Burn After Reading

Burn After Reading, the new Coen Brothers movie, plays like the comedy mirror to their own No Country for Old Men, with a dash of The Big Lebowski thrown in for good measure. A group of dimwitted personal trainers (Frances McDormand, Brad Pitt, and Richard Jenkins) discover a disk in their gym with what looks to be secret CIA files on it. The disk belongs to Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), who doesn't even know that it is missing (or that the disk of information even exists), so when the personal trainers contact him in order to collect a reward of some sort, things turn sour and all hell breaks loose. What follows is mayhem, death, a few laughs, and a morally ambiguous ending. Pretty much what you'd expect from the Coens.

If you've been keeping track, you probably remember that I was not the biggest fan of their Oscar winning picture from last year. I came to appreciate it as time wore on, but it is not the classic many might have you believe. Which is a shame because I really love these guys and their offbeat filmography. On paper, Burn After Reading looks like a return to familiar territory for the brothers. Viewing the film, however, it became slowly apparent that this was not going to be the knockout that so many of their earlier films were. Indeed, by film's end I was a bit disappointed. Not overwhelmingly so, thankfully, but enough to make me a bit sad. Will the Coens ever achieve the same lofty heights they hit with Fargo, Lebowski, Barton Fink, and others?

The film starts off surprisingly slowly, introducing us to all the players. This is problem number one: there are too many characters at the outset, and too few are immediately interesting. Cox and his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) take up a good majority of the opening scenes, yet they have very little spark to their characters. They are two bitter, angry people that you would not expect a comedy to be centered around. Thankfully just when you think you can't take any more of these two George Clooney shows up to brighten things up a bit. His Harry is a twitchy, odd duck. Cheating on his wife with Katie, he also cruises the internet looking for other woman to fool around with. He is a fun character, but for a long time we don't understand why he is even in the film. After a good twenty or thirty minutes we are finally introduced to the Hardbodies employees, and this is when the film finally takes off.

McDonrmand is a ball of energy as Linda, a woman who just wants a couple simple procedures done to make her appearance better. Discovering the secret disk may be exactly the ticket she needs in order to pay for those procedures. The true revelation is Pitt, an actor who rarely disappoints but is especially great here in what is easily his funniest role. Pitt plays Chad, a man who takes dimwittedness to rarely seen levels. His attempts to negotiate with Cox over the return of the disk fail repeatedly, yet he can never understand why. Chad feels almost like he is from a different movie, especially when he is interacting with the dry Malkovich, and as he cuts a swath through the story he leaves behind nothing but charm and laughs. Sad that he has relatively small screen time compared to the rest of the cast - a few more scenes with him would have gone a long way, especially early on.

The film has a strong climax, and the abundance of characters makes sense by the end, but that opening half is far too slow and dull. Also, I suspect many might be annoyed by the glib, offhanded way the film is concluded, making the loose ends of No Country seem like nothing. When this film does hit the right notes, it can be very funny. Yet it is not nearly funny enough, nor as interesting and insightful as most of the Coen Brother's previous films. It all adds up to a lot of nothing. I know the Coens had some purpose to this darkly misanthropic comedy, yet I can not figure out what it is. My silver lining is that a some of their films have failed to impress me upon early viewings, only to expand with passing time - even No Country. I suspect a second viewing here will illuminate some of the subtler points and make me appreciate what felt like an otherwise malformed film. But until that second viewing, all I am left with is a film that came close to being good but just missed that mark.

The Dark Knight

I grew up at a time when it was nearly impossible not to be a Batman fan. While Tim Burton's first Bat-film barely escaped my radar upon release, I still remember the hoopla around Returns in 1992. I was there when they launched the Animated Series, faithfully watching every day after school. I was in line opening day for both Forever and Robin. While other comic book characters were certainly prevalent at the time, none ingrained themselves into my psyche quite as much as Bruce Wayne and his alter-ego. So when the whole franchise came to a sudden and unexpected halt in 1997, I was disheartened. It seemed as though I may have to move on, find a new superhero to satiate my comic book needs. But as the comic book renaissance began at the turn of the decade, I found myself unimpressed by what was being offered. It became apparent that no other character would be able to take over the mantle from Batman, and I would just have to patiently wait for someone to revive the dormant franchise.

Christopher Nolan's 2005 take on the series was a breath of fresh air. It took itself and its characters seriously, aiming to be more than simply a fun time at the movies (though it was that, too). Nolan and company decided to make a hero for a real world, eschewing superpowers and freakish villains. In retrospect, that first offering did have its faults - notably the final act - but all in all, it succeeded where so many other comic book films have failed. Now, three years later, Nolan has set out to top his already stellar first film. To say he does is an understatement. This is a magnum opus for the genre, a film that is alive with ideas, characters, action, dialog, and emotion. Like only a select few sequels, it builds upon its predecessor to expand the world its characters live in while not ignoring what made the first one so successful.

If I have one complaint, it is that Batman is relegated back to second fiddle, much like he was in the first series of films. It would have been nice to focus a bit more on how he was dealing with the events in the film, especially a major choice he has to make about halfway into the film. Begins was the first film to truly explore the character in more than a superficial way, but they've regressed a bit on that front here. His arc was the most difficult to appreciate, simply because not enough time was spent on it. Although in a two and a half hour movie, that may be asking for too much. Especially when every single new character is so damn fascinating.

The scariest villains in film history are ones we don't know anything about. Michale Meyers, Leatherface, Anton Chigurh, Hannibal Lecter (although someone got the bright idea to explain him to no end in a series of sequels) - all work because their actions are unpredictable, seeming to make no sense. The Joker, perhaps one of the most iconic villains in any medium, follows in this fine tradition, and as a result he is both terrifying and riveting. The Joker appears to explain what made him into such a monster, only to later reveal that he was just messing with us. It's like he knows people are trying to analyze him, to figure out what turned him into such a monster, and he is having fun screwing with people's expectations. Was it his dad? A former lover? Something far more mundane? We never get an honest answer, nor do we need one. As a result, Joker is so unpredictable that we are left constantly on the edge of our seats wondering where he is going to take us next.

Heath Ledger makes the role of the Joker his own, proving all the naysayers (myself included) wrong. And while he is so convincing as a man utterly nuts, it is his scene in the interrogation room with Batman that really shows just how great a performance it is we are witnessing. Reminiscent of the diner scene in Heat (in fact, much of the film is an homage to that classic), these two opponents stop the movement of the story for a few minutes to simply talk to each other. While the scene quickly turns out to be an integral part of the plot, for a moment or two this scene just pops with energy as two sides of a coin meet face to face. If Ledger really does get an Oscar nomination, it will be this scene that is showcased on award night.

The ads have led us to believe that this is Heath Ledger's film, but that actually isn't the case. I am fairly certain that the most screen time is allotted to Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent. If that isn't accurate, it simply felt that way because it was his performance that stood out to me the most. We've already gotten Batman's story, and the Joker has no story, so this film ends up being about Dent's arc. And what an arc it is. I suppose it could be considered a spoiler what he ultimately goes through, but if you have any familiarity with the Batman mythos, it should be obvious where he is heading by film's end. Eckhart absolutely sells the character as someone who has strong morals, but is losing his grasp on the idea of how to go about enforcing those morals. He is fighting for the same thing as Batman, but unlike Batman he is forced to obey the law in order to bring about justice. This is an arc that could have felt unbelievable if not handled right, but I bought into Dent's third act transformation. Eckhart is, in my mind, the real centerpiece of the film.

I hope that everyone involved will be back for one more Batman outing. They've hit on some really great themes here that need to be wrapped up in a third film (or, more likely, not wrapped up as much as further expounded upon. Nolan isn't interested in giving us simple black and white morals here). The idea of Batman being not a hero, but a figure of vigilante justice is an interesting one that rarely gets acknowledged in these kinds of films. People in comic book films love Spider-man and Superman in a way they don't with Batman. He takes everything into his own hands, plays by his own rules. He is the Dirty Harry of superheroes. When he essentially wiretaps every phone in Gotham, we are forced to question if he really has our best interests at heart. While he seems to think so, not everyone else does.

Nolan's Batman series has really spoiled the comic book movie for me. I just can't sit back and mindlessly enjoy something like Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk when there is something far more mature and complex out there in the same genre. Sure, those films are fun, but fun is passive, fleeting. To aspire to be something more than just fun, as Nolan is doing here, is to achieve a lasting impact on our culture that will be discussed and analyzed for years to come. And that appears to be what The Dark Knight has achieved.

WALL·E

Every year Pixar releases a new movie, and every year I am amazed that they continue their unblemished streak of good films. From Toy Story up through Ratatouille I have not been let down by these wizards of storytelling. They understand the potential the medium of film has to be magical, something so few films attempt to achieve. Yes, WALL·E is another home run from Pixar, but they have taken a bold leap forward this time. This new venture leaves all past Pixar films in its dust, and it is in large part because they've created a fully realized and utterly magical world on a scale the likes of which we've rarely even glimpsed before on the big screen.

From the first time I heard about the concept of WALL·E, I was excited. This had potential to be something new, something daring. Instead of relying on a celebrity voice to bring WALL·E to life, Pixar instead turned to sound engineer Ben Burtt to create the film's hero (as well as the many minor characters that populate the film's universe). This gamble pays off brilliantly. WALL·E, in spite of not being able to really speak, is more alive and beautifully nuanced than any character I've seen this year. The heartfelt sighs, the frustrated groans, the curious chirps - all convey so much by saying so little. The rest of the cast is equally impressive, as they each have a distinct personality of their own. If Burtt doesn't win the Oscar for sound design this year, it will be a huge disappointment.

The whole premise of the film lends itself to a fascinating and timely commentary on the current state of our planet. WALL·E is the last remaining robot on Earth, his job to clean up the enormous mess mankind left behind when they shipped off to the stars. It's quietly unsettling to see WALL·E roaming around piles of trash that rival the nearby skyscrapers in size. Had the film spent its entirety simply exploring this world, it would have made for a riveting experience. We learn so much about the humans of the film simply through the garbage WALL·E finds and the remains of the city he inhabits. It makes last year's I Am Legend look tame by comparison.

With the eventual arrival of EVE, the true heart of the film emerges. WALL·E has learned about love through an old copy of Hello Dolly on VHS, and he quickly falls hard for the first robot he's encountered in centuries. The love story between the two could have come off as so offputting, seeing as they're robots, but it's handled with such delicacy and care that you find yourself really hopeful for these two. Never have I wanted to see two characters simply hold hands so badly. When a love story is done right, it is often the most involving story a film can have for me personally, and this film hits all the right notes with grace and style.

The film follows these two lovebirds into space, and it eventually takes us to the starship containing the remains of human civilization. I won't give too much away, but it is clear that this is the film Mike Judge had in mind when he made Idiocracy a few years back. It's both hilarious to see what we've become hundreds of years from now, but also a bit disturbing. Jeff Garlin does a great job as the main human role in the film, although they do saddle him with the obligatory revelation scene in which its hammered home that we need to take care of our planet. But that's a minor quibble with an otherwise flawlessly handled story.

Pixar has truly stepped up their game in a major way with WALL·E. I fell head over heels in love with the film, its story, and its wonderful assortment of characters. But I fell hardest for WALL·E himself. This is truly a hero for our times, and one that will likely enter into the pantheon of great animated characters. When a film of such true quality comes along during a dearth of great films, it is something to be cherished, and that's exactly what I will be doing with WALL·E for a great long time.

Catching Up: Mini Reviews

Ah, summer. We wade through months of uninteresting movies to get here, only to be reminded that the majority of summer movies suck. This year was worse than normal, as there was nearly no redeemable movies all winter or spring. Thankfully we already got Iron Man and Indiana Jones, because without them this summer would be shaping up to be the most painful in recent years. These mini reviews range from mediocre to downright painful. Let's hope WALL-E can pick the pace back up next week.

Kung Fu Panda

I have a bias against the films of Dreamworks Animation. They rely too much on pop culture references and seem content aiming for the middle, never trying to be something special or new. I was expecting the same thing here, but was pleasantly surprised. While not up to the Pixar high standard, this is the closest Dreamworks has come to making a genuinely good animation. It focuses on characters and story over pop culture jokes, and the animation is actually artistic for a change, notably the opening sequence. That said, I felt it treaded a little too much on familiar waters, and the supporting characters were almost non-entities (I think Jackie Chan had one line the whole movie, and I'm pretty sure Lucy Liu didn't say anything, though she must have or they wouldn't give her a credit). I also have a bit of a problem with an animated kung fu movie, as that seems to go against the whole point of making a kung fu movie. That said, this is the first step down a path of respectability for Dreamworks. If they can improve upon this one, they may yet overcome my bias.




The Incredible Hulk

Count me among the many who disliked Ang Lee's 2003 take on the Marvel character. It was long, dull, and uneventful. This reboot solves many of the problems of the original, but in doing so creates all new ones. It starts off with a great opening credits summary of what has happened so far, then follows that up with Bruce Banner in South America trying to overcome his curse. For the first twenty minutes I thought this might be a really good movie, but as soon as Banner heads back to America, it becomes another mindless action spectacle with no characterization, no plot, and entirely CG fight scenes. By the end I felt overloaded. I fear the Hulk may just be one of those comic book characters that doesn't work on the big screen, no matter how much producers seem to think he belongs there. He is just as uninteresting a character here as he was in the last film. Perhaps he'll work better as a secondary character in the proposed Avengers film Marvel is working on.




You Don't Mess With the Zohan

I can't believe Adam Sandler is still as popular now as he was a decade ago. That's not meant to be a knock against the man - most comedians have a very short shelf life. A Bill Murray is far less common than a Chevy Chase. Yet he continues to churn out hit comedies every summer, occasionally even taking the time to fit in a drama here and there. I was a huge Sandler fan back in his early days, and would honestly consider Happy Gilmore to be among the ten funniest films I've ever seen. But the quality in these things have trended downwards over the years, and this one is just dull. By far the best part of the film is John Turturro as The Phantom, an over the top Palestinian terrorist. Too bad he's not in more of the film. The whole hairdresser angle is not funny and often tedious, and Rob Schneider is once again playing an unfunny stereotype. The jokes in Sandler's films are less and less funny each outing, and at some point Sandler is going to lose too much of his fan base to continue making these kinds of movies. It may not happen anytime soon, but it will happen one day, and I sincerely hope that by that point he has carved out enough of a niche as a dramatic actor that he can sustain himself in a new arena. I really like the guy, and he does have some great acting chops (Punch Drunk Love was a minor revelation), so I hope he can grow beyond films like Zohan one day.




The Happening

Has Shyamalan really run so completely out of ideas that he could think of no better title than The Happening? It's especially ironic because quite the opposite happens, actually. I've stuck with Shyamalan far longer than most, even feeling that The Village was a worthwhile product. But what made his last few films overcome their shortcomings was his wonderful and nuanced direction. He had a mastery of the camera that you can really only find in a Hitchcock or Spielberg film. That is completely missing here. There is no sense of urgency or dread, no matter how many times he cuts to a menacing tree or wind. It almost feels like a parody of his past works. And the characters are atrocious. I honestly couldn't care less if they all died. Part of this is due to the writing, but it's largely because of the awful acting on display. Mark Wahlberg delivers every line so insincerely that when one woman falsely accuses him of trying to kill her, his response of "Nooo, of course I'm not" makes him sound like he's lying to her, which isn't supposed to be the case. This has been touted as Shyamalan's first R rated film, and that R rating is only used to prop up a boring film. It seems that he could think of nothing exciting or dramatic to put on the screen this time around, so he relied solely on gratuitous violence to keep us watching. The old Shyamalan could get us excited simply by using his camera in a daring way. The new Shyamalan would rather take the easy and less fruitful route.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Growing up, the other kids always seemed to hold the Star Wars trilogy up as the greatest series film had produced. For whatever reason, I never really jumped on that bandwagon - I was always more of an Indy and Back to the Future kid. And while the idea of another BttF film makes my blood run cold, the prospect of a new Indiana Jones adventure always seemed like a reasonable idea, in theory. It's a series that almost certainly should be left in the 80's, but it could probably survive in the modern climate under the correct supervision. The series had already hit a major speed bump with Temple of Doom, so it seemed unlikely that a new film could tarnish the series in the way Phantom Menace did to Star Wars. While Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has a fair share of flaws, it is by no means a franchise killer, and quite often it is a lot of fun. And really, that's what you want from an Indiana Jones movie.

I think the biggest problem this film has is that it lacks that iconic feeling that the previous three had (yes, even ToD). The other films are ripe with moments, music, and characters that are all cornerstones of film history at this point. None of that exists here. The action scenes are all a little "been there, done that," the characters are a mix of familiar faces and uninspired new ones, and the music is completely forgettable. But when your biggest fault is a failure to feel iconic, you have little to worry about. Like I said, this is FUN. Perhaps it's because I was never able to see the original trilogy on the big screen, but seeing an Indy film in the theater for the first time gave me a big, giddy smile for most of the film. Even if Indy was dealing with fairly generic action set pieces, it was still exciting to see how he was going to deal with them.

Harrison Ford hasn't lost any of his old charm here, nor does he seem too afraid to be physical. Sure, he runs a little slower and he has to rely on other people to help him out occasionally, but overall this is still the same Indy we remember, just a little older and a little wiser. As you may have heard, Karen Allen returns here as Marion Ravenwood, and it is the scenes between the two of them that really rise above the rest of the film. When the two meet for the first time in years, the reaction Harrison portrays is wonderful. These two characters were made for each other, and it's nice to know that Spielberg and company agree. Allen may no longer look like a typical Hollywood beauty, but she has more feist and personality in her than someone like Jessica Alba or Megan Fox ever will. If anything, it would have been nice to see more of her here.

The new players are where the film starts to fall flat. Ray Winstone plays a dodgy partner to Indy, and if you've seen The Mummy, it becomes clear that he is a complete carbon copy of the character Beni in that film, even down to his final scene being identical. Cate Blanchett is surprisingly bland as the villainess, perhaps because she keeps disappearing for large chunks of the film. Her motives are never completely clear, nor is she ever really defined. The biggest question mark has always been Shia LaBeouf. It's been stated that George Lucas wants to hand this franchise over to Shia, but truthfully he doesn't seem like he'd be up for it. It's not that he does a bad job, just that the character isn't very interesting. The 50's teen rebel seems a little cliched and dull, and it just doesn't fit well within the Indiana Jones universe.

Spilling the story details is kind of unnecessary. Indy goes looking for some sort of artifact, with the villains in pursuit. You either know what to expect from these films, or you haven't been paying attention. The devil, however, is in the details. I liked the way they referenced the fact that Indy hasn't just been dormant for twenty years. In the 40's he went to fight in WWII (now there's an interesting - if atypical - film to imagine, Indy at War), some of his friends and family have passed away, and he's been involved in government projects from time to time. To say this is a contemplative film wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it is certainly aware that Indiana has aged and seen the world, and that his adventures over the years have affected him. It could have been just another entry in the franchise with no thought towards growth for the character, but it wasn't. The first film worked so well because it was a fresh idea. Temple of Doom fell flat because it didn't try to do much of anything beyond recapturing the spirit of the first one. Last Crusade was a high point because it added the father-son element into it, making it more than just a copy of Raiders. This one again tries to infuse something into the action: a sense of nostalgia within Indy, as well as a son figure for him in Shia's character.

While at times pretty silly (the refrigerator scene, for example), it is still well above any other adventure film out there right now. Will it be something I return to again and again over the years as I have with the others? I'm not sure, but I suspect I won't. I enjoyed it right now, and that's really all you can expect from any movie. It's a shame it feels necessary to hold it up to the three previous films, but that's just the way it goes when you follow something so iconic. However time looks back upon this fourth Indiana Jones film, it was great to have such a wonderful character back on the screens for two hours.

Speed Racer

We may only be two weeks into summer, but it's hard to imagine a more insipid or repelling movie than Speed Racer being released. Even The Love Guru can't be as terrible as this. It's not just that it's bad. I can handle bad. What makes this an unnaturally painful movie going experience is that it's quite clear that those involved gave this thing their all, but with the completely wrong direction in mind. Everything from the visuals to the editing to the acting is done well, but in a "I can't stand to watch this" kind of way. Only the most skilled artist can make something so completely unwatchable.

Take, for example, the visuals. This film is almost wall to wall special effects. Aside from the actors, I'm not sure there is anything on screen that isn't CGI. The Wachowskis could have advanced the use of green screen with this film, they clearly have that ability, but instead they made everything as cartoony and superficial as possible. Everything looks retro, but intentionally so. Instead of trying to adapt the Speed Racer property for the film medium, they adapted the film medium to fit Speed Racer. And it doesn't work at all. Instead it is headache inducing, and it becomes impossible to tell what exactly is going on.

I suppose part of why I can't enjoy the film is that it is so clearly aimed at young children. It wasn't made for me, so maybe I shouldn't be attacking it. That's an argument that I don't subscribe to. There are plenty of good family films that I enjoy completely. Any Pixar film, for example, work as a children's film and as a simply good film in general. And to be honest, I can't see a lot of kids really enjoying this. At over two hours in length, it grow tiresome even for an adult, and the plot spends far too much time dealing with evil corporate sponsors and the business of stock trade. I'm an adult and I wasn't entirely sure I could follow the villain's evil plans. I understood that he needed to take down Speed Racer, but the why of it went largely over my head. It's a hard film to follow, and aside for the trippy visuals and a monkey, I can't see what a kid would take away from this film that he wouldn't get from Iron Man.

I have no prior knowledge of the Speed Racer franchise. Perhaps that compounded my frustration, but it seems like they could have explained some things more for non-fans. Such as: who is that Australian man-child living with the Racer family? Why did Racer X abandon his family and fake his death, essentially destroying his family for years? Why does Speed's girlfriend live with Speed's family? Why on Earth do they have a monkey and why does no one ever comment on that fact the entire movie? Is it just normal in the future for families to have monkeys? Was the youngest Racer, Spritle, so affected by ADD that the family had to buy a monkey to befriend him because the school children wouldn't? These are the sorts of things that can take a non-fan out of the film. And they are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to non-sequitors within the film.

What we have here, honestly, is not a film, but the makings of a future midnight movie cult classic. It's hard to imagine what was going through peoples' heads when they made this, because clearly nothing on screen was a good idea at all. Warner Bros could not have been happy when they saw that the film the Wachowskis turned in was not a technology pushing adrenaline rush, but instead one big LSD trip for two hours and fifteen minutes. Heads fly across the screen to signal cuts. People drive around in literally hand drawn vehicles at one point. There's an entire subplot about Spritle and the monkey stealing candy from a jet that goes nowhere at all. I could go on and on about how insane this film is, how its mere existence defies all logic, but instead I'll simply say that you've never seen a movie like this - and you probably never should.

Iron Man

After a brief spring hiatus it's time for me to get back into the swing of things with the summer movie season, and what better way to kick things off than with Iron Man?

1997's Batman & Robin was a movie so singularly bad it ended a franchise, a number of careers, and nearly destroyed the comic book movie as a genre. It also took a toll on me, at the time just a young boy who loved movies and superheroes. It was a movie going experience that has stayed with me forever, a scar that won't quite go away. I bear that scar every time I go to see a superhero movie, making it very hard to unabashedly love them. At the first sign of whimsy or cuteness I run for the hills. I hate every Spider-Man movie, can't stand the Fantastic 4 series, and barely tolerate the first and third X-Men. Indeed, the only superhero movie I have loved with all my heart since 1997 is Batman Begins, perhaps because it was made specifically to be the antithesis of Schumacher's abomination. It is with that baggage that I approached Iron Man, a movie I couldn't quite get behind, but saw signs of great things to come within.

Iron Man is not exactly one of the top tier superheroes. That holy trinity seems to be Batman, Spider-Man, and Superman - three icons that everyone know. I went into this film knowing very little about the Iron Man character, his mythos, or rogues gallery. In a way that seems to work to the film's benefit. Usually you know exactly what you're getting from a film about the Holy Trinity because they've carved out such specific places in our culture that they can't really deviate. Iron Man has no such place in our society, so the film is free to do things we've not yet seen in a superhero movie, playing with the ideas of keeping your identity a secret, who a superhero should protect, and how it should be done.

Robert Downey Jr is a great choice to play a wisecracking, womanizing, alcoholic billionaire weapons manufacturer. While he seems a bit reigned in compared to some of his greatest performances, his charm and charisma is the single best aspect of the film. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get a similar popularity boost to the one Johnny Depp did after Pirates. To take a character who is so self-centered and egotistical and make you truly believe that he would want to save the world by film's end is no easy feat, but Downey sold me. The rest of the cast is well chosen, if given little to do. Terrence Howard is largely wasted as the best friend who clearly is there to set up his role in the sequel. Gwyneth Paltrow is wonderfully understated for most of the film, but she becomes a bit whiny towards the end of the film. And the great Jeff Bridges is an inspired choice for the villain - pity he is almost nonexistent for most of the run time. If Downey sold me on his character arc, Bridges was the exact opposite. He becomes the villain almost out of the film's necessity, not out of a clear path for his character. It felt like something that should have been developed throughout the film and then payed off in a sequel. The cast all work well together, though, and any problems they run into is a result of the script and not their acting.

Indeed, the script is the film's only true weakness, lacking any real direction. The first third of the film is great, as it sets up how Tony Stark is captured by terrorists using the very weapons he has been manufacturing. He sees what he has been doing to the world and decides to escape and set right what he'd done wrong. After that, though, it goes nowhere. He spends a great deal of time just working in his lab creating the suit we've all become familiar with. The final twenty minutes finally pick back up as a villain rises to challenge him. Those who were bored by the lack of Batman in the first hour of Batman Begins will be truly asleep here, as Iron Man is probably on screen for less than a fourth of the 2 hour run time.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this film is that Iron Man is not a hero out to save a city, like Batman or Spider-Man (or even Superman oftentimes). Instead, he has made it his mission to save the world. If given this incredible suit, would you go around town stopping thieves and muggers, or would you fly around the globe stopping terrorism? It makes for a more dynamic character, and raises interesting moral questions (should some American in a suit of armor be allowed to police the world?). It's not developed too deeply in this film, but it's clear that this is the direction the sequels will be going in.

Iron Man feels like a movie that was made simply to build up to the inevitably better sequel. It puts all the pieces in place and then says (figuratively) "To be continued." It's a film of individual great elements, but elements which are not allowed to all gel together. Perhaps I will never really be able to love a movie like this again, but I can see a lot to appreciate, and I think that Iron Man as a franchise has a great future, even if the inaugural installment wasn't perfect.