"Iron Man 2" starts the summer off right (3.5)

I remember the first "Iron Man" movie as being highly entertaining, full of energy and awesome action. I have to say, its sequel did not disappoint.

Oftentimes, sequels to big summer flicks flop due to too much hype and not enough content. For instance, I never even cared to see "Transformers 2." Of course, there are exceptions ("The Dark Knight," anyone?). This is not to say that "Iron Man 2" is in the same league as Christopher Nolan's phenomenal hit, because it is not. But as far as summer movies go, "Iron Man 2" is right up there with its predecessor.

Overall, the plot is decent. It's not mindblowingly complex; it's your typical superhero movie plot: hero fights evil, usually with some twists or wrenches thrown in. Add some cool rock music, incredible fight scenes, funny bits, and explosions, and you're in business.

Robert Downey Jr. returns as the rebellious, cocky, arrogant, son-of-a-bitch genius and entrepreneur Tony Stark, and proves once again that such a role fits him like a glove. You almost want to hate him, but you can't because he's just so COOL. He's got crazy new inventions, hot cars, and a lot of quippy lines. Also, this film endeavour scrapes below the surface and we see a different side to Stark that fuels much of the plotline.

Now that the world knows he *IS* Iron Man, Stark finds himself in high demand: everyone, particularly the government, wants him to share the technology that powers the Iron Man suit. Additionally, other billionaire inventors/weapons manufacturers crave the knowledge that would put them on top of the market, namely Justin Hammer, the head of Hammer Weapons, Stark Industries' biggest competitor. Sam Rockwell portrays this wordy, ambitious-yet-overly-confident sleazebag dandy in a role that is a lot of fun to watch (note: self-tanner).

More interestingly, the main villain in this flick is Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke. Vanko is a Russian physicist with an agenda against Stark, displayed through violent outbursts using nearly identical technology Stark utilizes. I thought that Stark's BAMF-ness was a little toned down from the original movie, but there was a valiant attempt to amp up the badassery whenever Rourke was on screen. Huge, covered in tattoos with gray streaks in his hair, Vanko is impressive as the bad guy. I feel like he should have had more screen time, actually, particularly at the end.

Gwyneth Paltrow reprised her role as Pepper Potts, Tony Stark's assistant and conscience. The banter between the two was not quite up to par, and I felt Paltrow, so capable of great acting, faded into the background. She was underplayed and upstaged by Scarlett Johansson, the newer, younger, ass-kicking model of personal assistant. With Johansson's incredibly influential character, Paltrow's appears weak and ineffective in comparison. It's too bad, but Johansson delivers a performance that is pretty awesome. Her character is somewhat (and probably intentionally) understated, but she got some of the best action sequences.

Don Cheadle replaced Terrence Howard as LTC James Rhodes, Stark's military friend who often finds himself between direct orders and his friend's best interest. The role doesn't require as intense of acting as some of Cheadle's past movies, but he did a good job playing the superhero's ally. He and Downey Jr. worked well together on screen.

I also appreciated Jon Favreau's role as Happy Hogan, Tony Stark's right-hand man/driver/boxing trainer. But I think I appreciated it mainly because he's the director, so it's fun to see him in his own movie.

Stan Lee also had his typical cameo. See if you can spot him.

Samuel L. Jackson returns as Nick Fury, the leader of S.H.I.E.L.D., the mysterious group that is putting together the Avengers Initiative, revealed after the credits of the first movie. Hints and clues for an Avengers movie were scattered all over "Iron Man 2," but they were subtle and comical.

Admittedly, I am not a comic book aficionada, so I do not know how much is actually based on Marvel plotlines and which were created for the movie, but I thought it all worked. Aside from the slightly disappointing role Paltrow played in the whole thing, I could not have asked for much more from a mindless (in the best sense) summer blockbuster. It was stylish, action-packed (with pretty neat special effects), funny, and entertaining. And the poster looks like the old-school Star Wars posters.

"How to Train Your Dragon" - my favourite movie of 2010?

"This is Berk. It's twelve days north of Hopelessness and a few degrees south of Freezing to Death. It's located solidly on the Meridian of Misery." Thus begins Dreamworks' "How to Train Your Dragon," a wildly adventuresome movie for the whole family.

Berk, a Viking village apparently located somewhere in Scotland, is plagued regularly by various types of dragons, who steal the livestock and set buildings aflame. Most of the Vikings bravely fight off the beasts, but Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, the adolescent son of the chief (Stoick the Vast), is not like most Vikings. He is small, clever, inventive, and sarcastic, and most importantly - NOT a warrior. Think Eric Foreman from "That 70's Show" or Smalls from "The Sandlot." As such, Hiccup is an outcast in his village, wanting nothing more than to be like everyone else.

Everything changes when he encounters a Night Fury dragon (offspring of Lightning and Death), the most elusive and dangerous breed known to man. While unexpectantly befriending the dragon, whom he names Toothless, Hiccup also trains with the other Viking teens in dragon combat. During his time with Toothless, he discovers everything the Vikings thought they knew about dragons is horribly incorrect; the beasts, usually considered "extremely dangerous - kill on sight" are simply misunderstood. Trying to convince the other Vikings (especially his father) of this fact is another challenge all together.

This movie has many great attributes. The animation (particularly in 3-D, if you choose to see that version) is superb. To me, even though the characters are intentionally cartoonish, the realism of everything is quite amazing. They have pores on their faces. Individual hairs on their heads and on their fur clothing stand out. The landscape, the way the sun glints off the water, it's all so real. There's an incredible attention to detail that is subtle, it does not hit you over the head. Even the way the dragons move harkens back to the days when animators welcomed wild animals into their studio so they could study their movements (like in "The Lion King." Although, I have to admit, they probably did not do that for this movie). (You might recognize some of Toothless's characteristics; a couple of people who worked on this film were also behind "Lilo & Stitch.") The action sequences are sophisticated and advanced for a film of this genre and target audience.

The four principal characters were well-cast. The voice of Hiccup is Jay Baruchel (most recently seen in "She's Out of My League"), who is perfect for the awkward, not traditionally cool kind of guy. Gerard Butler has the thundering Scottish accent that resonates well in an intimidating Viking leader. Craig Ferguson also lends his Scottishness to the film as the comedic and handicapped Gobber the Belch, the trainer in dragon combat. He was quite amusing, especially in the variety of prosthetic hands he uses. America Ferrera plays Astrid, the tough yet pretty Viking youth at the top of the combat class. She's feisty and strong, like many characters Ferrera portrays (although Astrid is blonde...not like Ferrera). The supporting cast did a decent job, but I feel some of their talent didn't come across well, or it didn't really matter if a "big name" person voiced their characters (such as Jonah Hill and Kristen Wiig).

Aside from the people behind the voices, the script is incredibly witty and funny. It's not your typical children's fare where the humor is too slapstick and dialogue too infantile. Yes, the movie has its silly moments, but they are surpassed by a "man and beast" story that fully envelops the audience with surprising depth.

Additionally, the movie's score (always a big influence on my opinion) was stirring and powerful, fitting for a more epic movie, yet perfect for this one. I downloaded it the day after I saw the movie ($7.99 for over 20 tracks? Not bad!).

Overall, "How to Train Your Dragon" has adventure, heart, and humor. It's perfect for families, but even if you don't have kids, go see it. It might just be my favorite movie of the year so far.

Wondering about Wonderland?

I was super excited for Tim Burton's take on the trippy "Alice in Wonderland." After all, who better to produce a crazily imaginative version of Lewis Carroll's literary nonsense? I was not disappointed, nor was I exceedingly impressed. Be forewarned, this review might contain accidental spoilers.

First of all, I have to say that I did not think the 3-D experience was entirely necessary for this film. While the animation was good, to be enveloped within the graphics was not important for the story-telling. I also felt the graphics were not quite as...authentic as past Burton films (for instance, our first look into Willy Wonka's factory was an actual set, not a green screen). But, on the other hand, 3-D is the newest trend in movie-making, and I'm always willing to try in out.

On to the story. I loved the ambiance, both of the Victorian world and that of Wonderland (or Underland, depending on whom you ask). Tim Burton always does a great job with tones and colours (think of the muted grays and vivid reds in "Sleepy Hollow" and "Sweeney Todd," or the contrasting worlds in "The Corpse Bride"), and Alice was no different. The rigid, stuffy world of Britain is awash with neutrals, whites and blues. Into this, Alice nearly disappears, considering her complexion is so porcelain. (This is an interesting juxtaposition, since Alice is "out of place" in her world, but more on that later.) Wonderland, on the other hand, contains colourful landscapes and vibrant vegetation. The Queen of Hearts' realm is dark and not-quite-evil, while her sister's domain is pure and pristine silvers and whites (just a little overkill on the symbolism and such, but there you have it). And the Mad Hatter is bedecked in flamboyant hues to match his wild personality.

As far as the acting goes, I thought such a big-name cast could have brought a little more to the table. Upon my first viewing of the film, I thought many of the characters were a little underdeveloped, but once I researched a little of the movie's production, and saw the movie again, I was able to appreciate more of the actors' characterizations.

Mia Wasikowska, in her first leading role, did not quite live up to my expectations as Alice. Yes, she went through the motions, but after all she goes through, I would expect a person to be slightly more altered. Although she thinks it's all a dream, it should not mean that her reactions differ from those of reality, if indeed everything were happening for real. She just seemed wooden and emotionless for much of the movie, even though she was saying things that would require conviction or feistiness. She was not all-around terrible, but I would have liked to have seen much MORE.

I admit I did not quite understand Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter – at first. Yes, he was adequately schizophrenic, and he looked the part, but I thought him rather silly overall (ie: the futterwacken? Really?). But once I read about it more, I discovered Depp wanted to ground a character who is often seen as two-dimensional. His split personality made it so he could be goofy and nonsensical, while his darker (Scottish…mwahaha) side provided a functional character (particularly when he brings his Scottish personality to the battlefield, complete with kilt and broadsword). Although as far as crazy, tea-loving characters go, my favourite was the March Hare. He was just all-out insane, but his character accomplishes nothing because his state of mind renders him completely useless (he brings a spoon to the battle).

Helena Bonham Carter was amusing as the strangely-proportioned Iracebeth of Crims, the Red Queen (of Hearts…a combination of two Carroll characters). She was wonderfully quick-tempered, demanding, and immature, just like the toddler she was trying to channel. She was also able to produce the fear royalty often creates amongst their subjects, particularly because she was so inclined to impulsively cut people's heads off. I thought her a decently-worthy adversary.

Anne Hathaway as Mirana of Marmoreal (the White Queen), was another one I didn’t understand at first. I found her to be silly, but it turns out she's supposed to have a darker side as well. This doesn't come across very well, in my mind, but once I knew, I could see it in small instances. But overall, she was amusing. She had that silly, dainty, airy, graceful girliness of a Disney princess, but she was humorous as well, manifested in small gestures and facial expressions that were the exact opposite of what one would expect.

I liked how ambiguous the Blue Caterpillar was, and how creepily the Cheshire Cat oozed (figuratively speaking).

Storywise, this is not a remake of the animated version, nor is it a "reimagining" (according to Burton). It's basically a new story, based upon Carroll's characters, much of the plot deriving from the Jabberwocky poem (which is practically all nonsense, so creating a tangible story out of nothing is slightly impressive). I'm admittedly not familiar with Carroll's "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass," so it did not make much difference to me. It was predictable, but still an entertaining film.

Overall, I liked the movie quite a bit. Perhaps this review is harsher than my actual perception of the film, but I've started thinking about movies in ways in which I can review them, so I start looking deeper. Taken as a whole, however, this movie is a fun adventure into a crazy Wonderland, which is a nice break from the neutral world in which we often find ourselves. I'm not about to go around chasing white rabbits or following instructions on strange bottles of liquid, but I always look to movies to escape everyday monotony for a bit. And this movie accomplished that end, while being reasonably put-together and comprehensive. I'm satisfied.

"Avatar" review

Visually stunning? Yes. Epic? Yes. At least, wide in its scope. Original? Hardly.

James Cameron's visionary dream is creative and imaginative in its presentation, but it falls short in its story-telling. The world of Pandora is beautiful, full of wild creatures and exotic plants. It is inhabited by the Na'vi people, a race completely unified with Eywa, their deity, the energy that binds and surrounds them. They are threatened by the "Skypeople," humans who abandoned their "dying world" to extract a valuable substance ironically called unobtanium from Pandora's soil, in spite of the fact that the Omaticaya clan of Na'vis live on the richest deposit. To me, it was the cliched tale of greedy people taking what they want from anyone, damned be the consequences. Don't get me wrong - I love nature and am all for going green. I can recognize that we need to appreciate the abundance around us and care for our planet, as well as respect the cultural ways of other people who we may not understand, or with whom we may not agree. Yet the plot behind "Avatar" reminded me of "Fern Gully." Remember "Fern Gully"? Fairies living happily in the rainforest until evil man with his big ugly machines comes to tear it all down? Throw in a little Trail of Tears/indigenous relocation, a bicultural star-crossed romance, and a Matrix-like connection to another world, and you have hit the nail right on the head.

I'm not saying I did not enjoy the movie. Quite the contrary. This was the first non-documentary movie I've seen completely in 3-D (as opposed to IMAX nature films seen at the MN Zoo, and brief scenes in recent "Harry Potter" movies), and I really wish we had been able to see it 3-D in IMAX. Alas, "The Wolfman" chased "Avatar" out of the giant-screen theater in St. Michael, so we settled for 3-D on a regular movie screen. Which is fine. I was still able to appreciate the animation. It's extremely impressive that such a complete world (although did anyone else notice the Na'vi never ate anything?) could simply be pulled from the imagination in such detail and clarity, making dreams that much more tangible. Cameron pulled out all the stops, somehow creating a world by combining the beauty and mystery of both the rainforest and the depths of the oceans. From the heights of the floating mountains, through the vast and open skies, to the forest floors, Pandora is amazing. It did remind me a little of Dinotopia mixed with Naboo, but for a tiny moon, it's full of incredible flora and fauna.

Aside from aesthetics, the tiny cultural details were also quite thorough. Not only did the Na'vi have their own language, they had separate and distinctive clans as well. The creatures with whom the Na'vi interact are reminiscent of animals seen on Earth (at one time or another), but unique in their own ways. Something I particularly liked was the direct link between the Na'vi and the creatures. It solidified the concept of a planet (or moon) with an all-encompassing energy firing like neurons in the brain, connecting everything to everything else.

In addition to the creative details, the actor portrayal was impressive. The use of performance capture ensured that the actors' facial expressions were completely transferred to their computer-generated counterparts. Before seeing the film, I was slightly put off by the appearance of the tall, blue people, but while watching it, it is easy to see how the Na'vi actually look like the actors (especially Sigourney Weaver's...whose avatar TOO closely resembled the actress). Their movements were extremely natural, and it became easy to forget I was watching something designed on computers.

I thought Sam Worthington turned in a very good performance, although I have nothing to which I can compare; I had never seen him in any other movies prior to this. I thought his portrayal of paraplegic ex-Marine Jake Sully, the film's hero, was believable, and his emotional transition from former soldier to invested anthropologist and tribal hero was well done. Not only did his hair become longer and disheveled, but the video diaries of his experiences began awkwardly and became increasingly heartfelt. I also thought it was impressive making his legs appear shriveled and useless (unless they were real...in which case, he must have had one hell of a workout routine for his role as Perseus in "Clash of the Titans"), and his disuse of them seemed natural.

Sigourney Weaver also did a wonderful job in her portrayal of the driven, tough-on-the-outside scientist in charge of the avatar project. I really grew to like her, and she seemed to soften towards Jake as he got deeper into Na'vi culture than she ever had.

Stephen Lang was villainous as Colonel Quaritch, your typical militant let's-blow-things-up bad guy. He had a wicked awesome scar on his head from his first experience on Pandora, and he was extremely determined to do whatever it took to get the Omaticaya away from the unobtanium deposit. He was wonderfully disconnected from the consequences, nonchalantly sipping coffee while watching the Omaticaya's home get destroyed on his orders.

Zoe Saldana, of whom I am not the biggest fan, did a decent job lending her voice and facial expressions to Neytiri, the female Na'vi protagonist, who happens to be the Omaticayan princess and Jake's love interest and cultural teacher. They had fairly good chemistry "on screen," but I felt her role in general was cliched.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, and it nearly exceeded my minimal expectations. I knew the story would be so-so and the animation superb, but the combined effect was surprisingly pleasing. It's generally predictable (and for me, that's saying something...I'm usually terrible with plot predictions), but very entertaining. I'm glad I saw it. (I could go into the ethical issue of creating a hybrid creature of human and Na'vi DNA to simply use as a shell to house someone else's mind...but I just don't have the energy.)