Avengers: Age of Ultron

By all accounts, 2015 at the movie box office is the year of BIG MOVIES. Released in early April, Furious 7 zoomed past the $1 billion dollar mark already and was joined this week by Avengers: Age of Ultron, the next big thing in the Marvel franchise. The scary part for my nerdy self is there's still Mad Max, Jurassic World, Spectre, Mission: Impossible, Terminator, and of course, Star Wars to come in theaters. I loved Furious 7 and wouldn't you know it? I loved Avengers too.

In the Eastern European country of Sokovia, the Avengers -- Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) -- are able to fight their way into a Hydra outpost to recover Loki's all-powerful scepter. Back at the Avengers base, Tony Stark wants to use this power for good, using the scepter's power to create a brand of artificial intelligence that could shield the world, to protect it from all threats. Nothing goes quite to plan though as the artificial intelligence uses its ridiculous amount of pressure, calling itself Ultron (voice of James Spader), and escapes across the world's technology intent on destroying the Avengers and ultimately ruling the world. Can this ultra-powerful tool and weapon be stopped? At what cost? Once again, it comes down to the Avengers putting their differences aside to pull off a seemingly impossible mission.

It's been three years since the first Avengers movie hit theaters and tore apart the box office, earning $1.5 billion worldwide. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is a franchise that continues to pile up the money, and typically, positive reviews. Fans love them -- for the most part -- and I include myself in that list. These Avengers movies have become the perfect blockbuster, huge, sprawling action adventures with a crazy cast and crazier action. Director Joss Whedon returns to helm this sequel, and even he admits the work that goes into making these movies (Read...the intense, soul-crushing PRESSURE) is brutally tough. Whedon even wrote this daunting screenplay. Potential world-ending villains, double-digit MAIN characters, countless quick, cameo appearances, and the high expectations of the franchise's countless fans, man, that is a TON of pressure.

So yeah, reviews were a little more mixed here than with the first flick. Sure, there are some flaws and hiccups along the way. None of those flaw/hiccups proves to be too big a problem simply because these movies are so damn fun. Like all the franchise entries, there is a certain formula to follow, but 'Ultron' is able to tweak that formula a bit. All the characters are there, the witty banter, the great villains, the world-shattering action. The F-U-N. The story doesn't always make a ton of sense, but it becomes an issue of...well, does it really matter? You sit back, eat some popcorn and go for the ride. It's a relatively long movie at 141 minutes, but it never feels long. Things are moving too fast and there's too many moving pieces for this money-raking sequel to actually slow down.

The biggest appeal for me with the Avengers flicks above the action or the villains or all the craziness is the ridiculous cast. These casts, my goodness, they're epic. With so many characters, we don't always get the depth/development/background you might want, but Whedon's script certainly goes for it. We continue to see the budding rivalry between Iron Man and Captain America, the budding lovey-dovey relationship between Bruce Banner and Black Widow, and I thought the coolest part, getting to know the most-human members of the Avengers, Hawkeye and a secret he's been holding onto and Black Widow and her past as an assassin trained by the KGB. There's so much to cover, a movie clocking in at 141 simply can't give too much character development. These are all characters capable of carrying a movie on their own -- and many of them have -- so when you combine them, it comes together pretty perfectly. There's almost too much talent for it NOT to work.

That cast, that ridiculous list of stars though, it simply isn't enough. Right? Right?!? We need more characters!!! James Spader is perfectly voice-cast as Ultron, the artificial intelligence hell-bent on destroying the world. Spader's voice is silky and smooth and droll and dripping with intimidation. Without ever appearing on-screen, Spader is a scene-stealer. Also joining him in the villains department are Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen as the Twins, a Russian brother and sister with special powers, Pietro with super speed and Wanda with mental manipulation. Quite the interesting trio. Also appearing in smaller parts -- but necessary ones -- are Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill, Because of the behemoth that is the Marvel universe, there's also Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell, Stellan Skarsgard, Thomas Kretschmann, and because that wasn't enough, more characters including Linda Cardellini, Claudia Kim, Andy Serkis, and an expanded role -- a very cool one -- for Paul Bettany as Jarvis.

This may come as a bit of sacrilege, but I thought the weakest part of this money-raking sequel is actually the action itself. Look, here's my thoughts. It looks great. It looks polished. It looks CRAZY at times, but you just know none of it is real. It is all CGI to the point you get lost in it. There's not as much emotional punch. Action movies have become so reliant on this stuff that is becomes a crippling crutch. I haven't seen it yet but Mad Max: Fury Road is getting ridiculously positive reviews because the action is real. They went out and filmed it and did the stunts. To a certain extent, the same for Furious 7. The action is great and shown on a huge, world-shattering scale, but it's almost too polished. The exception is the destruction-riddled finale, an incredibly put-together extended action sequence that is able to blend the CGI with the characters and their bonds (and some twists along the way) in an extravaganza of fights and stunts and destruction.

Yeah, there are issues. With this much going on, it would be near impossible for there not to be issues. But by the time you get to the scene where the Avengers -- and some surprising reinforcements -- dig their heels in for a last stand against Ultron's minions, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance, and it's all in slow motion...........oh man, fan boy moment! It's hard not to go along for the ride. It isn't perfect, and I liked the first Avengers more, but this is about as entertaining as anything you could ask for. Quite the daunting task taken on by Whedon and his script, but I'll call it booming, flawed gem of a success. Now onto other Marvel films....and there will be tons! The ending especially sets things up nicely for the next Captain America movie, set for release in 2016. Bring it on!

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015): *** 1/2 /****

Iron Man 3

Okay, so can everyone agree that Robert Downey Jr. was born to play Tony Stark, the coolest of the Avengers, Iron Man? No?!? What's wrong with you? The first movie, released in 2008, started up a superhero franchise that was fun and exciting and action-packed with lots of cool characters. The series is almost a perfect companion piece to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy in all their cynicism and darkness. Now it's five years later and we've got our third flick for Downey, 2013's Iron Man 3. Will it be the last?

It's been several months since Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) helped the Avengers turn back Loki and his alien minions in New York City, but Tony is still struggling with what he saw and did. He hallucinates, can't sleep at night and exhibits all sorts of signs of PTSD. He may have found something to bring him out of his funk and in a big way. A mysterious terrorist dubbed the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) is unleashing attacks all across the world, defying anyone to stop him. Governments can't stop him, countries just waiting to be attacked. Tony steps up to the plate, telling the Mandarin to come and find him. Iron Man will put an end to the worldwide tyranny. Tony gets more than he bargained for when an attack is unleashed on his coastal home. His life is torn apart and he is feared dead by everyone who knows him as well as international media outlets. Forced to work from the ground up, can Tony rebuild from the ashes to take down this new, seemingly unbeatable enemy?

Now heading into this third Iron Man installment -- this one from director Shane Black -- I was under the assumption that it would be the last of the series, excluding the Avengers sequels. Downey Jr. has said he won't continue with the Iron Man series, but he'll be there for the Avengers 2 and 3. Good news there! I went in here with mild expectations. I liked Iron Man 2, but on a second viewing liked it a little less. Reviews were fairly mixed for this third installment, but that didn't seem to matter. It is currently the fifth highest-grossing film of all-time. Woo, money! I came away disappointed with this one though and can't quite put a finger on it. It's entertaining enough if a little long. Self-indulgent? Sure, most superhero movies are. Something else is missing though. It's more than a little schizophrenic, wasting a deep cast and some really solid moments.

What's above questioning? Though the script doesn't know what to do with most of the characters, Downey Jr. steps up to the plate. This is Tony at his most human. He's been beaten down, and even though he helped the Avengers win in NYC, it took a physical and emotional toll on him. Once the Mandarin unleashes his debilitating attack, Tony/Iron Man almost has to start over. It's cool and refreshing to see this other side of a character you feel like we've gotten to know pretty well. What sets it apart is somewhere in Tony's head is the smarmy, smart-ass, ultra-billionaire Tony Stark we all know and love. This is a great character however you cut it. Black's script has its issues, its flaws from the get-go, but delving into a familiar character in a way we haven't seen before certainly makes it a worthy film.

The rest of the cast is loaded, however misused or underused. Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Pepper Potts, now in charge of Stark Industries and trying to work out her relationship with Tony as much as possible. She's given little to do for much of the movie, but gets her chance at the badass spotlight late. Don Cheadle is basically completely wasted as Rhodes, Tony's friend who's been tasked with piloting the Iron Patriot, the military's version of Iron Man. Jon Favreau returns as Happy, Tony's former bodyguard, but it's a background part here. Paul Bettany also returns and has some fun as the voice of Jarvis, Tony's robotics assistant. Young Ty Simpkins has a good part as Harley, a young boy who comes across Tony at his lowest.

Maybe the weakest part of 'Man 3' is in the Villain Department.The always solid Guy Pearce plays Aldrich Killian, a brilliant scientist who has developed the technology to manipulate human DNA and create super soldiers. Pearce is a good counter to Downey Jr., his cocky demeanor a worthy foe to Tony's similarly cocky attitude. Kingsley is a great addition to the franchise too as the underused Mandarin, a mysterious international terrorist with no qualms about death on massive levels. Rebecca Hall plays Maya Hansen, an engineer who worked with Aldrich in the past and is now caught in the middle between right and wrong. James Badge Dale is perfectly creepy as Savin, Aldrich's enhanced henchman. Two separate twists disappoint but for different reasons. One is really, truly stupid and messes with the whole tone of the movie while the other doesn't come as nearly a big a surprise as it had to be intended.

It's a superhero movie. The technology is supposed to be goofy and not in any way reality. Somewhere along the way, this one really disappointed me. Aldrich's super soldiers are a cool concept, seemingly indestructible killing machines brimming with dangerous amounts of energy in them. Maybe it's taken too far, maybe it's the relatively unexplained motives of all the bad guys (other than POWER and WORLD DOMINATION), or just the general excess of the finale, but I didn't go along with this movie as much as the previous two. The action-packed finale at a cargo shipping yard has about 50 automated Iron Man suits and Tony and Rhodey and Aldrich and Pepper and everything going on. It was just too much.

There were parts I liked, most of them dealing with Tony. The intro scene goes back to Bern in 1999 as we meet a younger but still cocky Tony, including a nice nod to the first Iron Man as we meet Shaun Toub's Ho Yinsen who we later meet in a cave with Tony in Afghanistan. Stark's monologue at the beginning and end is fitting, a man learning who he is and how he get there. Mostly, I felt like this was wasted potential. A somewhat disappointing conclusion to the trilogy (if it is the conclusion) but still worth watching for the always fun Robert Downey Jr.

Iron Man 3 (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Flight

Released in theaters in November 2012, director Robert Zemeckis' film Flight has generated all sorts of positive buzz. It received almost uniformly glowing reviews, and star Denzel Washington has earned a Best Actor nomination for his lead performance. It's a decent enough film, but seriously....did I miss something? I came away hugely disappointed, even bored, with this one.

A longtime pilot, Captain Whit Whittaker (Washington) heads to the Orland airport to pilot a quick flight from Orlando to Atlanta, barely in the air for an hour. But as the flight nears its destination, Whittaker's co-pilot (Brian Geraghty) freaks out when the plane's controls go dead in his hand. Whittaker calmly tries to right the ship, but nothing he do seems to help, especially when the airliner starts to nose dive straight down to the Earth. With time running out, Whittaker does save the day, controlling the plane and turning it so he's actually flying upside down. He puts the plane down in a field, and 96 of 102 people onboard make it through the horrific incident. Whittaker is a hero, or is he? A toxicology report says otherwise, and an investigation reveals a much deeper, darker side to the supposedly heroic Captain Whittaker.

I'm vastly disappointed that I have to say I was hugely disappointed with this film. The combination of Washington, Zemeckis and a strong supporting cast seemed like it would be all I needed to go along with this one. So what happened somewhere along the road? I'm not quite sure. The best I can come up with is that I don't really know the point of the movie. I don't know what Zemeckis and screenwriter John Gatins are trying to say. The movie clocks in at 138 minutes, and we get our money's worth. It feels long, very long. The story isn't quite episodic, but that's only because nothing really happens. We see Whittaker talk to a long list of people, all in hopes of figuring out his own fate and involvement with the crash. There are some truly dumb transitions, plot twists and turns that are horrifically stupid, but the story needs them to happen. That's never a good reason. Dumb rarely helps a smart movie.

All I can come up with as to Zemeckis and Gatins' intentions is a character study of a truly unpleasant, very dark, flawed individual. Washington has done dark before, but nothing quite like this. His Whit Whittaker is one of his most easily hated characters. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS Whit is addicted to all sorts of drugs and is a functioning alcoholic. He flies the plane drunk and with drugs in his system, most notably cocaine. Was it his fault? No, it was a mechanical issue, but how can anyone trust him? Does he want anyone to trust him END OF SPOILERS KEEP ON READING I don't need a main character to be 100% sympathetic -- I love dark main characters -- but here, I was actually rooting against Whit. He is offered help by everyone around him, and still he refuses. It's a decent enough performance from Washington, but Oscar nomination worthy? I think not.

Where the movie doesn't fall short is in the supporting cast. Bruce Greenwood plays Charlie Anderson, the pilots' union representative working closely with Whit as the crash investigation grows. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a top-level lawyer who knows every nook and cranny, and he's going to use all of them to help get Whit off unscathed. I liked both performances a lot, two men genuinely trying to help Whit even though they're rebuffed at every opportunity. John Goodman hams it up as Harling Mays, Whit's drug supplier, who is around for three quick scenes. Along with Geraghty, Nadine Velazquez and Tamara Tunie play two of the flight attendants on the doomed flight. Kelly Reilly plays Nicole, a woman in her late 20s struggling with drug addiction who meets Whit following the crash. And last, Melissa Leo plays Ellen Block, the head of the NTSB investigating committee.  

Is the point of the movie to show a truly flawed, not particularly likable character like Washington's Whit Whittaker? I feel like there should have been more going on than just that. Flaws are interesting, but alcoholism doesn't translate well in the interesting department. Similar to Days of Wine and Roses, it isn't appealing in the least to watch an individual keep regressing into their own inner demons. How many times can we see the same thing before it gets repetitive? I was intrigued by Whittaker, but that's all. I was never truly into the character, the film, or the story. His budding relationship with Reilly's Nicole doesn't go anywhere and drags down an already slow-moving story.

Some scenes do work. The opening plane crash sequence is startling and unsettling, but it doesn't come as much of a surprise. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen it. Just the same, the image of Whit's plane flying upside down is an amazing visual to watch. As well, the final scenes at the NTSB hearing are solid as Whit is interrogated, his inner demons torturing him as he decides how much to admit to. The build-up to those scenes feature some of those awfully dumb twists that come across as unnecessary. I just don't know. Almost all the reviews were positive, but I just didn't like this film enough to recommend it. Very disappointing.

Flight (2012): ** 1/2 /****

The Guard

One of my favorite actors currently starring in movies, Brendan Gleeson is from that oh so familiar sub-group of actors....the character actor! Duh dun duh! He's perfect in those supporting roles that typically have him play alongside the lead instead of being the all-important lead. Thankfully, some studios saw that the Irish actor is extremely talented. In 2008, he co-starred with Colin Farrell in In Bruges (a great movie), and has continued with a lead role a few years later in 2011's The Guard.

In his quiet town on the Irish coast on the North Atlantic, Sergeant Gerry Boyle (Gleeson) goes about his duties "policing" the town. He's unorthodox and doesn't have much of a filter in communicating, but he's a good cop nonetheless. With a new officer on staff, McBride (Rory Keenan), Boyle investigates an odd murder, an outsider shot in the head and left to rot. Boyle and McBride wonder if it's a possible serial killer, but there's bigger things afoot. An FBI agent, Wendell Everett (Don Cheadle), has arrived to help the investigation. Everett believes the murder was involved with a huge drug deal that could net half a billion dollars in cocaine. Now the country cop must deal with the American agent, the time wasting away as the deal approaches.

A dark, indie Irish comedy was a new one for me. I can't think of another Irish movie I've even seen, but I picked a good one to start with. According to Wikipedia (and when are they ever wrong?), 'Guard' is the most successful indie Irish film of all-time.  First-time director John Michael McDonagh is working with familiar territory here, the fish out of water agent/officer forced to work with the eccentric, hometown police officer. But familiar is not a bad thing because McDonagh and the cast make it worthwhile. It feels like you've seen it before, but still manages to have that unique, unseen quality. The kinda quirky tone and eccentric qualities to it all work (think Irish Fargo in a way), and the Spanish guitar-themed score just adds to the quirkiness.

There was some pre-Oscar buzz that Brendan Gleeson would be nominated for an Oscar for his role as Sgt. Gerry Boyle, but that never materialized. Maybe because it's a comedy, the performance didn't get a ton of publicity. And if it isn't an Oscar-winning part, it is a very good one just the same. Gleeson's Boyle is somewhat proud of his racist prejudices, drinks on duty, samples drugs, visits prostitutes, but as an officer he always gets the job done. All vices aside, he is a good cop...even if his techniques are a little off-the-wall. His lack of a censor or filter provides a ton of laughs. He isn't necessarily racist, just curious and generally inexperienced with anyone non-white and non-Irish. A sub-plot with his mother, Eileen (Fionnula Flanagan), helps humanize him too if you're having trouble liking the character. It's just more proof that characters actors are more than capable of becoming lead actors.

The more familiar territory does come with Gleeson's Boyle working with Cheadle's Wendell as the investigation into the drug deal develops. Boyle isn't angrily racist, he's just prejudiced by stereotypes. He assumes Wendell doesn't like to swim, grew up in the projects, and that all drug dealers are black and Mexican. To his credit, Wendell doesn't flip out on him. The dynamic though is what makes the buddy cop relationship work. Differences aside, they'll get the job done. Gleeson and Cheadle are two immensely talented actors in whatever role, comedy or drama, and their chemistry is what makes that familiar story worth watching. Toward the end, Boyle asks Wendell if he's been shot before, and the exchange about the pain involved is priceless. The button-down American agent and the eccentric Irish cop? Can't go wrong.

Developing his story, McDonagh has some fun with his villains too, making them more than just underworld thugs. The trio is led by Sheehy (Liam Cunningham) and includes London enforcer Cornell (Mark Strong) and sociopath killer O'Leary (David Wilmot). The basic characters have been done before, but never quite like this. Sheey leads his crew in a discussion of everyone's favorite philosophers and said philosopher's most famous line. Strong's Cornell almost blows up on cops he's cutting a deal with them, asking them why he'd skim off the top a few thousand dollars when a $500,000,000 drug deal is on the line, also claiming he got into drug trafficking, not carrying heavy things. Given an option to run or fight, Cornell states "It's like f'ing Christmas!" and opts to stay. They're villains, yes, and rather nasty ones, but they're not run of the mill by any means. Other solid parts include Michael Og Lane as Eugene, a youngster who always helps Boyle, and Dominique McElligott (of Hell on Wheels) as Aoiffe, a prostitute Boyle visits.

I was somewhat surprised by the direction the film takes in its last 20 minutes. It was already pretty dark comedically, but it leans just more straight dark dramatically in the finale. The confrontation on a dock at the drug deal is a good action scene, added by a spaghett-western like score playing over the shootout. But what's really surprising is the open-ended quality of the ending. It leaves it open to the viewer to decide what happens, much like 2008's In Bruges. What ending works for you is what it comes down to. A really good, really funny comedy.

The Guard <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

My usual stance on remakes is pretty simple; if the original is good, why bother? If the original is awful with some sort of potential, okay, go ahead with it. Of course, there's exceptions to every rule. A minor classic in its own right based solely on entertainment value, 1960's Ocean's Eleven didn't need to be remade. If you're going to remake a quality movie, you better improve on it, and 2001's Ocean's Eleven is the rare remake that's better than the original.

After being released from prison following a four-year sentence, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has plans...huge plans. A thief and con man, Danny heads to Los Angeles where he signs on friend and fellow thief, Rusty (Brad Pitt), to join him. What's Danny's plan? He's going to do what no one has ever done; rob not one, not two, but three Las Vegas casinos and their impregnable vault on a fight night when over $160 million will be waiting if the job can be pulled off. The owner of the casinos? Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), the cutthroat businessman now going out with Danny's ex-wife, Tess (Julia Roberts). To pull the job though, Danny's going to need help so he starts assembling a team of con men, thieves and specialists. Impossible for this group? Nah.

This is a fun movie. There, that's all I really need to say. Everything else is just fluff. This 2001 remake is the definition of what a fun, entertaining, popcorn movie should aspire to. It's smart but not condescendingly smart. It's funny but it doesn't try too hard. It's ridiculously unrealistic, but who cares?!? Look at that cast! Director Steven Soderbergh made one of the most polished, stylish caper movies ever, improving on the groundwork set up by the 1960s Sinatra version. Las Vegas is a crazy, over the top place and that translates well to the movies. A score/soundtrack from David Holmes is a funky, cool retro mix of music, as fun and energetic as the story itself. HERE is the main theme. I defy you to not bob your head, tap your foot as you hear it.

The script is great here, the thing that keeps it all moving. It sounds so simple, a well-written script in a dramatic but not heavy drama film. It is a smart script without being in your face smart. Putting the team together, Danny asks Rusty "You think we need one more?" Rusty's face is buried in his arms, and he says nothing. Danny answers "You think we need one more," a statement now. He finishes "We'll get one more." The script gives a very talented cast a chance to shine and interact, especially Clooney and Pitt, but there's not a single character who isn't given a chance to shine. What came first in a chicken or the egg scenario? Does a good script boost a cast, or does a great cast make a script better? Short answer....who cares? The movie's great either way.

An ensemble-cast worthy of a 1960s epic, I still wonder how a cast this big was assembled. Clooney, Pitt, Roberts and Garcia would be enough for most movies but not here. Danny's crew includes Frank (Bernie Mac), the inside man working in the casino, Reuben (Elliott Gould), the former Vegas casino owner and bankroll, Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan) Malloy, two brothers providing transport, Livingston (Eddie Jemison), the tech specialist, Basher (an uncredited Don Cheadle), the explosives expert, Saul (Carl Reiner), the aging con man, Yen (Shaobo Qin), the acrobat, and Linus (Matt Damon), a young pickpocket and thief on the rise. You couldn't ask for a better cast. The scene post-heist is a gem too, the team standing in front of the Bellagio fountains to Claude Debussy's Clair de Lune. Watch there <---- and listen HERE.

Fun and entertainment value aside, this is a heist film, and the casino vault heist doesn't disappoint. Now anyone who's been to a casino knows how ridiculous security is, but that's the fun of it. Could a job like this ever really work? No, but I'm sure Clooney, Pitt and Co. could pull it off nonetheless. A full 45-minutes, the heist goes down on a fight night, the 11 pulling a long list of cons and tricks to take down the vault. Things have been hinted at but nothing specific so seeing the twists and turns provide a great ride. Even on repeated viewings, the twists still work. How often can you say that? It's a great movie, one you can watch over and over again.

Ocean's Eleven <---trailer (2001): ****/****   

Out of Sight

Combine a novel by author Elmore Leonard, a director in Steven Soderbergh with style to burn, and a deep cast led by the always cool George Clooney. What do you get? A smart, well-written, funny, romantic and entertaining heist story, 1998's underrated Out of Sight.

Serving a sentence in a Florida penitentiary for bank robbery, Jack Foley (Clooney) basically piggybacks onto another escape attempt, managing to break out with his old partner and friend, Buddy (Ving Rhames), waiting for him for the getaway. Also waiting though quite by accident is U.S. Federal Marshal Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) who pulls a shotgun on the attempted escape. With no other options, they throw her in the trunk of a car -- Foley too -- and manage to escape. Jack's got an idea for an easy robbery (taking down Albert Brooks' house and its $5 million worth in uncut diamonds), but now he's got a problem. He likes Sisco, really likes her, but they sort of got off on the wrong foot. Now he's got to get to Miami and Detroit eventually with former partners, ex-cons, and a U.S. marshal on his tail. Nothing comes easy.

This was Soderbergh's first mainstream film, and while it was successful, it wasn't a huge hit. For a first 'big' film, the director shows a steady hand and an idea of what he wants to do. It's refreshing to see stories that know they are good but don't feel the need to show off. They just know, and that's enough. 'Sight' is a stylish movie with a great visual look and cool, laid back score from David Holmes. It is funny because it isn't trying to be funny, getting laughs out of the bizarre situations characters find themselves in. A little leisurely in the pacing at times -- 123 minutes -- but you go along for the ride and enjoy it. Or you should at least. It's good.

What makes it good is that for the most part, absolutely nothing happens until the last 30 minutes. This isn't an action movie or a comedic drama or a heist film. This is about the characters. Jumping off from Leonard's novel, 'Sight' is about the dialogue, the interactions, the camaraderie and relationships among a long list of fully developed characters, not just cardboard cutouts posing at characters. Soderbergh has shown an ability to work with these deep ensemble casts full of big names, and it all started here. The dialogue snaps and crackles (I guess it pops a little too), the actors/actresses clearly having some fun with a story that is meant to be just that; fun. That gets lost so often in the shuffle. Movies can deliver messages, they can shock and surprise you, but most of all they should be fun.

The chemistry between co-stars George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez is picture perfect. Still a rising star at the time, Clooney is already perfecting that roguish "bad guy" you can't help but like. He's smooth and cool, and he's good at what he does; bank robbing. As for Lopez, I've never thought of her as a great actress -- more a movie star -- but she has this quiet confidence as Sisco, a marshal who finds herself constantly proving herself even though she knows she has the ability...even if no one else does. Their scenes together are some of the sexiest, coolest scenes around, including their "road trip" in a car trunk and a later encounter at a Miami hotel. Who thought in the middle of a prison escape-turned heist story we'd see a romantic story jump in? It works though in all the right ways.

That's just two names though, and oh, there's so many more. Rhames is one of the best character actors around, and he's a great sidekick/partner to Clooney's Foley.  They have a history as partners robbing banks, and their conversations reflect that history, that bond built up over years of working together. Don Cheadle chews the scenery as Snoopy Miller, an ex-con turned small-time crime "boss" working with and against Foley and Buddy. Steve Zahn is the unknowing, clueless dupe, Glenn, who reveals the location of all those uncut diamonds. Brooks doesn't have a huge part, but he makes an impression as the Wall Street crook always on the prowl for a "deal." There's also Luis Guzman as Chino, a double-crossed con on the loose, and Dennis Farina as Marshall Sisco, Karen's father. Oh, and Michael Keaton makes an uncredited appearance out of nowhere. Yeah, Batman is here too.

While I enjoyed the build-up, I very much liked the last half when the robbery is put into plan. If movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing ever goes as planned, and it doesn't here. Brooks' house is gargantuan, hallways stretching on for miles seemingly as everything hits the fan. A handful of great moments -- funny, dramatic, surprising -- and a great final scene featuring a cameo from Samuel L. Jackson which seemingly set up a sequel that never came. So in other words, just enjoy this one. A lot of fun from beginning to end.

Out of Sight <---trailer (1998): ***/**** 

Iron Man 2

The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Temple of Doom, all sequels and 2nd in a trilogy that's better than the original.  Okay, not Temple of Doom, but the others still count. Is that the expectation though or the exceptions to the rule? In the age of milking a franchise cash cow for everything it's worth, the biggest blockbusters of the last 10-15 years have been sequels, often of superhero movies.  One that surprised several years back with its popularity and success at the box office was Iron Man, but unfortunately 2010's Iron Man 2 just can't live up to the raised expectations.

When it comes to superhero movies, I fall somewhere in between.  Yes, I like them, but I didn't grow up reading comic books by the hundreds, and I especially don't know the superhero universes where everything has already been set in stone so that a franchise must follow it to the letter.  The problem with any successful franchise though is what to do after the first big success.  You can't just duplicate the first movie. You have to do everything bigger and better.  Director and supporting player Jon Favreau follows that idea by throwing everything into a script that never decides what to focus on and suffers because of it.  Too much going on, too many characters, lack of any development with those characters, and surprisingly enough for a summer blockbuster, not enough action.

Six months since revealing that he is in fact Iron Man, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has basically wiped out any sort of worldwide conflict. In doing so though he has the U.S. government and the Department of Defense on his tail to give up the Iron Man so that it can be a controlled commodity instead of one man's all-powerful weapon.  That's the least of Tony's problems though as the use of the Iron Man outfit is slowly killing him with possibly a year to live.  He turns over control of Stark Industries to secretary and girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and starts to live things up. It's hard to be the best though and rival weapons contractor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is using the talents of a pissed off Russian physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) to create his own deadlier version of the Iron Man.

Now regardless of how this cast was utilized or underutilized, I can say that without a doubt this is one of the best casts ever put together for a summer blockbuster.  Downer Jr. again cements himself as one of Hollywood's best actors here playing cocky, narcissistic, downright arrogant Tony Stark who somehow is still lovable.  Paltrow isn't used as well here as the first one and seems like more of an afterthought than anything.  Indie star Rockwell and rejuvenated Rourke are great choices to play the villains even though they're both underused, especially a scene-stealing Rourke.  Then don't forget Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D, Don Cheadle stepping in for Terrence Howard as Colonel Rhodes (an upgrade from the 1st movie), and Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman (Black Widow, member of Shield).

Can you have too much of a good thing though?  That cast is downright impressive, but other than Downey Jr. none of them are given a ton to do.  They're introduced into the storyline, fade out, and then reappear later as needed.  And from someone who is definitely looking forward to The Avengers movie, that whole subplot feels like it's being shoved down our throats as viewers.  But that's the problem with the whole movie for me.  There is a ton going on, and then nothing at all at the same time.  For almost 90 minutes, nothing happens other than Tony moping around.  Favreau has all these great elements and can't peg down what he wants to do with it.  The first Iron Man certainly had some slower moving segments too, but here they're just more noticeable.  At 124 minutes, this is a movie that could have been cut by 15 or 20 minutes and been a sleeker, more compact finished product.

Now to counter 90 minutes of basically nothingness, everything is thrown in the last 30 minutes, by far the best part of the movie and one of the better finales in an action movie around.  Stark and Rhodes -- both outfitted in Iron Man outfits -- go toe-to-toe with Ivan's army of drone Iron Men in an epic showdown that never overdoes it with the CGI.  It is an action scene where everything is visible and never moves too fast, keeping you interested even knowing we're watching computerized robots beat the crap out of each other.  Add in Johansson in a skintight leather outfit (to be fair, every movie needs that) kicking ass against endless nameless security guards, and you've got quite a finale.

I can't put my finger on it, but something was missing from this sequel.  It lacks a certain energy the first one had and never truly finds it's footing.  It tries to one-up the original while sticking to its origins but can't find that all-important middle ground.  Downey Jr again is solid, Cheadle is an upgrade, Johansson is beyond gorgeous as the eye candy, Rourke and Rockwell are above average talents, and the action-packed finale is a whopper.  But for whatever reason, it doesn't add up.  Worth watching, but I was disappointed here.

Iron Man 2 <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****

Traitor

Even though the 9/11 attacks happened eight years ago, making a movie about any of the following -- Iraq, Afghanistan, terrorists -- is about the equivalent of trying to sneak into the White House to talk to Obama. You won't be successful, and there's no way your plan ends well. Yet, people in Hollywood still continue to try to put their own spin on the conflicts going on around the world. Maybe the wounds are still too fresh, but it's hard to imagine a big box office for any movie dealing with these sticky topics. Even the critically loved 'The Hurt Locker' struggled in theaters, never getting a wide release. By the way, definitely looking forward to seeing that on DVD.

Part of the problem is that these current world issue war on terrorism movies just haven't been that good. Finally saw one this week, 2008's Traitor, that while not great is an interesting look at modern terrorism, government intrigue, and personal beliefs, both morally and religious. But instead of being too preachy, there's some good action, several exciting chase sequences, and a not so surprising performance from star Don Cheadle. Be forewarned, from here on in, I'm going to be throwing SPOILERS left and right because this is one of this flicks that's more than a little hard to review without a few key (read *twists*) plot revelations.

As a young boy in Yemen, Samir Horn sees his father killed in a car bombing. It's an event that changes his life as a grown-up Samir (Cheadle) joins the U.S. Special Forces only to stay in the Middle East following his discharge. There he works with Muslim terrorist cells, using his expertise with explosives and engineering to keep these cells occupied with bombs. It's at a meeting to sell these explosives that Samir is captured and thrown in a Yemenese prison. There he forms a friendship with Omar (Said Taghmaoui), a member of the cell Samir was working with. An FBI agent, Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce), visits Samir, offering to help him get out, but he wants none of it.

It is not long before Omar and Samir escape the prison, hooking up with the higher-ups and remaining members of their cell. The group, known as Al Nathir, plans to cause chaos in the U.S., not just with one attack, but with 50 attacks happening simultaneously. Al Nathir has been planting sleeper agents throughout the U.S. for years, and now they will each board a different bus on the same day at a prearranged time. The lynch pin is this, they'll all be carrying bombs Samir builds. Continuing his investigation, Clayton sees all the evidence pointing to Samir, but something seems a little off. Can he stop it before the attack?

SPOILERS If you disregarded my previous warning and kept reading, now would be the appropriate time to stop if you don't want the movie spoiled for you. SPOILER Let's face it, Don Cheadle isn't a terrorist, and that's the only big flaw this movie has. There is no way in hell a movie with a major Hollywood actor starring as a hardcore terrorist would get released in theaters. So to resolve that, Cheadle is an agent deep undercover trying to expose the cell that trusts him so closely. His only link to the government he works for is an intelligence operator, Carter (Jeff Daniels making the most of a small part).

But what does work in this context is that none of the story is whitewashed. To convince the cell and his superiors that he is legit, Samir does actually build bombs for them, including one that goes off in an embassy and kills several people that weren't supposed to be there. Cheadle shows off his acting chops in the aftermath, silently tearing himself apart as he reads the newspaper recounting the attack. He doesn't say a word throughout, and it's a powerful, very moving scene. And even riskier, Taghmaoui's Omar is presented as a sympathetic character. That's a ballsy play showing a terrorist as anything but pure evil, but it works. Their unlikely friendship (man, that sounds like a Disney movie) is a key as the movie develops.

Director Jeffrey Nachmanoff chose to set this story in modern times, but it does have elements of any number of genres; the spy movie, the political thriller, the action epic. On a purely entertainment level, Traitor goes up a notch because of that. The characterization and development sets the groundwork for a good movie, and then all those other things lift it up some. There's a message without being preachy, and at the same time it's entertaining as Samir and Omar seemingly race around the world. Locations include Chicago, France, Canada, Morocco, London and Marseilles. Pretty good for a relatively small budget and a somewhat controversial storyline.

This one slipped through the cracks upon its initial release, but it's one worth catching up with. One of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, Cheadle delivers both an emotionally charged and understated role at the same time. Pearce is the FBI agent trying to do his job as best he can, only to realize he's not so different from the man he's chasing. A nice blend of action, intrigue and a message. Definitely worth a rent.

Traitor <----trailer (2008): ***/****