds. That's the goal, right?

You know, I don't like the idea that with the summer movies one has to check in their brain at the ticket booth, so to speak. I think there's an unspoken assumption that during the summer season, movies don't need to be that good, as long as they are entertaining. I vehemently disagree with that idea. Is it too much to ask for a film that engages all my senses, has a good story and pulls on my emotional strings? As District 9 proved last year, I don't think my request is too far-fetched.

Iron Man 2, to me, is not a better movie than the first one. The movie by itself is just OK. Whereas the first one had heart, witty comedy, good action sequences and an amazing performance by all the cast, the standout being -of course- the extremely charismatic and talented Robert Downey Jr., the second film delivers too much witty banter, action sequences, great performances (especially Mickey Rourke as Whiplash, the movie's "main" villain), slow pacing and not a lot of heart.

Slow??? Really? A Marvel superhero adrenaline-pumping summer action movie... slow? Indeed. I perceived two major problems with the movie, both interrelated: the first one was the way the movie was edited and the second one the script's structure and focus.

Iron man 2 would work soooo much better with 15 to 20min edited out of the film. There were parts during the film were it slowed to a crawl and became repetitive. After the first major action sequence of the movie (and the best one in my opinion), the movie settles into lull and I think that's where the movie's flawed script comes into play.

MAYBE MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!! TREAD CAREFULLY

The way the script is structured, something happens after that first action sequence -plot wise- that completely made me lose all emotional investment I had in the characters and in their journey. The movie's main drive, the obstacle or opposing force, is removed and then we are treated to a series of subplots that don't carry nearly as much weight as the main plot line. Add to this the fact that the other major plot line in the movie's resolved 45min before the end of the film, and you are left with a very vapid, kinda funny but ultimately bland third act.

END OF MINOR SPOILERS!!!

In summary, the movie blows off its charge way before the final, and required, third act big action sequence. By that point, I don't care any more and I am just watching for the sake of watching. I lost my interest in the story and I do believe, ultimately, that the problems started all the way back in the most important and oft-forgotten stage of making a movie: the script. Don't get me wrong, I think there are some pretty sweet special effects (Tony Stark's holographic-type research lab for one), very quick, smart and funny dialogue and an awesome fight scene involving Scarlett Johansson's character that proves she's the hottest woman in the planet (required primitive caveman-like male remark) but I truly felt a lacking in the emotional investment side of things. And to me, that is what ultimately separates a good movie from a great one.

I am disappointed to say the summer movie season started off in a somewhat lukewarm fashion for me. I just don't like to check in my brain at the entryway to the theater.

Discuss Iron Man 2 here!