Full disclosure: I studied Greek and Roman mythology when I was in college, so I’m a sucker for these kinds of movies. Now that you can take this review with the appropriate grain of salt, I liked Immortals. It certainly won’t end up anywhere near my favorites of the year list, but it’s a pretty fantastic union of a director with a unique visual style to a script that desperately needs the distraction of that style.

A fusion of stories from Greek mythology, Immortals follows Theseus (Henry Cavill), a young peasant chosen by Zeus (Luke Evans), and Phaedra (Freida Pinto), an oracle priestess, as they lead humans against the evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) and his legions of warriors. Snubbed by the gods, Hyperion plans to take vengeance on them by releasing the Titans, the gods’ archenemies who have remained trapped in the earth following an epic battle years prior. But Hyperion needs the Epirus Bow, a legendary weapon capable of producing powerful arrows out of thin air, to accomplish his goal.

The movie is being sold as a companion piece to Zack Snyder’s 300, and it’s clear that the studio had a huge influence on those comparisons, even down to the story level. The two films share many of the same plot points: a traitor defecting to the opposing army, warriors wearing masks, cheesy speeches, and one sequence involving a tunnel near the end that’s ripped directly from Snyder’s breakout film. To its credit, though, I actually liked Immortals a lot more than 300. Most Greek myth stories probably feel familiar from a story perspective, and if most feel cliche these days, it’s because these old myths are the basis of western storytelling as we know it. We’ve seen these stories told before in thousands of variations in movies and television shows over the years, so it makes sense that the only way audiences will find them interesting is attaching visionary directors to give us a fresh look at the material.

For me, it comes down to performance. Mickey Rourke owns this movie as King Hyperion, relishing every line and squeezing every dramatic drop out of his twisted villainy on screen. It’s a much more interesting performance than Gerard Butler’s constant bellowing in 300, and Rourke alone gives Immortals a higher likelihood of rewatchability for me. I also prefer Tarsem’s grandiose symmetrical visuals to Snyder’s speed-ramping; Tarsem’s predilection for eastern imagery and fascinating production design – on full display in his fantastic second film, The Fall - seems to fit well with this kind of storytelling.

Speaking of Snyder, he’s got a new Superman movie coming up called Man of Steel, and cast none other than Henry Cavill as the lead. While this role doesn’t demand much of anything from him, aside from running around shirtless and throwing the occasional spear, I saw flashes of both Clark Kent and Superman in his performance. (As of this writing, we haven’t seen any trailers or footage from Snyder’s film, so my gut feeling is that Cavill is going to be a really good Superman in a pretty terrible Superman movie.) Getting back to Immortals, the gods, played by young 20-somethings with chiseled bodies, wear insane headgear that would make even Tim Burton do a double take. One piece in particular looks like the head of a dragonfly. Why would Tarsem do this? The only answer I can think of: “because he’s Tarsem.”

The fight sequences are clearly depicted through the use of Brendan Galvin’s impressive cinematography (he reunites with Tarsem for their upcoming Snow White film, Mirror, Mirror), and if my only complaint with the action that it gets a little overdone by the film’s ludicrous ending, then I’d say that’s a compliment. After all, no one comes to movies like this for the dialogue. (Though there are some interesting religious points touched on here about faith and belief that I found surprisingly well-handled for a movie that’s otherwise brash and borders on garish at times.) The score is influenced heavily, as most action films seem to be now, by Hans Zimmer’s work on Inception, with quick strings highlighted by bursts of booming brass.

Immortals is a fluff piece with almost no real weight to it, but it’s also a beautifully shot film that marries a visionary director to the perfect subject matter for his tastes. If nothing else, it will expose people to Cavill, an actor best-known for a small role in The Count of Monte Cristo and the Showtime series “The Tudors,” and get them ready to see him take flight as Superman in 2013. Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: Immortals on Filmonic

Mickey Rourke isn’t known for keeping his opinions and criticisms to himself, and while promoting Immortals the actor spoke about his disappointment of Whiplash becoming “a one-dimensional bad guy” in Iron Man 2, and said most of his performance ended up on the cutting room floor.

From Crave Online:

It’s like when I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors, not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.

Well, you know, it is f**king too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh f**k ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.

Rourke may have a point as Red Skull was a bit one-dimensional in Captain America: The First Avenger, although saying that Loki was a great villain in Thor, so Marvel seems to be hit and miss in the villain dimension department.

Rourke appears to be in a critical mood as of late. He was set to shoot Seven Psychopaths with Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken for Oscar-winning writer and director Martin McDonagh (In Bruges), but in an interview with Movieline Rourke called the director a “jerkoff” and, when asked if he was still in the movie, said “he can go play with himself.” I take it that’s a no, then.

Read similar posts to Mickey Rourke isn’t a fan of Iron Man 2 on Filmonic

Following the success of The Expendables last year ($274 million worldwide) a sequel moved swiftly into development, but it was decided Sylvester Stallone would not be directing the next film as he did the first.

After a lengthy search a director for the sequel has been found according to Deadline, and it’s Simon West who most recently directed the The Mechanic starring Jason Statham and Ben Foster, and also directed Con Air and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. He’s an action director, and that’s what the sequel requires.

Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Terry Crews and Jet Li are all expected to return and Bruce Willis, who briefly appeared in the first film, confirmed earlier this year that he’ll have a larger role in the sequel (possibly as a villain).

There has also been talk of Jean-Claude Van Damme showing up in the next one after turning down a role in the original. Apparently he felt there was no substance or development to his character, however while promoting The Expendables Sly said he had spoken to Van Damme and there was some regret on his part for not appearing.

Read similar posts to Simon West will direct The Expendables 2 on Filmonic

Universal have released the first official trailer for Tarsem Singh’s Greek epic Immortals, which stars Mickey Rourke, Henry Cavill and Freida Pinto. The movie has similarities to Clash of the Titans, but visually looks closer to 300.

You can watch the trailer below:

Eons after the Gods won their mythic struggle against the Titans, a new evil threatens the land. Mad with power, King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) has declared war against humanity. Amassing a bloodthirsty army of soldiers disfigured by his own hand, Hyperion has scorched Greece in search of the legendary Epirus Bow, a weapon of unimaginable power forged in the heavens by Ares.

Secretly chosen by Zeus, Theseus must save his people from Hyperion and his hordes. Rallying a band of fellow outsiders–including visionary priestess Phaedra (Freida Pinto) and cunning slave Stavros (Stephen Dorff) — one hero will lead the uprising, or watch his homeland fall into ruin and his Gods vanish into legend.”

Immortals also stars Kellan Lutz as Poseidon and Luke Evans as Zeus. John Hurt will play the earthly manifestation of Zeus, who acts as a mentor and teacher to Theseus, and Isabel Lucas will play his daughter Athena.

Read similar posts to First trailer for Immortals on Filmonic

Update: Deadline have since updated their article saying Neeson will be back and filming may take place later this year or early 2012.

Nobody expected Taken to make $226 million when it hit in 2009, especially as January is usually the dumping ground for movies. However, its success turned Liam Neeson into a bit of an action hero, and lead him to roles in The A-Team, Clash of the Titans, and more recently, Unknown.

Taken 2 has been simmering in the background since, and Neeson confirmed earlier this year that the script was being written. However according to Deadline Neeson may or may not end up returning for the sequel.

Apparently Neeson wants time off (he’s made 8 movies in 2 years), but the producers don’t really want to wait:

I’m told Besson has teamed on a script with Robert Mark Kamen, and that he’s in talks with his Transporter 3 director Olivier Megaton to direct the sequel. But he has been dealing with a huge problem: Neeson has all but withdrawn from reprising his role as Bryan Mills, the retired government operative who in the 2008 original decimated the Paris underworld to free his kidnapped daughter. The reason isn’t money, but rather scheduling: Besson wants to shoot it this year and Neeson wants to take time off. Continuing without Neeson is hard to imagine, but I’ve heard Besson has gone as far as assembling a list of actors to take his place. That list includes Mickey Rourke, Ralph Fiennes, Ray Winstone, Sean Bean and Jason Isaacs.

Deadline goes on to say “things started turning toward a Neeson return but it’s by no means definite. Besson went back to Neeson, and they are working up with a schedule that will allow Neeson to shoot the movie in Istanbul later this year, and still give the actor the time he needs.”

I’m not sure how appealing a Taken sequel without Liam Neeson would be. It would obviously follow a similar story (ie. main guy kicking ass), but Neeson was partly responsible for Taken‘s success.

Would you see Taken 2 without Neeson?

Read similar posts to Liam Neeson may or may not return for Taken 2 on Filmonic

According to IGN Universal has given Tarsem Singh’s Greek epic Immortals a November 11, 2011 release date (which is 11/11/11). The movie, which stars Mickey Rourke, Henry Cavill and Freida Pinto, began filming in March and is currently in post-productiion.

Universal has also released the official synopsis:

“On 11/11/11, witness the 3-D epic battle as mere men become Immortals. Eons after the Gods won their mythic struggle against the Titans, a new evil threatens the land. Mad with power, King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) has declared war against humanity. Amassing a bloodthirsty army of soldiers disfigured by his own hand, Hyperion has scorched Greece in search of the legendary Epirus Bow, a weapon of unimaginable power forged in the heavens by Ares.

Only he who possesses this bow can unleash the Titans, who have been imprisoned deep within the walls of Mount Tartaros since the dawn of time and thirst for revenge. In the king’s hands, the bow would rain destruction upon mankind and annihilate the Gods. But ancient law dictates the Gods must not intervene in man’s conflict. They remain powerless to stop Hyperion…until a peasant named Theseus (Henry Cavill) comes forth as their only hope.

Secretly chosen by Zeus, Theseus must save his people from Hyperion and his hordes. Rallying a band of fellow outsiders–including visionary priestess Phaedra (Freida Pinto) and cunning slave Stavros (Stephen Dorff) — one hero will lead the uprising, or watch his homeland fall into ruin and his Gods vanish into legend.”

Immortals also stars Kellan Lutz as Poseidon and Luke Evans as Zeus. John Hurt will play the earthly manifestation of Zeus, who acts as a mentor and teacher to Theseus, and Isabel Lucas (hot robot lady from Transformers 2) will play his daughter Athena.

Read similar posts to Immortals given 11/11/11 release date on Filmonic

Entertainment Tonight has released our first look at Passion Play, an independent movie from first time director Mitch Glazer which stars Mickey Rourke, Megan Fox, and Bill Murry. It was screened at the Toronto Film Festival over the weekend where it hopes to find distribution, and this clip was likely released to drum up some interest.

In the clip we see Mickey Rourke walking up to a window where he sees Megan Fox taking off her coat and unfurling wings from her back. The two then stare at each other for a while.

Watch below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stNUjGXBXM

When a jazz trumpeter is taken to the desert and a gun held to his head, we are at the beginning of a delightful fable about romance and dreams. When he meets a beautiful woman who works as the Bird Woman in a circus, he falls madly in love and persuades her to run away with him only to find that life is a little more complicated than simply living one’s fantasies.

Passion Play will probably get a full trailer after it finds distribution, followed by a limited release at some point.

Read similar posts to Megan Fox gets her wings out for Mickey Rourke in Passion Play on Filmonic

After resurrecting Mickey Rourke’s career with The Wrestler in 2008 director Darren Aronofsky decided his next movie would be Black Swan, a movie that follows a ballet dancer who forms a twisted friendship with a rival dancer. This decision had some meaning, however, as in a recent interview Aronofsky revealed that if things worked out differently both The Wrestler and Black Swan would have been the same movie.

From MTV:

“I’ve always considered the two films companion pieces,” he said in an exclusive interview. “They are really connected and people will see the connections. It’s funny, because wrestling some consider the lowest art — if they would even call it art — and ballet some people consider the highest art. But what was amazing to me was how similar the performers in both of these worlds are. They both make incredible use of their bodies to express themselves.”

The tie between the two has roots that go back more than 10 years, to a time when Aronofsky had a vision for a film that would put these at-odds art forms into close contact with one another.

“At one point, way before I made ‘The Wrestler,’ I was actually developing a project that was about a love affair between a ballet dancer and a wrestler, and then it kind of split off into two movies,” he said. “So I guess my dream is that some art theater will play the films as a double feature some day.”

Aronofsky goes on to say he was talking to Natalie Portman about Black Swan a decade ago when the actress was busy with the Star Wars franchise, so it really has taken a while to get this movie made.

Black Swan will be screening at the Venice and Toronto Film Festivals this year and will be released by Fox Searchlight on December 1st. You can check out the trailer here!

Read similar posts to Darren Aronofsky reveals The Wrestler and Black Swan were originally the same movie on Filmonic

IAmRogue got their hands on our first look at Mickey Rourke, Henry Cavill and Freida Pinto in Tarsem Singh’s Immortals, which is currently filming in Montreal.

The images come from one of six production videos that Rogue have posted, which mainly feature Tarsem Singh talking about the actors and his daily routine on set. The videos can’t be embedded so click here to watch them, and cast your eyes below to see shots of Cavill and Pinto.

In the videos Singh says, when referring to Cavill, “I told him, I don’t want a six-pack, I want an eight pack. He was pretty pudgy when I first met him. But now? Hey, I’d f–k him.”

Lovely.

Singh also spoke about filming the action scenes:

“Four or five months I just thought it’d be good if it wasn’t so cutty,” Tarsem revealed.” So [action sequences are going to be more] just one piece of action that I wanted to be a bit more choreographed and unfortunately the slow-motion thing has been done to death so it’s kind of violent, fast action.”

In the film Henry Cavill plays Theseus, Freida Pinto plays oracle Phaedra and Mickey Rourke plays King Hyperion, with Kellan Lutz playing Poseidon. Recently it was announced that Stephen Dorff, John Hurt, and Isabel Lucas had joined the cast. Dorff plays a master thief named Stavros who joins Theseus (Cavill) in his battle against the immortal Greek gods. John Hurt will play the earthly manifestation of Zeus, who acts as a mentor and teacher to Theseus, and Isabel Lucas (hot robot lady from Transformers 2) will play his daughter Athena.

Relativity Media has set the release date for November 11th 2011.

Read similar posts to First look at Immortals on Filmonic

Like its predecessor, Iron Man 2 officially kicks off the summer movie season. Some of the biggest stars in Hollywood suited up for this comic book movie adaptation, but did it live up to the amazingly high standards set by the first film?

[Extremely minor spoilers after the jump.]

I think Iron Man 2 suffered from a case of overactive marketing. Add up all of the various trailers and television spots for this movie, and it basically takes us chronologically scene by scene through the entire film. There’s no sense of wonder that the first film evoked, no mystery left for us to discover. If you go back and rewatch the first Iron Man trailer, you’ll see that they don’t actually show Stark doing much in the traditional Iron Man suit except flying. This time around, they took the exact opposite approach: by showing us every action scene in the trailer, the audience is unable to connect with the story and is instead left playing the “well, we know where this is going” game.

Sure, you could argue that in today’s over-saturated media marketplace, we’re bound to see big scenes in trailers and TV spots. But IM2 showed its hand early, giving away all its secrets and (if you’ll allow the continued metaphor) leaving the final trick to fall a bit flat since all the magic had been revealed. Even if they had just left us one surprise (Iron Man’s slick new suitcase suit at the end of the grand prix scene, for example), perhaps it would have been enough for us to again experience that magical feeling the first film captured so well. The marketing department even went as far as to show us a scene in the trailer that didn’t make it into the final cut of the film (“you complete me”), and somehow they STILL had time to reveal all of the big scenes for us before we walked into the theater.

For me, the film felt like a series of missed opportunities. The only reason we know Mickey Rourke’s character’s name is Whiplash is through press releases and plot synopses before the movie came out. The word “Whiplash” is never spoken once in the entire movie. There was also no mention of the Ten Rings organization, the terrorist group responsible for Stark’s capture in the first film. With the way the original ended (the leader of that group still at large), I figured there would at least be a passing reference to their surely-nefarious activities (similar to the Scarecrow’s cameo in The Dark Knight), if not a full-on exploration into their plans in the wake of Iron Man’s rise to power.

Speaking of exploration, perhaps the biggest missed opportunity in the movie was the lack of exploration into the Pepper Potts character. I’ve never been a big fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, but she’s very likable as this character and provides a good counter-point to Stark’s ridiculous eccentricity. In the film, Tony makes Pepper the CEO of Stark Industries, which is a great chance to further explore her character and see how she reacts to the responsibilities thrust upon her. Instead, Pepper becomes perhaps the most marginalized character in the film, relegated to just one or two scenes in which all she does to convey her newfound authority is hurriedly speak to someone on the phone. By the end, she has resigned from her position, but we are never given a clear indication about the future of Stark Industries; is Tony back as the CEO, or does the job still belong to Pepper? Favreau is content with zooming out while they’re having this discussion, and the question is left unanswered. (Granted, from what we’ve seen so far, Tony’s duties as CEO took a backseat to his work as Iron Man so it’s not REALLY that important an issue – but a bit of clarification would have been nice.)

The character of Tony Stark has been altered dramatically. In the six months between the events of the first film and the start of this one, Stark’s cockiness has been brought to its logical conclusion. He’s revealed to the world that he’s Iron Man, which is seemingly enough to justify him turning into a total jackass. His trademark swagger and witty banter seems much more malicious here, and Stark seems almost vindictive, going out of his way to bring people down and make them look like idiots all around him. There’s also the alcohol abuse: not the full-on “Demon in a Bottle” examination once rumored for the project, but instead a birthday party scene which is basically an excuse for an excessive amount of useless CGI fighting between Iron Man and War Machine. The entire depiction of Stark reminded me of the titular character in Rocky III: high from his heavyweight titles, overexposed, and an altered version of the lovable boxer we saw in previous films.

While the movie doesn’t quite venture into Spider-Man 3 territory, it does introduce multiple new characters and features two new villains. Mickey Rourke plays Ivan Vanko, a Russian expatriate with an inexplicable affinity for cockatoos and a Stark-like ability to engineer electronics and robotics. Considering Vanko was raised in Russia by a drunk, his talent is theoretically more impressive than that of Tony Stark, who, while a notable child prodigy, was unquestionably raised in an environment more conducive to their brand of sophisticated technical knowledge. It’s too bad Iron Man 2 isn’t interested in exploring these theoretical situations; instead of being an interesting character, Vanko is depicted as an essentially mute guy who, while certainly looking the part of a villain, is actually a pretty terrible one. Rourke doesn’t help matters any as an actor, imbuing Vanko with about as much personality as my computer desk and, in his opening scene, going so far over the top with his bellowing yell that it elicited laughter from me instead of sympathy.

Sam Rockwell (fresh in my mind from his fantastic performance in 2009′s Moon) fared a bit better as Justin Hammer, Stark’s industrial rival and the Negaduck to Stark’s Darkwing. He was also a bit over the top, but that trait seemed to fit better with his character. An egomaniac obsessed with beating Iron Man at his own game, Hammer is a charismatic dude (with some sweet dance moves) who spends practically half of the movie picking up Tony’s sloppy seconds (including that “piece from Vanity Fair”). He might be a bit crazy, but he just wants to one-up Stark in any way possible, so he thinks teaming up with Vanko will be the solution to his problems. I’ll avoid any big spoilers, but it’s safe to say that Vanko is a bit smarter than he appears.

Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as James “Rhodey” Rhodes this time around, and I thought he filled the role without missing a beat. While I prefer Howard’s depiction of the character, Cheadle more than held his own and was easily capable of acting against Downey. And yes, as we saw exhaustively in the trailer, War Machine is featured pretty heavily in Iron Man 2. Cheadle seems to have fun with the character, but Howard’s smirk when he says “next time” to the silver suit in the original film makes me a bit sad that he wasn’t able to fulfill his own prophesy.

The most surprising part of the film was Scarlett Johansson, who actually wasn’t bad as Black Widow. Let’s face it – she’s got the looks, but she doesn’t always deliver in the acting department. She doesn’t have many lines here, but her delivery was sincere and I bought her in the role. She definitely has the physicality for the little bit of action the character performs (also given away in the trailer), a “female kicking ass in a hallway” scene thematically similar to a scene we just saw in Matthew Vaughn’s Kick-Ass but not nearly as brutal. Despite some strange directorial choices in that scene with regards to overhead shots and distracting editing, she still comes out with the desired effect: looking badass.

In keeping with the “missed opportunities” theme, we have a small appearance by Samuel L. Jackson as S.H.I.E.L.D. chief Nick Fury, who guides Stark in the right direction for one or two scenes and then is absent for the rest of the movie. I realize he’s a minor character, but I would like to see a brief diversion into that character’s mind and gotten to know him a little bit. He’s going to pop up in other Marvel films until The Avengers comes out, but until then he’ll most likely be seen in a small capacity like this and I doubt any screenwriter will devote enough time to get to know this character when they’ve got a huge hero to build their stories around. When you think about it, we know almost the same now about the Avenger Initiative as we did with Fury’s brief post-credits mention of it at the end of the original Iron Man. We hear that Iron Man is recommended for a slot on the team, but Tony Stark is not – and then we aren’t allowed any further insight into the potential consequences of what that might mean.

Maybe it’s just me, but I felt like this entire movie was not as well-directed as the first one – strange, considering Jon Favreau was at the helm for both entries. In Iron Man 2, there is a long list of decisions that I simply didn’t agree with. The first-person POV scene walking through the crowd was dizzying and unnecessary, as were the wild camera movements in our introduction to Iron Man right before he lands at the Stark Expo. Instead of locking down the camera like he did in that cool shot during Stark’s first flight over the Santa Monica Pier and the Ferris wheel in the original movie, Favreau chooses to spin the camera around as Iron Man freefalls toward the ground, jarringly swinging in close to him and then far away again with no particular rhyme or reason.

I also had some issues with the Monaco race scene. Apart from the opening establishing shot of Monaco – a Dark Knight-esque helicopter shot that gorgeously reveals the layout of the city below – I thought the whole race sequence was not very well done at all. There wasn’t a single POV shot from the front of the car, which seems like a no-brainer if you’re trying to convey the feeling Stark is having of speeding down the track. Instead, Favreau places the camera high above the action and we look down on it passively and detached from the action. The sense of speed was poorly translated, which was yet another missed opportunity since we don’t see Indy car races in film very often.

Let’s also not forget that Whiplash destroys a car, and then – with no protection, mind you – is literally engulfed in flames as he pulls a “cool guys don’t look at explosions” and walks out unscathed on the other end. What was his endgame there? In yet another comparison to The Dark Knight (I know, I know, but they just keep coming to me), The Joker allowed himself to be captured, setting up that great jail interrogation scene but also thinking ahead enough to engineer his own escape. Writer Justin Theroux tries to emulate that pattern, but falls short when we realize that Whiplash just wants to “make God bleed” and…that’s it. He’s got no game plan after that, he’s just hoping that someone else who hates Iron Man will bust him out of prison. Of course, Justin Hammer plays right into his hands, but Whiplash’s plan seems much more thrown together than the calculated brilliance of The Joker’s.

This brings up perhaps my most basic criticism of the movie. If Whiplash’s tentacles are approximately 20 feet long, why doesn’t Iron Man, I don’t know, just take a few steps back? Or maybe – and bear with me here, because I realize this suggestion might be too unbelievable – maybe he could freaking FLY AROUND HIM blasting Whiplash with pulse beams all day long while he swings in vain down on the ground. I can’t comprehend how someone as “smart” as Tony Stark would see that the guy has a limited reach and say, “you know what? I’m going to get in close with this dude and see how that works out for me.” Mind-boggling.

I know if I was still a kid, I’d love this movie simply because it has more Iron Man fight scenes than the first one. But that argument no longer holds true for me now that I’m an adult. It’s the same feeling I got when watching Louis Letterier’s The Incredible Hulk – I enjoyed the sequences with Ed Norton as Bruce Banner far more than I did watching a CGI Hulk smashing things. Comic book films have done a great job of locking down A-list dramatic actors in the past few years, and my theory is we should be allowed to watch them work. Let them earn their massive paychecks.

To be fair, you’ll have to take that last paragraph with a grain of salt. I’ll admit (as I did in my review of the first film) that I’ve never read an Iron Man comic or been a fan of the character before I saw Favreau’s 2008 film, so perhaps I’d have been more excited to see a CGI Iron Man blowing up CGI drones if I were passionate about the character and grew up imagining these sequences on the big screen. But since that isn’t the case for me personally, I ended up coming down a bit hard on this film.

Despite my criticisms, I’d still recommend checking this out. It’s not terrible, but I just had a lot of issues with it. If you’re looking for a good summer action flick, this is definitely a good place to start, and I’d even say it’s worth seeing in theaters (if you catch a matinée). But when Marvel follows up a great first film with a mediocre second one, they shouldn’t be surprised to hear vocal disappointment from fans and critics alike. Turn off your hype machines, lower your expectations, and you’ll have a good time. Until next time…

Read similar posts to Review: Iron Man 2 on Filmonic