Reviews

Complete rubbish. Static acting. Plotholes galore. Hard to follow at times. Ending was contrived. Alternative characters grab-bag. Energy of movie lacking. Please don't make another sequel.

This is not a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. As with everything .diz buys, it cuts out the heart and puts the rest up for sale. Starts good out the gate and then squanders in a pool of mistaken identity. Maybe its because the heart died when Stan Lee passed, idk, but there is very little spark from the origin left to light a fire with. Hopefully it will only be a short term before .diz finds it's spark again.

I was fortunate enough to get a per-release screening of this and I really enjoyed it for the most part. As with any book to movie adaption, I wasn't too thrilled about some of the decisions. The cast was well chosen. Because of the incredible leaps in CGI, some scenes were spot on. The acting was pretty spot on. Hans Zimmer did the music, but I found the constant presence of it a little on the monotonous side. I also could tell he paid homage to the previous movies, primarily the first one scored by Toto. The film also had moments when it dragged.

I believe it will be well received when it's released.

I'm very disappointed. Most stories in the Star Wars universe usually have something for most age groups, but I'm not getting anything from this. I keep watching in hopes something less predictable and "cutesie" develops but generally feel I've wasted an hour watching these weakass episodes. If there was a review that strongly stated the age group it appeals to (imo 6-12), I'd manage my time better. Maybe Favreau needs to move this to prime time Saturday morning cartoon slot.

By the trailers, I walked into this viewing slightly skeptical of how this endgame story would unfold. However nearing the end my wife leaned over and whispered ".... are you crying?" I nodded and continued to wipe the wet places under my eyes with my sleeve. Yes, there were weak point in the movie, and the anticipation of a second Fury seemed like an advertisement ploy, but the handling of the new characters were deployed with complete grace. I get a little tired of the whole nemesis thing, and why this rather well defined character had the specific drive seemed out of place and could have been caped with something a bit darker. All the characters have grown up a lot, and now that Birk is a haven for dragons spawns its own set of problems. Some cat lover would say "you can never have enough cats". I'm sorry, but yes. You can have too many cats. So a side story spawns. If a spoiler is defined by a story line, then here's your spoiler: "What happens when you thought you befriended the last night fury in the known dragon world and found out there was one more - and it was female?" You know the inevitable is going to happen, but you don't want anything to get in the way. Production wise, music, color, animation were all spot on. I love John Powells score and Chris Sanders influence (Lelo and Stitch) has such an influence on the graphic nature of all the characters there is not much here you can't love (but there will always be those that will say different. But the one thing most striking about this is the way it closes off the trilogy. I hope and pray they don't resurrect this in the unforeseen future, it's perfect the way it is. It's a good film for most ages. Children under 4 will enjoy it, but comprehension will not come easily. But 5 on, go for it! -B

Maybe I'm suffering from a CGI overdose, or maybe I'm tired to seeing the slow-mo superhero stunts, but for me, this was not a memorable move, nor do I really want to take my wife to see it. I can't spoil this movie, it did it for it's self. It was mildly entertaining. I can see why a gag-order was issued to Rotten Tomatoes. I thought Suicide Squad was lame, but it outshines this one. Oh well. They got me to buy a ticket. I'm good. I'm good.

Every good story has 3 major components: A beginning, a duration and an end, somethings many Hollywood writers are afraid to do anymore. Studios have their fingers in so much of the creative/artistic development of a project, it certainly explains why so many movies are considered critical flops. However, the public speaks, and box offices like making money.

This being said, The Martian certainly seems to please most people, even the critical. I don't think I'd be spoiling anything by saying the plot of the movie is about an astronaut left for dead as the crew evacuates from the planet surface of Mars only to find out the crew member didn't die. You have the story from a bureaucratic side, a scientific side, a social media side and engineering side all interwoven around the subject's story; the guy they left behind.

I personally don't think many people outside the enthusiast would know the difference between Mars and Wadi Rum in Jordan where the principal filming took place, and seeing even my understanding of the terrain is limited it was quite convincing. You get comfortable with the associations pretty quickly when you add all the environmental supplements that add to location that dispel the earth atmospheric conditions. I think most people have accepted the way Hollywood deals with space and give it a great deal of flexibility, so space travel is somewhat forgiving, but mixing the tech that got the various crafts into the air and the ship its self "Hermes" (Check your Greek mythology – very appropriate name) builds this story into one congruous epic. Obviously, the whole story revolves around Mark Whatney, a botanist who is left for dead and between his skills and ego are able to survive the elements until he is rescued. One of the nicer things about the story is that unlike other Ridley films, is that it isn't one emergency after another. The strong point to the screen play is that it breathes so well when mixed with the various sub-stories that the movie never gets tedious or overly long.

Using the word "Mix" is a very appropriate term to describe this epic scifi movie. An experienced recording engineer know when to emphasize a specific instrument when doing the final edit to enhance the focus and listeners experience. Harry Gregson-Williams score is not intrusive but well integrated (Credits include Shrek, Man on Fire and Cowboys and Aliens); Dariusz Wolski cinematography translates Ridleys vision to screen, and all the various departments all seem to come together to culminate in a perfect "Mix" for this compelling story. This movie has a great beginning, an absorbing duration, and satisfying ending.

So, I give this a full 10 our of 10 for experience. The audience was totally engrossed in the film, fully responding to the humor and horrors, empathetically sensing the singularity of being stranded but ultimately making the best of a bad situation. As the alien in John Carpenters "Starman" quote on being human: "You are at your best when you are at your worst". -B

Sorry, people, this is just a retelling of Disney animated version. Having been a kindergarten teacher early in my career, I read through almost the entire unabridged Brothers Grimm books and had many of my collected memories of fairy tales crushed. I have to give them kudos for the beautiful way this version was retold, produced and acted. Everything was polished like a new penny and served with a very fine score by the wonderful works of Patrick Doyle. However, for some reason the CGI seemed a bit stale specially with the rodents. They really didn't need to bring the original animated mice names back for this performance or give them special characters. Only older people would have this association, not the younger children that had flooded the theater on this rainy day in Austin. I was surprised there wasn't more chitter chatter and squeals of delight from 3-8 year old group. Actually, they seemed more impatient and restless though the theater was fairly quiet. Now, I'm not one to put down a movie production from changing the story. What Jackson did with Lord of the Rings was nothing less than genius in my opinion, but nothing comes near the original books. Same with Harry Potter. For me, the script was already written, and I was hoping for more. I'll get over it. And I didn't flunk the movie!

To see a world in a grain of sand And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour. William Blake These words came to mind after my experience with this movie event called Gravity. I've read the spoilers; I read the stories on the making of the film and how in its conception it was not technically possible to achieve; I counted the positive and negative reviews and always came back to my question "How is it this film only recently came to my attention?". I followed all the news as Jackson tried to keep the filming of his Lord of the Rings trilogy private with great attention. I knew the stories from numerous readings throughout my life and how blown away I was upon my first viewing of Jackson's interpretations (which unfortunately that excitement didn't spill over with the over-bloated Hobbit installments). Gravity offered just single word that ultimately captures both the scope and plot of the movie so perfectly, it would be hard to make it any simpler or complex.

The father and son teaming seems very successful in the sculpting of this story. I became aware of Alfonse during the Harry Potter days. Indeed, The Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite piece of the franchise. Then he released the gritty "Children of Men" with his epic 7+ minute single shot exodus scene twords the end of the film. For me, sitting under water for 7 minutes would seem impossible, but I don't think I dared breath as the fighting raged on during that ending segment. I have also rarely (if ever) seen a movie where the cast of on-screen actors was limited to two for the duration of the film, with only voices being a part of the credit list.

As suggested before, this is not so much a plot driven movie as it is a personal account of a chain of events set in an ominously empty environment. You sit in a theater. The lights go out and suddenly you are projected into space. You sit like an astronaut in your seat but instead of a suit and helmet, you are holding your popcorn and observing the focus through a pair of special glasses (we were given the wrong ones). You are immersed in the dark. Action picks up fairly quickly, and as any good story that is based on the laws of Murphy you get bumped around from one catastrophe to another. I found myself actually flinching behind the 3D glasses as shrapnel gets thrown at you from the various wreckages and once again I found myself not breathing. Going into this knowing the length is only 90 minutes long, you are open to all sorts of parallel time lines. At the end, which leaves you back in something more familiar, you take a deep breath of satisfaction and know things are going to be "All right". My only comment that could be considered somewhat negative was once the right 3D glasses were obtained, my first impression was "This is kinda like looking through a ViewMaster".

With enough twist and turns, a solid beginning and a solid end and incredibly produced you wonder how other films that lay in the quagmire of mediocrity stand a chance to even make it to the big screen. Then again you realize that some directors have incredible talent and vision. I read somewhere that James Cameron was involved in the initial development and said it was impossible to do simply because the technology was unavailable. I am happy to say this did not deter Alfonse Cuarón. His vision became an extraordinary reality.

I rarely go to an IMAX simply because I'm a cheapskate but I don't regret going to see this one bit. Confining this to a 60" diagonal high definition screen could not possibly give you the scope and "gravity" of this movie. See it big. See it 3D if you can handle it. See it. -B

I truly enjoyed the first generation of what seems to becoming a new franchise. The constellation of stars was well suited, enough surprises that spread the wit freely from one to another. Action didn't overplay the plot or the scenes.

This sequel had all the props, people and production to be a great addition, but it fell way short of expectations. Too much wit went to Malkovich, too much glitz was given to Zeta-Jones, jealousy haphazardly implemented with Parker and Willis is just doing what he does best. However, Mirren plays her role flawlessly and for that I was thankful.

Dean Parisot (Galaxy Quest)was given all the toys to make this happen. I find it odd that Dean and the previous director Robert Schwentke were given the steering wheel of these big budget films with limited credit to their resumes. I was told this film was fun, and I agree. But nothing really stands out for me. Just another action flick with lots of explosions and CGI that Hollywood churns out to keep it's production crew and actors happy.

Retired and Extremely Dangerous? I don't see many in this ensemble retired, but Extremely Dangerous? Yes. Hence "ED". It is a thumbs up, but not an enthusiastic one.

Looper is a smart, intelligent, mind bending conceptual movie from a fairly unknown director Rian Johnson. This fact alone should inspire many unpublished wannabes to never give up hope. Even though I too had problems navigating the parallel dimensions in this film, 2 viewings did eventually help.

30 years. That marks the end of a loop for a looper. 30 years. However even early on we learn that can go wrong. OK, that was a spoiler I admit, but nothing bends correctly until the end.

Things I had trouble with: Joseph Gordon-Levitt I'm sorry even with tons of make up does not really look like Bruce Willis. The transition between old and new Joe are not so apparent so it confuses the audience. Timelines get confused between what Joe wants to believe and what actually happens. If you have to analyze a film too hard it is frustrating. You really don't want to pay to see it multiple times to figure things out.

Things I really liked: No matter what later time you are living, it is all dependent on the past. If you loose an arm... it is gone in the future. Current time is not forgiving. If you screw up, you are always susceptible of a reprimand that might not be so attractive. Reality verses what you want can be altered in any given moment. Try as much as you can to make the right choice in the present doesn't always work out in the future.

For some reason this felt more akin to BladeRunner for me in tone and execution than many of it's wannabes. No kid will understand it, so don't bother taking them. This is purely an intellectual film that is meant for scifi addicts. I should know. I'm not a true scifi addict. I didn't understand it first time around either. -B

Wes Anderson has put together a piece of pie that is exquisitely prepared and uniquely sliced, a signature piece that he seems to be dishing out a personality all of its own. Charming and stylish, laced with humor and irony, populated with archetypal characters that in the end break their mold and become in some ways reborn, this film cannot be watched with any preconceived perceptions of the story. And if you do go for a viewing, these preconceptions will be a waste of time.

The film exhibits more as a stage show with an incredibly elaborate set than an on-site filming; location is just an added bonus (amazing wilderness of Rhode Island). The simplicity of the filming is its strong point, void of the special effects that have dominated the summer blockbuster season, even the disaster sequences though cheesy are enjoyable… almost in the same vain as Godzilla. You have to overlook the flaws in order to get to the wonderful story.

First and foremost, this is a love story. We could say it might be a coming of age, but when you have been immersed in the film you realize no one is really acting their age, which I found hilarious. The movie pokes fun at the establishment, then ports it to a time when hypocrisy and fundamental truth lay in the same bed.

Set on an island that is being monitored by a meteorologist, you have small town residents, a camp of scouts, local law, big government and ageless innocence, the cast is literally a sky of super and newly discovered stars. Bruce Willis is the local law (surprised?), Edward Norton a cigarette smoking whiskey drinking troop leader, Bill Murray and Frances McDormand play parents; then we have a legion of relatively unknown newcomers that play the scouts. The focus of the movie surrounds two typically (by today's standards) alienated children (Brilliantly played by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward), who have pledged their love for each other by meeting in a field and running off together.

There is not a huge effort to play up emotional content, but it does focus on bonding, devotion and individual freedom that was prevalent in 1965. MPAA rated this PG13 for a simple underwear scene, but I guess some over-reactive parent would probably agree it was not suitable. Wes penned the story, teaming up with his friend from The Darjeeling Limited Roman Coppola. It is paced well and though I can't guarantee it, should keep your attention. You need to pay attention. There is much to gain from it.

The wrap-up was not all that surprising. It is more similar to putting out the lights just before you go to bed. It will influence your sleep. It should make you smile. The local theater was to capacity, and just like a meal that was carefully prepared, people savored the delicate flavors silently with a few grunts of approval. When the ending credits started to roll, it was met with nearly a standing ovation.

Having taught kindergarten for a while, I found that I would spend hours working something complex into a completely simple presentation. If done correctly everyone is pulled into the moment. This was one of those moments.

I was watching various site ratings on this film since the beginning of the week wondering how it would be received by the critical movie base, and was surprised when it jumped from 40 to 140 reviews that were positive. I did not read them, but it did change my mind about going to see it, and I must admit it certainly helped the franchise dig out of the rut it was in when MIB 2 came out. What a flop that was! That one is NOT in my movie collection.

I have to preface this with the usual movie experience. I have stated previously that I am not a huge fan of 3D... most of them remind me of those halo-postcards and knee deep in lackluster. So I bought tickets to the 2D showing. Entering the theater, the sound was that of previews but there was nothing on the screen. Sat down and munched some popcorn and waited. Every now and then there was a flash of light but eventually, one by one, people left the audience to complain. I would normally do this, but seeing the amount of people who left I felt my complaint would have been useless. At last I heard someone down the hall say "The projector has a burnt out bulb and will take about 10 minutes to replace. For those that would like not to wait, we will let you into the viewing of the 3D showing and give you all the glasses at no charge". Looks like I would be seeing this in 3D anyways, and as I suspected... putting on the glasses really made things less clear and darker.

To start off, there was a real familiarity for the movie. It was all comfortable. Characters we knew; aliens we were familiar with; even the look and feel of the camera and music was all Men In Black (which Bill Pope, from Matrix trilogy, Spiderman fame, Steven Spielberg and Danny Elfman from the original movie), the story started out with new character development that made this sequel at home. Yes, the characters have aged... almost to the point where you want to say "ENOUGH! PLEASE RETIRE OR DO SOMETHING MORE YOUR AGE". It is OK though, the movie was crafted around the character ages... cept maybe Will Smith needs to move on from action films. The movie makes it plain that it was already many years since their last screen presentation. It is believable in the fiction it is portrayed in. The wit was there. The characters where there. And the plot was there, so lets continue with the fun.

Yes, K and J have gone on in their years. Yes, they keep aliens in their place but it is obvious that there is (as with all convicted criminals, galactic or native) some criminals can not just let things go by without payback. If I say "time travel", I would be giving away a lot, but we have seen time travel before and it is not new. Star Trek, Time Machine, yadda yadda have all played with this and most times messing around with timelines and parallel dimensions is never a safe thing unless you have really nothing to loose. Right? I mean, what does a criminal have to loose that will never have parole? Specially if that alien lives for enormous lifespans? It gets messy, needless to say, and life as we know it once again becomes a key pin the the events that follow in this movie.

Josh Brolin play a young Kay, and he sure did a good study on Tommy Lee's character even down to the inflections of the voice. It was entertaining. Young Kay was more human, sociable and open than his elder counterpart. What happens to make the older Kay and the younger Kay is really what this movie is about. I didn't find the FX all that new. Actually, I felt the 3D portage was lacking and not necessary. I wish I could have seen it in 2D to be honest. With all the banter, action and blocking, this sequel plays more along its original roots as the first movie than the second, plus you will be smiling when you come to the ending scenes. It makes all the difference in the world.

I'm glad there were no kids in the audience, but it is tamer than most scifi flicks. You really should plan this viewing as an adult tho, it leaves you free to enjoy it as it should. B

I came into the fanboyhood of Joss Whedon late in my life, realizing I was a fan of his productions unknowingly. I didn't put him and Avengers together until recently, but after that I was rather in anticipation of it since. Very much filmed with the same eye for sci-fi as Firefly, the continuity of the film had a warmth and familiarity to it that was easy to accept.

First off, it is a fantastic start to the summer blockbuster movies. With films like Prometheus and Batteship also on the horizon I will be probably more critical of what is to come as opposed to what just set the bar. With a legion of special effects people and filmed for 3D, I believe I did an injustice seeing it in a theater that was doing 2D: Some of the shots just did not come out the way I think it would have if viewed behind the glasses (I saw it in 2D because I am not a huge fan of 3D and all the hype). Technically, it was directed and filmed for 3D, and doing a backward compatibility might not have been the best. However, I do believe that when released as a BluRay disk, most people would not be able to watch it. The production crew may need to tweak it a bit before then.

Secondly, a master hand was at the helm shifting the weight of the film skillfully between CGI, Action, Drama and comic relief. Every artist has the right to interpret a story the way they see it. Based on characters the movie-going public have already been introduced to I'm sure helped, but for many, only Iron Man has had the most press. Hulk seems to have failed; Captain America did well at the box office but was oddly out of place; Thor wasn't as well received and his future as well wasn't a forgone conclusion. Natasha, Hawkeye, Nick Fury: If you didn't really read the comics you just wouldn't have guessed at their place in a movie with so many super-ego's in it. Somehow, Joss managed to extrapolate these vague characters and put them into a solid mix that did not always get along to at the gitgo.

The story is strong with continuity and weaves a strong relationship between the superhero's without haste. With a strong beginning, the plot is revealed very early but then dwells not so much on the story but the intermixing of the characters to form what the comic book is about: The alliance of superheros as a team called The Avengers. Ever been in a band where all the musicians compete for the spotlight but end up just increasing the gain of their amps? It is not an easy lesson to learn but it was obvious that Iron Man was the primary focus. Meetings, indifference, competition and cooperation, very hard lessons to learn when the world as we know it is at stake but they manage to put aside their egos for the common good and the saving of Manhattan.

Damn, why is it New York City is always the focus of monstrous plots? Guess I better not go there.

Navigating the story, there were many points where homage was paid to movies that preceded it. Obvious was Independence day, Ghostbusters, Avatar and the likes. You had a mix of Asian, northern euro and American curltures which made for a multifaceted presentation. I had a few problems with future-world design, like the water/air ship which staged the initial disharmony of the superheros. I will also reiterate my comment about 2D and 3D screen presentation.

Alan Sylvestri does a stunning soundtrack, which didn't have the usual signature of the initial measure pop as in preceding films. It was appropriate though a solid theme was lacking... or maybe I just could not get a theme figured out while viewing all the action.

One of my biggest surprises was the re-write of Bruce Banner/Hulk. Totally unconventional, the taught character of the gamma-altered human was harsh, intellectual and sometimes more unemotional than his counterpart Hulk, who really stood out as a serious contender for a relaunch or maybe a new franchise if Jeremy Renner is open to it. The super-hero team accepted him and knew how to kindle the huge green giant's passion and formed an amazing bond with his peers. I would love to see a new Hulk movie with this reworked character.

Joss has weaved together an amazing story with very few holes, and maybe I will see it again, but this time in 3D just to see if my observation of the 2D version is correct. Go see it. Great action, great compassion, great story. Thanks Joss.

First off, going to a theater should be perfect. If you have a decent home theater with solid spacial sound reinforcement, you can guess at the disappointment I felt when even after complaining to workers, the audience was denied the full experience of a front left audio channel. For a first run of a blockbuster feature film it is unforgivable that a large movie complex with huge screens don't check EVERYTHING before opening the doors. Sad.

Since the first teaser that aired last year I was on hook for this. The cast looked like a great constellation and the story twisted the cowboy story so seductively that I really did have high hopes (even more than Potter if you can believe that). I watched the featurette and was pleased that it was done in the wild for the most part and not on a stage with nothing but blue-screen surrounding the characters. I agree with Mr. Ford, how can you act when you can't really see who you are acting with? But a big budget, great support crew, creative writers and outstanding cast do not guarantee the kind of movie that made you reel in your seat like the first Jurassic Park. Mr. Favreau seems capable of a big budget film, but it is like since the premier of Iron Man, his respect for the industry has fallen into mild sensationalism.

Scripting molded some solid character development. Daniel Craig's enigmatic bad man with no memory, a tight mouth and easily irritable personality was perfect. Harrison Fords grizzly old curmudgeon shows he had this character in his pocket: Crunchy on the outside, a marshmallow on the inside. The CGI was suitable and all interaction between human and alien at home. All the supporting cast well chosen, so what was wrong with this film not to wow critic posting to the various boards world-wide? There were awkward moments throughout the film, and whether they were intentional or perceived as good by the production crew, they were not received inspirationally by the viewer base. They were all technicalities that I felt if director, producers and execs had a chance to view the takes (after the editors did their magic) would have taken it back to ... how did it go in Spider-man? Back to formula? I will not address those moments here, as I would have to tag the Spoilers box, but the whole movie just didn't "breath" normally.

Yet the movie is much better than just good. It holds together very well and overall presentation should satisfy more of the common population that are not overly critical and shoot first.

Little twist in this movie make you change your mind how it is going to end. Slow to draw you in and almost uninvolving even if you know this is scifie give you ample "Ah hah!" moments, then put you back in that unsure mode. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Colter Stevens, an army helicopter pilot that finds himself flashed into the life of some other man riding a Chicago rail. He comes to facing a beautiful woman (Michelle Monaghan) who seems to know him enough to form what could become an intimate relationship. The panic of the first instance is monumental; he was in a rescue mission one minute then on a train with a crowd of people he has no connection to at all. The only problem he confronts though is that 8 minutes later the train explodes. From there is sheerly up to speculation. Personally, I believe that every decision you make changes the future. The creates parallel realities that could exist for any given instance. On this concept alone, this movie creates one alternate reality after another hence my comment on the "Ah hah" moments; they are quickly challenged. Even at the end you conclude it is over then it doesn't end. This is the way it is with alternate or parallel realities. It is never over, only different. Pleasing, suspenseful, oddly engaging, totally unbelievable you follow this near 2 hour romp into the Twilight Zone with surprise that makes it all worth the price of a ticket and maybe a copy of it for your own home. Granted, once you know the ending a re-watch just won't be a satisfying, but it is exceptionally well directed and produced. Recommended.

I was a little confused at the onset. I didn't know what to expect, but Yates does not hold much favor in my mind; so that said I will refrain from bashing on him. The story continues, but in a much more honest, sincere measure.

I felt the acting was much more polished, the emotional content much improved and the bond between the three primary characters solid in so many more ways than portrayed in earlier movies. You could feel that after a decade of working together, growing together, almost living together that their profession in acting has also grown similarly. I found my experience being drawn in to their drama, their pain and their bonding to all that they are connected. After a while you really didn't care who they chose to play what in this movie, but there were enough returning cast to put you back in that comfort zone that the Potter legacy will hold on to for generations to come.I got to hand it to them: They kept the group together for over 10 years. That alone is an amazing accomplishment.

I was pleasantly surprised that this wasn't a hugely over involved CGI epic. It had its moments, and it was obvious at the first sight of Dobbie that life characteristics in a computer generated character have made them a bit more believable rather than just cartoonish. I didn't actually agree with the choice for Lovegood, it seems that a portly, stout or even fat person would have been more suited for this role, but again it was acceptable.

Again, much of this first part was acceptable, but not great. Some reviewer said this was a great prolonged trailer. I agree in many senses of that. There was a lot that could have happened in a shorter time. I felt the dialog, action, sequences were deliberately retarded to stretch and get as much out of this as possible. I'm not trying to be mean. I found the movie kept me engaged in a positive way. But when you can count 10 seconds between responsive dialog, I felt the stretch. The tragedy scenes were much better. The younger guy sitting in the seat next to me was balling his eyes out at the death of Dobbie (though it could have been to impress the pretty lady he was sitting next to.... OOH! Low Blow!). Yeah, I got misty eyed at a couple of spots. The handling of the finding of the sword and the reunion was exceptionally well conceived and filmed. The thing is, the film got most of the right things in at the right time with an acceptable amount of scenes cut out. Overall, people that groan and moan about this one are too calloused. On the other hand, those who praise it as a top notch film have probably been so used to being disappointed with Yates' productions that this one was his defining moment. It probably was, but that is not saying much.

The surprising thing about the initial movie release of Iron Man was that not only was there action, but thought and intrigue. There was almost something in the movie for everyone simply because wading through the scenes you didn't find interesting were blocked well and didn't run on and get you impatient. Not so with this new entry. I was hoping that it would have gone more the way Spider Man II went: More plot for morons, more build to romance, enough head on action to appease the geek. This for me did not happen. Now granted, I don't claim to be an expert in movies. I don't know the intimate histories of all the stars and starlets out there, or the screen writers, nor the directors or producers much more than the average Joe but I'm not all that willing to accept less than what was offered in a preceding film. Even though the same constellation was involved with this production it just didn't quite do it for me. I was disappointed. Here's why: The first 90 minutes of this film were vague and uninvolved. You may argue the fact, but to this reviewer it seemed that the entire movie was during the last 30 minutes when good versus evil clashed in a way we hope it would. I have seen it twice, and the second viewing confirmed what I couldn't pinpoint in my first watch: The movie was boring for the most part. Nick Fury was a "meh" (though Jackson still is just right for this part); Scarlett at her best was image happy. The whole sequence with her kicking her way through the Hammer corporation I couldn't decide was her stand in, or CGI, or just the actress. I saw this in a DLP theater and the way her hair flew around the screen just didn't look justifiable (even though the leather suit did justice to her makeover); Pepper seemed almost borderline personality disorder - mood-swings were almost menopausal. Even the Iron Man seemed a little over the top even at his worst. The one thing that was almost perfect was Rourke's portrayal of Ivan. He is the perfect ugly bad guy as we have come to expect since his role in Sin City. For the most part to me, the whole thing seemed like it was over acted. Hence, when action commenced, it all seemed to fall in place. Still, there are redeeming graces that occur. The filming and coloration are up to par, the enhanced Iron Man effects appreciated. Thanks to CGI, it was still a great theater experience. I don't know how it will fare on DVD. I think over the coming weeks, the viewing of this movie will drop significantly from opening day, just the opposite of "How To Train Your Dragon", which is doing really well still. It's not that this movie was a total waste, it is just expectations were not met in this reviewers opinion. Sorry guys.