Iron Man 2 delivers tons of action

A few things to keep in mind as you read this:

• I attended a midnight showing. This is my first midnight showing of a movie since 1995, when I watched the first three Indiana Jones movies back-to-back-to-back. That's a long time ago.
• Iron Man was one of my favorite movies of the last decade, ranking No. 9 in my recent rankings.
• I was a comic book geek growing up.

So with those things out of the way, let me tell you why Iron Man 2 was worth paying money for and staying up to 3am on a work day.

What Worked
This movie (like the first one) begins and ends with Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony Stark/Iron Man. He infuses the character with such energy and passion, and makes him seem like a real flamboyant character. The action sequences are mesmerizing, especially the final fight scene. The effects are great, and the overall cinematography adds to the action.

But Downey is not the only great performance in this movie. Mickey Rourke is tremendous as deranged genius Ivan Vanko. Really, having two performances like this in an action movie is unfair, especially to the action movies that will follow this summer. It was also supported by solid performances by Don Cheadle, Gwyneth Paltrow (better in this movie than the first) and Scarlett Johansen.

The story was also very entertaining. Will it win screenplay of the year? Certainly not, but it was above average for this kind of movie.

What Didn't Work
This is a short but important list. What scares me, as a major fan of Marvel Comics Avengers (scheduled for a movie release in 2012) is Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. Downey acted circles around him. And I know Jackson is supposed to personify bad-a cool, but he's almost become a laughable parody of himself.

And I feel like director Jon Favreau (who did a great job) was a little self-indulgent with his part in the film and some of the short cuts he took with the story. Overall, minor quibbles.

Who Would Like This
I don't think this is as good as the first one, but if you liked the first one, this is a good encore. It's also just a good action romp, so likely would be enjoyed by action movie junkies like myself.

Who Wouldn't Like This
If you didn't like the first one, well, I can't understand why you would like this one instead. The action sequences were a little better. Also, if you just don't like this superhero genre, this is not your movie.

Closing Credits
This film shows that the superhero genre is alive and kicking. This was a fun, action-filled film. As good as the first one? No, but that was a high bar to get over. Great movie that I will see many more times in my life.

Avenger thoughts
As I mentioned earlier, Marvel is planning on an Avengers movie for the summer of 2012, which will be proceeded by Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor, both due in 2011. I can't really say how excited I am by this; I was an Avengers reader as a kid (it was my favorite comic book), and I was also a huge fan of Captain America.

But I am a little worried. Joss Whedon is directing, which is good. But ensemble movies are difficult. He's going to be combining a bunch of disparate movies into one. Tough work.

That being said, I am very excited about the next couple of movie years. Avengers Assemble!

Batman vs. Batman

Recently I watched both The Dark Knight as well as the 1989's Batman. I've been wanting to watch Batman since Batman Begins came out in 2006, but hadn't had the chance. And when I saw The Dark Night, I really wanted to compare the two Jokers. Everyone was on the Heath Ledger bandwagon (I was as well), but in 1989 everyone was the on the Jack Nicholson bandwagon.

So here is my uber-geeky attempt to compare the two films. Enjoy.

Leading Lady vs. Leading Lady
This comparison is like asking me if I would rather watch a never-ending loop of the romatic scenes in Twilight or The Lake House; do I really have to pick? Kim Basinger is absolutely awful in this movie except for maybe 1 or 2 scenes. Maggie Gyllenhal is similarly bad. Yes, I know, everyone thinks she's great. But she over-acts almost everything, and there was a clear lack of chemistry between her and Bale. (Not surprising, seeing that he's a big jerk.) Winner: TDK, only because Bassinger sucked worse.

Alfred vs. Alfred
Though Michael Gough is very good in Batman, Michael Caine is awesome in his limited role in TDK. He's awesome in everything. Whether it's playing an eccentric isolationist in Children of Men, or a funny pageant coach in Miss Congeniality. He always delivers. Winner: Sir Michael Caine, by a hair.

Director vs. Director
Again, I thought Christopher Nolan would easily come out on top, but Tim Burton was closer than I thought. Batman is an awesome film, and very well done. Infusing it with Prince music is annoying 20 years later, but made some sense at the time. Still, Nolan's vision has lifted superheroes movies beyond just comic book/action fare. Winner: TDK, but closer than you think.

Gotham vs. Gotham
In Burton's vision, Gotham is a surreal city infusing a 1950s style (fedora hats everywhere) with a 1980s vibe (Prince music and selected modern amenities). The buildings, the streets, the people, all seem to come from a combination of eras. His Gotham is haunting, beautiful and very comic book-esqe.

Nolan's version is a dark, post-modern city. Filmed mostly in Chicago, Gotham looks gritty and real, from a car chase under a an overpass bridge, to the hospital Joker blows up. Like Burton, it seems like Nolan eyes every detail to make sure the city supported his gritty, dark tale.

Winner: Batman. Burton's vision is more distinctive and feels more like Gotham to me. TDK's Gotham feels too much like Chicago.

Batman vs. Batman
Before I re-watched Batman, I would have given it to Christian Bale hands down. He brought a coolness to Bruce Wayne and a dark menacing to Batman. But I had forgotten how well Michael Keaton did. His Bruce Wayne isn't a classic, flamboyant playboy, but more nuanced and subtle, as his his Batman.

I know this will go against modern sensibilities, but Keaton was better. Winner: Batman

Joker vs. Joker
This is the big one. Heath Ledger rightfully received major accolades for his performance as the Joker. After watching it a second time, it's hard to believe this is the same guy who's breakout performance was 10 Things I Hate About You, and then received acclaim for Brokeback Mountain. Ledger played the Joker as a more modern Joker, in no way related to the 1950s Joker, a complete physcopath.

Jack Nicholson's performance was similarly acclaimed in 1989. His Joker was a combination of his classic, crazy persona and a classic Joker. The result is a dark, funny character, who, while not as dark as Ledger's Joker, is hardly someone you'd want to bring home to mom, unless you're a Manson.

But Nicholson's Joker was Nicholson with make-up and a few good one-liners. A fantastic performance, but it was an entire level behind Ledger, who is now the iconic Joker and the ultimate superhero villain performance, surpassing the greats (including Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in 1978's Superman, and Ian McKellen's Magneto in the X-Men movies). Verdict: Heath Ledger is the Joker.

Overall
Batman was a great film. I've watched it probably 15 times, and I've never gotten sick of it. There's nothing glaringly wrong with the film except Bassinger and the fact that it spawned three awful sequels. (Everyone knows Patrick Stewart should have been Mr. Freeze, not Arnold! Where's my Delorean?)

The biggest gripe I have with TDK is that it is too dark. Was it a great film? Yes, but I don't think it was as good as Batman Begins, and when I left it after seeing it the first time, I left feeling depressed, not pumped. And when I leave a superhero movie, I want to be pumped.

But I can't ignore how good of a film TDK was; it's so well done, and I enjoyed it more the second time, especially with the expectation of the film's melancholy tones.

But what separates the two films is Heath Ledger. His performance makes TDK Batman's superior, if only by a little. And I would take either of these films over anything I saw in the theater this year. (That's right, G.I Joe, I'm talking about you.)

On DVD: Push surprises

Push movie review (on DVD)

Score: 8/10

Where has this movie been hiding? Its scores on Flixster and Rotten Tomatoes are not good -- either by fans or critics. But I found it to be a slick, stylistic combination of NBC's Heroes (a better version) and the Bourne movies. I enjoyed it more than almost any movie I've seen this summer (in theaters or on DVD), and it did a better job of capturing my vision of what superhero entertainment can do than Heroes or the most recent X-Men and Spider-Man movies.

What worked: First off, some great action sequences. Toward the end there's a fight scene between two Movers, wacking each other with telekinetic punches. And because it's in Hong Kong, most of the backgrounds were stunning and eary. The acting was also above average (hats off to Chris Evans), and the story was tight, though somewhat confusing at times. And I can't say enough about the style -- just a great combination of camera work and editing.

What didn't work: The story was a little confusing -- but I think it was meant to be. Following all the different 'super-folk' was a little difficult at the beginning, and could have been very hard if you aren't well-versed on the genre. The ending also left it wide open for a sequel (that's not likely to happen) so some of the biggest plot elements were left untied.

I did want to address the criticism I've heard that this is a rip-off of Heroes and X-Men. First, nothing can be a rip-off of Heroes. I enjoy the show, but there's nothing particularly original in its storyline; it's borrowing heavily from decades of comic book lore. Second, I didn't find it much like the X-Men films and only marginally like the comic books. Yes, it too borrowed from comic book themes and powers, but I don't really rate that as a crime. It's a genre flick, and I'm fine with that as long as the story and characters are interesting, which they were.

Who would want to see it. This is a tough one. It got panned by a lot of comic book fans, but I thought it was good in that context. It's also a very good action flick, with more drama and character development than most. It is pretty violent, and it contains underage drinking, so those are some of the warning signs.

Closing credits. As you can tell, I wish I would have seen this sooner. I might buy this on DVD -- it was highly entertaining, and I suspect has good re-watchability. In my mind, Push has taken its place in the top 8 superhero movies of all-time.

On DVD: Hancock delivers

Hancock movie review (on DVD)

Score: 7/10

As I've mentioned before, I am a sucker for a good superhero movie. I had wanted to see Hancock in the theater, but never got to it. I rented it from RedBox the other night, and then watched it last night.

I was pleasantly surprised. (A 7 on my scale means I would have been OK with seeing it in the theater and I recommend it.) I was ready to be disappointed, but I wasn't. It was a flawed film, but it had enough good for me to recommend it.

What worked. As usual, I like Will Smith. Even playing an anti-hero like Hancock, his charisma carries the day. Jason Batemen and Charlize Theron were not as good, but both did a good job. The story was tight, though it did deteriorate into major cheese toward the end. The action scenes were above average. There is a lot of great comedy in here too.

What didn't work. Compared to much of the other superhero fare, the special effects were sub-par. And as mentioned early, the story went from highly interesting to a little cheesy, but both of those things are forgivable. My major issue was how crude Smith's character is at the beginning. That diminished my enjoyment of the film.

Who would want to see it. Superhero junkies. Action film fans. As mentioned above, if crude language offends, you would likely pass, and this is not a movie for kids.

Closing credits. As mentioned earlier, I recommend the movie with a few caveats. Wish I had seen it in the theaters.

Superhero movies saving the day

After I saw X-Men in May 2000, I had an interesting conversation with my friend Beth as we were coming out. I expressed my hope that this was the birth of an era of superhero films, similar to what Westerns had been for almost 30 years in the 20th century. Beth was skeptical, wondering if the success could be sustained. Obviously it has been, but let's look at box office results for superhero/comic book films since then.

2001: Nothing yet. With X-Men's success in 2000, Hollywood hadn't had the chance to copy.

2002: Spider-Man comes on the scene as the top money-maker of the year. A sub-par Men in Black II (which comes from a comic book) finishes 8th. Road to Perdition (not a superhero movie, but based on a graphic novel) comes in 24th.

2003: X2: X-Men United comes in sixth. It's clearly now a secondary franchise compared to Spider-Man. The Hulk (pretty flawed film) comes in 13th, north of $100 million.

2004: Spider-Man 2 makes $374 million, losing the top spot to Shrek 2. The Incredibles (though not sourced from a comic book) comes in 5th. You could make the argument that The Incredibles is actually the best execution of classic superheroes in a film to date (and I would make that argument). And let's pretend Catwoman never happened, OK people?

2005: Batman Begins inexplicably comes in 8th, behind some lame films including Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and King Kong. What were Americans thinking? Batman Begins is one of the greatest films of all-time people. Fantastic Four is 13th, mainly because of males 13-30 going to see Jessica Alba multiple times in a skin-tight outfit.

2006: X-Men: The Last Stand enjoys it's best box-office success despite being the worst film in the franchise (thank you Mr. Ratner). Superman Returns (a pretty weak film) also breaks the top 6.

2007: Spider-Man 3 gets revenge against Shrek the Third. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (which I've never seen) makes 'only' $131 million. Ghost Rider makes $115 million domestically, taking in less than Blades of Glory. TMNT (the animated film) gets only $54 million, making it the 7th best animated film of the year (ouch).

2008: It will forever be known as the year of the superhero. The Dark Knight opens to $158 million and easily becomes the most successful film of the year (but 'only' 27th all-time when you adjust for inflaction). Iron Man is #2, and Hancock is #4. The Incredible Hulk barely eclipses the first film (although it was a ton better), and Hellboy II: The Golden Army does better than the first Hellboy, but disappoints (as far as box office return is concerned).

So what am I trying to say? We're in a golden era of superhero flicks, which is totally awesome for a geek like me. And we have a bunch more coming, including X-Men Origins: Wolverine (May 2009); Iron Man 2 (May 2010); The First Avenger: Captain America (May 2011); and the one I've been waiting 20 years for, The Avengers (July 2011).

I'm glad that Beth's prediction proved wrong, that now some of the most successful films of this decade were superhero flics, including a couple that are also some of the decade's best films (including Batman Begins, X-Men, and Iron Man). Here's hoping we get another decade full of costumed, crime-fighting fun.

Box office info from Box Office Mojo.