Move Review: "Saving Mr. Banks"

Hey movie fans! Due to some computer problems, just text this week.

There are three big movies coming out this weekend... but I only got an invite to one of them. Not that I'm bitter... no. I mean, I would have loved to see "The Hobbit" or "American Hustle," but hey, this is a good film also. Fine film. Enjoyed it. Honest.

Not bitter.

Anyway... "Saving Mr. Banks" tells the highly fictionalized, a more than a bit slanted, view of how Walt Disney was able to get the rights to "Mary Poppins." Emma Thompson plays a very prim and proper, (and, yes, prickly and persnickety) Mrs. P.L. Travers, creator of "Mary Poppins," and Tom Hanks as the charming, demanding, "Walt Disney."

In this telling of the tale, Thompson is out of money, and in need of funds, so she finally gives into requests from Disney to begin production on the film version of her beloved children's book.  As soon as she arrives, however it is clear that Mrs. Travers is against everything that Disney stands for... that being light, mass marketable, colorful, and bright. As the film develops, we see into Travers past, through a series of flashbacks to her home in Australia, and her alcoholic, but loving father. It set's a dark undertow to the film trying in the most simplistic of ways to explain why Travers is so hard to deal with, and why she is so protective of the "Poppins" story.

Both Thomson and Hanks to a great job with their roles. Their dynamic, while a bit two dimensional, is charming. With all of Hanks/Disney's warmth, you can't help but hope his charm melts her heart, and everyone ends up flying a kite at the end. The supporting cast helps enforce that theme, but are little more than side characters designed to react to the others antics, or to provide some childlike wisdom. Again, two dimensional, but they do good work with those two dimensions, and their roles play well in what is supposed to be, at its heart, and more lighthearted, emotional film.

I enjoyed how accurate they attempted to be with the historical setting as well. I would have loved to have seen more of the Disney that was, but I'll admit, I'm a bit of a Disney history buff. My favorite touches actually came in the credits, when we got to see some of the original sketches from the production crew, and hear some of the audio recordings Travers made with the writers. On a related note, for not being a musical, this film is able to use the sound from the movie to great effect here, even making one song a near climatic point in the movie.

Parents, a heads up: While there is nothing wrong with bringing your kid to this film, it is not a kids movie. Despite including "Mary Poppins" history, this is a very slow and emotional film that deals with some heavy topics. Then again, maybe you're trying to get your kids to fall asleep...

Before I wrap up, I did want to take a time out and talk about my only real problem with the film, and it didn't have to do with the film as much as it did the real historical account. While I accept that in the films narrative, Travers is supposed to be an unhappy, and very hard to deal with woman, it comes off often as attacking her as being... well... a bitch. The film takes time to try and explain why she feels this way, before Disney's charm melts her heart. In reality, the Travers had every right to be picky, and complain about what Disney was doing with her film. This is her most famous, and prized creations, and she's defending her work. Whatever her motivation, she should protect it. And, in the end, Disney pretty much ignored all of the things she had demanded from the film version. (Most of all, the animated segments.) I had wondered why there was no closing cell to explain what happened after the the movie was released, but now I know... Travers was NEVER happy with the movie. She complained to Disney the day it premiered, and when she died, she stipulated that another film version would never be made from her works. And, you know what, she was right! Ask anyone under 50 now about "Mary Poppins," and they will think of the Julie Andrews, and the dancing penguins. No one remembers the prim, proper, and (while magical) very stern "Mary Poppins" of the books. Travers, for all of her fussiness, was proven right. This isn't even getting into her being depicted as a lonely spinster, or attacking her for daring to be a woman who stands up for herself, and is unwilling to compromise what she considers quality.

Anyway, rant over. Like I've said before, I rate my reviews on the movie I see, and not on what transpired behind the scenes, even if what happened behind the scenes was the truth. So, when looking at the movie, by itself, I found it to be a charming, if somewhat predictable piece of Disney cheering for itself.

Now, I have to try and score some tickets to the Friday 10:45 showing of "The Hobbit."

Movie Review: "Frozen"

Hey movie fans!

Liza is slaving away in the kitchen, and our expensive HD Smart TV is showing a video of a fireplace.. that can mean only one thing... Hmong New Year!  That's right, Hmong New Year, when families around the nation get together, light a Menorah and tell everyone what they're thankful for. It's a great time of year.

And the week of Hmong New Year also means, the start of the Holiday Movie Season! Normally a time for a couple big films, some Oscar Hopefuls, and some family films. In this case, Disney's latest leap into non-pixar cartoons, "Frozen." based very (VERY) loosely on "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Anderson.

In a nutshell, the story is about two princesses. The older has been blessed/cursed with the ability to make things cold. (Think, Iceman from the original X-Men) The problem, her power is growing beyond her control, and the only way to calm it down is for her to be in control of her emotions. The other sister is full of fun and adventure, and has grown stir crazy stuck in a house, unable to have guests, with a sister who is cut off from her. When the older, sister is crowned Queen, she become upset, looses control, and freezes the entire kingdom. Fearful of what will happen to her, the Queen retreats into the wilderness, leaving it up to her younger sister, along with a charming ice-seller, to convince her sister to come back, and thaw out the kingdom.Things actually get more complex from there, if you can believe it.

Despite the complex plot, "Frozen" does a good job of keeping the action, and the plot simple and moving. Some of the characters are extremely simple, and the timing is a big too convenient,  but this is a family movie we're talking about. To be honest, while there are a lot of plot developments, most of them are so cliche ridden, you can see them coming from far off. But the most surprising element in my mind, is a lack of a strong, overarching villain. I mean, Disney Villains are often time the best part of the cartoon. But in Frozen, we have a story that's more about the love of two sisters, and the feeling of trust, than it is about defeating some bad-guys plot. It's refreshing,  and shows that you don't need to follow the same exact formula every-time to make an entertaining story.  Now, before anyone who has seen it can call me out, there is a bad guy in the movie, but he's not very strong, or overarching. In fact, he's little more than a plot device to make the third act seem a bit more thrilling.

The cast is made up of some of your standard tropes, but all done with the standard Disney Charm that makes them so easy to like. If there was a standout, I would have to say it was Josh Gadd as the Magical Snowman, "Olaf."  Full of great comedic lines, and imaginative uses of his snow body, he steals most of the scene's he's in. The best twist, as a snowman, he only have a slight idea what "Summer" is, so he helps the group try to bring it back, not realizing what that means to for his fate...

Of course, you can't have a Disney Film now without a musical. Indeed, many of the songs are really well done, and I really enjoyed a couple. Like most Disney Films, all the singing stops once the real plot kicks in, so they have to cram a lot of singing into the first half of the film.

If you can afford it, I really recommend seeing it in 3D. It has some of the best effects I've seen in a while, and I really enjoyed the constant "snow" effect. Not that you'll lose any of the plot in 2D, but it really makes it more fun. I'm told by multiple sources that the short cartoon at the beginning is amazing in 3D. (Sadly, I missed it due to the woefully slow concession line.) on that note, also stay for a bit more after the credits.

Parents, there are some violent aspects to "Frozen." While the emotional characters make the movie stronger, they also make the scenes where violence takes place more intense. Children may become a little emotional at times. But other than that, this is pretty G-Rated, with no deaths. Just hold your child's hand, and tell them everything is going to be OK. (Well, unless the kid hates spoilers.) \

I really recommend "Frozen" for this season, not only to families who are looking for something to do while the kids are out of school, but to anyone who is looking for a nice fun time. (In case anyone needs a scale, I like "Tangled" and thought "Frozen" was better. )\

Well, I'm off.  The fireplace in my TV is nearly burned down, and Liza's Apple Crisp is ready to go in the oven. I'm afraid I'm going to have to work on Hmong New Year tomorrow, but my work will provide my with the traditional Hmong New Year Turkey and Gravy, and Liza and I will light the Menorah on Friday.

Till next time.. would someone please get me preview tickets for Hobbit or Anchorman?

Happy Hmong New Year!

Ron Edens

Movie Review: "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire"

(Editors note: I have to apologize for the quality of this podcast. I was sleeping, and trying to be more conversational, but my words and my brain were not working together when I spoke. So, I say a lot of nonsensical worlds in this review. In short, sounds pretty silly. So, if you want to listen, feel free, but be prepared for some silliness. )

Hey movie fans!

You know what that music means… it’s time for the second annual hunger games movie!

But first… and apology… earlier this week, I posted on my blog I would have three movie reviews this time… but that’s not the case.  I skipped out on Vince Vaughn’s “Delivery Man,” because my girlfriend was sick… and because everyone says it’s just awful…  and I did see Disney’s Frozen, but that’s not going to be released until next Wednesday, so the studio has asked me to hold me review. Seeing as they are nice enough to keep giving me movie tickets, that’s fine with me.

So, onto this week’s movie.. “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.” This is the second film in the franchise based off  “The Hunger Games” series by Suzanne Collins. I have actually read the first two books, and I liked the first movie, so I was really looking forward to seeing the second film.

The story picks up after the climax from the last film, with Katniss, played by Jennifer Lawrence, and Peeta, played by Josh Hutcherson, being celebrated for their victory in the games. But, as the last film implied, the games were just the beginning. Katniss is haunted by her experiences in the Games… and despite her feelings for Gale, played by Liam Hemsworth, she has to pretend to be in love with Peeta.

I know, it sounds super teen soap opera, and to be frank it is.  But the love triangle is only part of the story… because Katniss act of defiance has inspired others.. and rebellion is starting to build against the oppressive government.

Much like the last film, “Catching Fire” is full of good drama, and action. By widening the story beyond the games, we start to get a better feel for the oppressive and cruel world Katniss lives in. This is no bella-clone, perfect in every way, and desired by all. Katniss is a very hard to like person, who seems genuinely conflicted not just about her feelings for Gail and Peeta, but also about her feelings about what to do about the growing rebellion.

Drama and emotions aside, it takes a lot longer to get to the action in “Catching Fire,” and when we do, there’s not as much as the previous film.  This sequel is more about building the story, and the drama than the last, and making us wait for the action to build.  The action that does exist, however, is mostly well done, able to again convey the danger, and the confusing nature of the battle.

On that note, parents expect to see much of the same violence, and death as you did in the last film. This is not a film that teaches kids that violence is OK. Quite the opposite, it teaches the strength needed to stand up for those weaker than you.  But it also shows just how disturbing violence can be, and even takes great strengths to show the emotional toil it has on a person.

Before I finish, I want to make a quick note about the films co-stars. I imagine they were all brought in to satisfy the need for star power… but to be honest, all of them do a great job in their roles, adding depth to the story. Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffery Wright, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland, even Amanda Plummer all make strong contributions. 

Wrapping up;  Even without as much as we saw in the first film, I actually enjoyed Catching Fire a little more.  The plot is better, and more detailed, with even more tension and suspense. The threat this time is more than about just Katniss, or Peeta, it’s the future of these people. I recommend it fully.

Next week… Disney’s Frozen. And While I’m not going to give away too much, I will say, I love Josh Gadd.

Big Movie Week!

What is this, Summer? I have 3 movies set up to watch next week!
One involves Fire...
One Ice...
One.. Vince Vaughn...

Might need to review all three in one review!


Ron

Next week...

No review this week... but next week there's three! So... you guys think I should do all three as one podcast?

Ender's Game

(I'm going to preface this review with a little statement. This Week's movie is based on a book by an author who, while being recognized as a influential figure in science fiction, also has some social views I consider to be wrong. I'm not going to detail them, but if you are curious, a simple search on the internet will give you all the information you need on that. I also know that by seeing this movie you are helping to give money to said person who holds these views, and has spoken publicly about them. That all being said, my review is based on the movie I saw, and not he book, or the man behind it. So, in addition to the question about the movie itself, one may question if they should support this film due to your beliefs. If you decide not to see it due to those beliefs, I completely understand. My review, however, exists outside of that. )

(now, on with the review)

Based on the classic science fiction story, "Ender's Game" tells the story of a world threatened with annihilation, and the boy who may be it's only hope... at least that's the story on the surface. The hero of the story is a young boy named "Ender" who may have the skills, and mindset needed to lead humanity against what out leaders call, our biggest threat. As the story progresses, we see Ender develop in skill, and in leadership, but as he grows, he learns to question those very leaders who have selected him to save humanity. If that sounds like a rather vague plot description, know that anything more may lead you to more spoilers than you want in a review.

Like many great science fiction stories, "Ender's Game" is about more than just the lasers, and aliens and space ships. It's a question about humanity itself, and the extremes we are willing to go though. To be sure, there are a lot of high set piece special effects, but they serve to enhance the story, rather than to overshadow them. Without the plot, the visuals are stunning, but they meaning is lost. As you can imagine, the plot puts Ender, and us, in positions where there are no clear cut answers.

The cast of "Ender's Game" does a well enough job, if they are a bit wooden at times. The best performances come from the leads, Asa Butterfield, as Ender, and Harrison Ford as Col. Graff, the man who believes Ender is the boy who will save humanity. Butterfield portrays Ender's mix of confidence, and loneliness well, while Graff keeps us guessing as to where his true motivations lie, and how far he's willing to go. Ford seems like a great choice to me, as I, like many movie goers, have been conditions to like Ford's characters. these two help bring out the best in every scene they are a part of, and help keep us emotionally involved.

I mentioned the special effects before, but I did want to mention how good they are. I saw the film on Imax, and while maybe it's not as impressive as "Gravity" it does help to showcase the action. The action itself was also quite good, although most of it was held back until the very end. Again, the special effects are there to aid the story, not to be the main focus of the movie.


Parents, there is some violence in this film, but it's nothing compared to what we see in most teen oriented action movies. Even more impressive, in my mind at least, is the fact that the we see constant reminders of the impact of said violence. There are no explosions that kill scores of people that we simply forget about,and no  fights to the death that are just chances for action. This is a film that's more about violence, and it's impact on a child, than a film that showcases violence. If your pre-teen wants to go see the film, I urge you to go with them to see the movie. After it's over, sit and talk with them about the dilemmas that are central to the film.

 Many of the greatest Science Fiction stories are about much more than just simply space aliens. They are stories about us, and our fears. They're given bug eyes and mutant powers to make them more entertaining to us, but they help instil in us a real challenge to look at the world we live in in a different light. "Ender's Game" follows in this tradition admirably, both entertaining, and enlightening.

Advance Review Sceening!

Hey guys coming up next week...

ENDERS GAME

then the week after that...

THOR: The Dark World

"Kick-Ass 2" & "Elysium"

Hey Movie Fans! Two films this week, but because I'm sleepy as all get out, they're a bit short.

When it came out, “Kick-Ass” attempted to turn the superhero genre on it’s head. It attempted to show exactly how silly, violent, crazy, and earnestly heartfelt a would would be if it was actually filled with costumed vigilantes. The Sequel, “Kick-Ass 2,” hopes to take this one step further, expanding the concept beyond a few, and into teams of both heroes, and villains.  The only problem, much like other sequels that look to introduce new characters, “K-A 2” is soon overloaded with new plot lines. To make room for all these new stories, we not only have to sacrifice much of our time with the main protagonist, we also have to wade through a lot more talking, and less ass-kicking. Mind you, many of the scenes without violence are still funny, but there isn’t the same level of action as the first note. While I understand the need for the additional characters, and I enjoyed some of them, I felt some of the plot lines were left dangling, or simply ended with no clear resolution.

Also, while this is “Kick-Ass 2,” it should have been named “Kick-Ass & Hit-Girl.”  Chloë Grace Moretz’s purple hair girl with the innocent face, and the taste for bloodshed takes a much more prominent role. This isn’t really a complaint. We’ve already seen the story of “Kick-Ass.” Now we get to see what happens when a girl used to taking out crack-dealers and pimps takes on something really evil; Mean Girls.

The action, when it happens, is on same bloody, over the top level as the original. Expect some extra fun from Jim Carrey, who looks like he’s having way to good of a time, and a surprisingly underplayed John Leguizamo who is, for one of the few times, playing the straight man.

In short, if you were a fan of the original, you should enjoy "Kick-Ass 2," but it may leave you with the feeling you want to watch the original again.

Next up is a late review of the Neill Blomkamp hard Sci-Fi film, “Elysium.” Much like the amazing surprising “District 9,” this film attempts to use the sci-fi medium to tell a parable about today’s world, and the injustice we live in. This time, his target is health care, immigration, and using our fears of terror as an excuse to shut ourselves off from the pain the rest of the world endures. Just like his previous film, “Elysium” does it well. The world is both wretched, and believable. Filled with robot thugs who are programed to follow the law without compassion, and a system that seems more concerned about keeping the poor mollified than helping them rise up. The special effects are likewise impressive, with mostly believable high-tech gear. (with the exception of the main mcguffin of the film. The tech for an instrument like that is far beyond the scale of what we see.)  The action is shaky, and very violent. It can be hard to follow at times, but I felt the frantic pace kept up with the immediacy of what was happening.

The only real problem I had with the film was the lead, Matt Damon.  Just like the protagonist of “D9”, he plays an everyday man who is forced to challenge a larger problem not due to his desire, but due to circumstances beyond his control. But Damon, while acceptable actor, is just too good looking, and too likeable. Even after shaving his hair, he doesn’t look like  a man who has lived a hard life on this terrible world. Sure, he looks beat up, and sick, but still, this is Matt Damon we’re talking about. But this is a minor problem in what is otherwise a fine film. It may not have the same resonance as “District 9,” but in terms of action, and rating it as a summer pop-corn flick, it surpasses the previous film in many ways.

That’s it for this time. In an unrelated note, I’m considering a pod-cast version of my reviews. Let me know what all of you think.

Ron

Movie review preview

"The Wolverine"

One of Marvel's most well known superheroes returns to theaters this weekend in "The Wolverine." This is the sixth time Jackman has spiked up his hair, and traded his Broadway vocals for Canadian growl. (That is, if you count X-Men: First Class. and I do.) It's also the second of the series to showcase Wolverine, but unlike "Origins," this film is placed squarely after the event of X3.

At the start, we see that Logan is slightly more devastated about the events of the last film than the X-Fans who had to watch it. After spending some time living like a caveman, he's lured into traveling to Japan to visit a dying man who he saved from a nuclear blast back in WW2. Soon he's caught up in a convoluted plot of conflicting loyalties, debts of honor, damsels in distress, and unneeded 3D effects.

Based VERY loosely on the famous Chris Claremont, Frank Miller limited series from the early 80's, almost all of the action is set in Japan, with Wolverine fighting everything from Yakuza to Ninjas in a world where every single thug has at least a few karate moves. And just in case you were worried you might actually get the same story from that famous series, don't worry, all of the characters are altered just enough that even devoted nerds will be left saying things like, "Wait, she doesn't have any powers." Of course, your average movie fan isn't some nerd who knows more about the Age of Apocalypse than the Industrial Revolution. They'll have no idea why some of us are upset with these changes. Instead, they'll mostly be wondering why these additional, superfluous side characters were thrown into the plot in the first place.

Anyway, all that aside, "The Wolverine" isn't actually that bad a film. It's a little slow to start, but once it does there's a good deal of action and drama. Jackman does a great job with the character who finds himself becoming a hero again, despite all his better judgement. There are a few lighter moments in the film, and I really enjoyed some of the action sequences. Throw in a bit of an impractical romance* and you have all you need for a passable action film. Sure, the plot is confusing, and the end of the movie comes off the tracks, but it's still better than "Origins" or "The Last Stand."

 Like I said above, the 3D in the film is really unneeded. Sure, there are few cool effects, but for everyone of those, there's a badly done 3D effect that really pulled me out of the film. There was one bit my girlfriend and I both noticed. The stunt wasn't complex, and I'm sure they did it in live, but the 3D effect was done so poorly in post that it looked fake. 

Parents, once again, Wolverine's most improbable power isn't his metal claws, or his healing factor, it's the fact that he guts his way though half of japan, and only manages to get a few spots of blood on him. I mean, really. He has these claws, and he is slicing dudes like a teppanyaki chef on speed, and I see more blood when I cut my nails too close. So, yeah, there are claws, and death, but at least you don't have to see yucky blood. 

So, if you're looking for a brief escape from the heat, and you're into some bloodless mutant rages, you could do a lot worse than "The Wolverine," bub.

*still better romance than "Twilight"

Movie Review: Despicable Me 2

(Note: I had thought this opened today, but it turns out it comes out July 3rd. as a result I'm not really supposed to post it. So... nobody tell the studio on me, OK?)

In "Despicable Me 2," out in theaters next week, Steve Carell returns as the voice of Gru, a (now) former evil mastermind trying to adjust to his new life with his three beloved girls. But Gru is not a man for backyard cookouts,  and playing nice with the neighbors, so once the government tries to get him to help them find a new evil menace, he grabs his Freeze Ray, and gets the minions ready for action.  

Like the 2010 original, "DM2" is a fun colorful romp, with lots of likable characters (especially the Minions.) Mind you, this is a sequel, and so some of the novelty of the concept has worn off a bit, but the writers did a good job at enforcing the parts of the original that worked (the Minions) and adding more characters who fit well into the goofy assortment. 

The 3D effects are still also as good, if not better than the original. Mind you, many are BLATANT uses of 3D, but to be honest, some of the best uses of 3D are blatant.  They do a great job of reminding you why you forked out that extra money, and allowed the film to be a bit dimmer.  Still, the 3D is not crucial to the plot, and if you're looking to save some money, then feel free to.

Parents, while this is a family film, it is PG. There are some moments of peril for some of the characters. And while the minions appear to be immune from any of the damage,  they still do hit each other quite a bit. But, like the first one, I feel the violence is mostly harmless, and balanced by what is, at its heart, a plot with a positive message. 

So, if you're looking to take the kids out, or maybe you just need a break from being some damn serious all the time, then I recommend that you check it out. 

Just for fun, here's my review for 2010's "Despicable Me."

And tell them Doktor Klankenboom sent ya!

World War Z (mini review)

Well, once again circumstances are keeping my review brief.

Over a decade ago, Max Brooks helped to put Zombies into the main stream. His first book, "The Zombie Survival Guide" was enjoyed by more than just your standard horror fans. His second, "World War Z" pushed it even further, helping to make zombies so hip, in a decades they would be acceptable romantic leads. (I know... GR is the Zombie God. I'm focusing on one thing here.)

So, more than a decade after its release, we finally get the movie. Fans of the book, like myself (Mitch, I still have your copy!) Had a gut feeling that KT could be never be as good as the source. And, to get to the point, its not. The movie took what was a thoughtful tribute to Zombie films of yore, as well as war movies, and a surprisingly realistic view of what it takes to win, and turns it into another action flick filled with disaster porn.  Gone are any of the elements linking this film to traditional Zombies. In, are the fast moving zombies that can kill and convert you in seconds.

Mind you, as an action film, its not bad. Some of the scenes are quite thrilling... but never really scary.  And, with a PG13 rating, there's nothing that even closely resembles Gore.

Oh, and the last act of the film is a huge let down compared to the rest of the film.

As for 3D, only those who really love it should bother. The best 3d in the film was the opening credits.

If you're looking for yet another action flick, go ahead and see it. But if your looking for some good old Zombie action,  you'll be left slack jawed.. drooling... and really wanting to rend flesh.

Quick Review: The Internship

My computer has crashed, so here comes the quick review.

The worst part of "The Internship" is the premise itself. The Comedy features the Wedding Crashers themselves, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, as a pair of unemployed salesmen looking to win a job at Google.

The comedy is there, the root-for-the-underdog spirit is there... but floating above it, like a toolbar you haven't gotten around to uninstalling, is Google.

This isn't a generic movie computer company, filmed with cast members of "The Big Bang Theory," this is the polished dream Google of the company's own advertising. Filled with young, beautiful nerds. (That is, unless adorably cute... or just fat. They leave one fat guy in for a few laughs.) These nerds looked like they just stepped off some ad for Google.

And the company itself is looked at with such awe and wonder. The building itself is filled with free food, nap time, and toys. And the love of the Google isn't spiritual. They also tout the Googliness of Google. The spirit that fuels this machine to improve the world. 

I'm not saying Google is a bad company. I am typing this out on an Android phone, posting it from Blogger.  I remembered my screening through Google Calendar and reminded myself with Google Now. Its just, after two hours, the comedy seemed much less like a movie, and more like a commercial.

Wrapping up: the jokes are rather tame considering most current comic outings. It does sexualize women all over the joint. 

I laughed at The Internship, I really did. And if that's all you want, than it will do fine. I just feel like Google should have paid for part of my Ticket.

Ron

"Star Trek: Into Darkness"

     Super quick review: "Star Trek: Into Darkness" will be very enjoyable to anyone who enjoyed the first one. Same great action and special effects. Great nods to past Star Trek films, with some surprising twists. Good 3D but not mandatory. Parents, darker (as the title implies) than the first. My only real problem: maybe I'm just to sensitive to collateral damage. We'll have that discussion later.

Random Iron Man thought...

Just how old was Howard Stark when he had Tony?

Think about it...  in 1942 we see Howard at his youngest. The actor who portrays him is in his 30's. He acts like a guy in that age group. Lets set him at 30.

In 2008 we first meet Tony Stark. Now, by that time he was being played by a man in his 40's, but he was acting more like a man in his 30's. Let's assume, that was just Tony's youthful spirit, and say Tony was just 40.

Now, doing a little math, that would put Tony's date of birth around 1968.

That means Howard Stark was in his late 50's when he had Tony.

Not unheard of.. but still, a late father.

As a side note: The actor who played Howard Stark in Iron Man 2 was a man in his 40's. Assuming he filmed it just before or right at Tony's birth, that would work out fine with the age of the actors.

A side note to that note: that Actor, John Slattery, would go on to play another man in his 40's in a story set in the 60's.  Hmm... Iron Mad Men. That would explain all Tony's Sexism, and the booze.

Iron Man 3

In 2008, the first "Iron Man" took the world by a bit of a surprise.  With a dynamic plot, humorous moments, and a story that was true to the spirit of the comic, (if not the plot) the film shot new life into the Superhero genre as well as the career of  Robert Downey Jr. Since then, "Iron Man has been the red and gold standard that all Marvel Movies have been compared to.  Most Marvel films (especially "Iron Man 2") had fallen short until the release of "The Avengers" the last year. So you can only imagine the big, Iron shoes Iron Man 3 had to fill.

The film begins with Tony dealing with the after effects of "The Avengers." Despite his smarmy attitude, Tony is having to come to grips with the fact that, without the armor is is only a genius billionaire playboy philanthropist. This vulnerable, panicky, worried Tony is a fresh look, and Downey takes in believably. When he's finally angered to act, his overconfidence costs him a lot, leaving him on the run without his wonderful toys to help him. And this is the part that really shines. We see Tony truly redeem himself. We see why he's really a hero, and what it really means to be a super-genius in a superhero world.

Much like "Iron Man 2", "3" has to deal with a flood of new secondary characters. Thankfully, unlike 3, we only really have to see how they interact with Tony. No dwelling on Mickey Rourke brooding over his motivations that really, we couldn't care less about. Guy Pearce makes for a great villain. One that's not simply greedy, or power hungry, but one is willing to take his time to make everything work. In the first film Stane represented the old school, hoping to feed off of Tony's brilliance. In the second, those cast aside seeking revenge for sins of the past (or something, to be honest I was never really sure what was going on there.) Pearce, as  Killian, represents fears of the future; Glossy, and good looking on the outside, but in reality, a monster without a soul.

The special effects are about on par with what you would expect, although I was disappointed to see the final fight take place at Night. While I understand its easier for the special effects budget,  the night, coupled with the 3-D glasses leaves the scene feeling a little dingy. As for the 3D, huge fans of seeing things jump out at you should feel OK about paying the extra bucks, but it's nowhere near a must. if you would rather just watch it in 2D, I don't think you would be robbed of anything.

Parents, "Iron Man 3" is a bit dark at times, like the first two films. You know what to expect. Sex content is mostly leering quality.

"Iron Man 3" may not stand up as tall as the original, or "The Avengers," but it can at least stand proud as a good addition to the Marvel film series, and a pop-corn crunching action flick.

Movie Review: Oblivion

(Editor note: This was going to be longer... but then my night went all sideways.)

There's something familiar about "Oblivion." While this is definitely a well made, and visually stunning sci-fi flick, I couldn't help but having something close to deja vu while watching it. Maybe it was the lead, Tom Cruise, who is playing the same basic good-looking-super-confident-devilish-good-guy that he's been playing for three decades. Maybe it's the basic plot, that is *very* familiar to another sci-fi film from a couple years ago. (If I say what, I'll spoil the "twist'.) Maybe it's the fact that Morgan Freeman shows up to be the wily, wise, old man to give our hero some advice. Maybe it's the scenes of a devastated New York that I couldn't wait to navigate with my Pip-Boy.

Despite the ever present deja vu, I found myself enjoying "Oblivion." While the acting wasn't award worthy, the actors did a solid job at portraying their trope-ridden characters well enough for me to feel at least partially emotionally attached. While the plot was re-used, I was still drawn into see exactly how it would all play out. On top of it, you have some really top notch special effects, and one really good high speed dogfight.

The chief problem (at least the one that I think many movie goers will have) is how long it takes to get to those good moments. The story builds up SLOW, taking time to introduce you to the world, and letting the magnificent visuals chance to really breath. While I was fine with it, watching on a crystal clear IMAX screen, many may find themselves checking their watches, or day dreaming.  During those moments, you may miss a plot point or two (and there are a LOT of little plot points.) Thankfully, by the time the film comes to an end, they reveal all the secrets, and give the audience a nice little wrap up of all the loose ends.

Parents, unless your kid is some wonderfully patient tike who is Ok with long moments of boredom, followed by really loud and intense action, please do all of us a favor and wait for Blu Ray   I know, you want to get out, but this film will just be torture for everyone involved.

On a special note, I would like to thank the makers of Oblivion for *NOT* making this movie in 3D. On it's face value, this film looks like it should have been the big 3D event of the month. But really, the colors, and the imagery,  are so crisp, and so wonderful, to have them covered in fuzzy, dim 3D would have been a real crime. (then again, I could see them re-release this one in 3D before Summer is out.)

So, if you're looking for a pretty, and entertaining, if a bit slow, start to your big movie weekend, check out Oblivion. Just make sure you grab cup of coffee on your way to the theater.