Short Review: Everything they did right in the first movie, they did wrong in this one.


In this follow up to Iron Man, director Jon Favreau comes down with a serious case of the sophomore blues. The original film had a sarcastic edge that smoothed out a clunky but still enjoyable plot. The origin story of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) introduced an externally belligerent/internally weak man who finds the cure for his mid-life crisis. In the original Stark is forced to beat down his past self, personified by his business partner Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges). This outing avoids all of that messy character stuff and focuses on lots of loud noises, flashing lights and Scarlett Johansson in a body sock.

Tony Stark returns having achieved world peace thanks to his use of the Iron Man suit. At least, that is what we're told. We never get to actually see him protect the world. It's all explained in a Senate hearing. This makes Stark's hero work an abstract. This in turn makes it meaningless. If it is not on the screen, it doesn't exist for the audience.

The screenplay by Justin Theroux clearly explains that the world is at peace in the opening moments. One would then expect that in turn this world peace would be threatened. Nope. Stark is attacked by Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), a Russian physicist with a grudge. Vanko's personal vendetta is funded by Stark's weapons manufacturer rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell). World peace is never actually threatened. The only things threatened in this story are the egos of a bunch of scummy super-geniuses. This does not make for a riveting central conflict.

This lack of stakes is the main reason the film fails so completely. Theroux doesn't paint himself into narrative corners, he paints himself out of the whole room. He is so busy introducing characters for the upcoming Avengers movie and fumbling with technological presentations that he almost doesn't have time shoehorn in any actual characterization.

There are numerous scriptural issues that make the story fall flat. This is evidenced in Stark giving up his company in the first act. Once he does this he has literally nothing to lose. At no time does he find it critical to get his company back. It is just something that happens. If it has no deeper value, why does Theroux involve it in the film?

At one point Hammer tells Vanko to take Stark's "legacy" from him. How does the audience know when his "legacy" is taken away? We are given a statement of action by the villains and it involves a motive no less intangible than them saying they're going to hurt Stark's feelings. This is poor writing.

Vanko's whole motivation is a vacuum. Favreau gives us enough to understand that Vanko is fueled by revenge, but this revenge is hollow because we don't understand its cause. This results in Vanko being little more than another hurdle Stark must overcome instead of a villain to confront. (Spoiler warning) This is why at the end, Stark so easily overcomes Vanko and his droid army and why Vanko's death has zero dramatic punch. He is a non-entity. (Spoiler done)

The film also lacks any symbolism or meaning. In the original we were given the cheesy, but effective symbol of Stark's heart. Does Tony Stark have a heart? Yes, and its sitting in this little glass box. It is a symbol that is referred to and played upon throughout the entire film.

In this film, Favreau sets up a similar conceit. Stark is literally being poisoned by his suit. While the suit gives him fame and glory, it is also making him more toxic (both literally and figuratively). This is a solid metaphor and it is strongly established early on. It is then left unused.

One would hope that when they set up in the first act that Tony Stark and Iron Man are one in the same and that he gains so much through wearing the suit, that in the end he would have to discard the suit in order to complete his heroic task. This would make Stark the real Iron Man and make the suit his accessory, instead of it being the other way around. No such luck.

Overall, this version of the film is an incomplete draft of what should have been a more enjoyable production. It stinks of something that was rushed to market. This is not a good movie. Its not even a passable one. The film ultimately becomes an elongated teaser trailer for the upcoming The Avengers movie, hitting screens in 2012.

Labels: Don Cheadle, Jon Favreau, Mickey Rourke, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, sequel, superhero

Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Anne Heche, Dwayne Johnson, Eva Mendes, film, Mark Wahlberg, Michael Keaton, movie trailer, Paris Hilton, Ray Stevenson, Samuel L Jackson, Steve Coogan, Will Ferrell

Screenwriter: Justin Theroux (Tropic Thunder)
Director: Jon Favreau (Zathura: A Space Adventure)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Chaplin), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler), Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love), Scarlett Johansson (The Island), Don Cheadle (Ocean's 11), Sam Rockwell (Moon), Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane), Paul Bettany (The Da Vinci Code), Kate Mara (Transibberian), Jon Favreau (Swingers) and Garry Shandling (What Planet Are You From?) and Olivia Munn

Labels: Don Cheadle, film, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jon Favreau, Kate Mara, Mickey Rourke, movie trailer, Paul Bettany, Robert Downey Jr, Sam Rockwell, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson

Short Review: A masterful effort at making the cinematic equivalent to a fart lighting contest. Inherently juvenile with some brief moments of flash, but in the end, the thing simply stinks.


This is a bad movie, a very bad movie. It’s not even the good kind of bad movie that the filmmakers wanted this to be. The only thing that saves this film is the name Snakes on a Plane. With a title like Snakes on a Plane it’s a little hard to complain you didn’t get your money’s worth. Whining that this film is terrible is like vomiting and then complaining your mouth tastes tart. It’s part of the package.

The producers went back for a re-shoot because they actually took advice from people on the Internet. That’s like a community theater taking stage direction from the kids smoking outside of a high school. The Internet is packed with information and some good thinking, but he producers weren’t dipping in that end of the pool. The Internet-based additions, shockingly, kicked this film from PG-13 to an R-Rating. Smart business plan, an R-Rating means the investors couldn’t look forward to any hope of wide merchandising to major retailers and, I believe, the average gross profit for a PG-13 is round 50%. R hangs around 37%. While the film did manage to recoup its cost, they can assume they lost money in order to look cool to kids in chat rooms who demanded to hear Samuel L. Jackson scream "I've had it with these m-f-ing snakes on this m-f-ing plane!"

The film itself is much like you would expect. Bad guys, trying to kill a witness to a murder, place a bunch of drugged up snakes on a plane. The plane takes off and the snakes attack. From that point forward the film descends into watching people screaming, getting bitten by digitized snakes and having Samuel L. Jackson flare his bulbous eyes while yelling every syllable. There’s not much beyond that. After the first ridiculous moments of snakes biting people, the film loses much of its steam. There are only so many times you can see an actor pretend to fend off a cobra before you begin looking at your watch. Besides, they open the snake attacks with a girl getting bitten on her nipple, a guy getting chomped on his daddy sacks, followed by people getting it in the eye, butt and tongue. There are only so many places one can get bit. Once you run out of nerve centers and naughty parts there’s no where to go.

To summarize, if this isn’t normally the kind of deal that turns your crank and you’re thinking it will be fun to see; it won’t be. If seeing chicks and dudes, like, getting bit, like y’know in the junk and stuff, appeals to you then you're dumb enough to watch the movie.



Related Reviews:
Samuel L. Jackson movies
Eve's Bayou (1997)
1408 (2007)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Christian Spotlight on the Movies
Film Critics United

Labels: film, movie review, Samuel L Jackson

This movie has John Cuasck and Samuel L. Jackson in the cast list. They're not exactly signs of high quality product. The plot revolves around Mike Enslin (Cusack) an author hoping to debunk the tales surrounding a haunted room in a hotel run by Gerald Olin (Jackson). The film does well setting up the plot and then has no idea what to do with itself. If you're into watching actors trip over plots holes this is a movie for you.

Labels: film, John Cusack, Mary McCormack, movie trailer, Samuel L Jackson

Tarantino makes amoral, flashy but hollow flicks but they sure do make for great trailers. This ad gives the full vibe of the movie and certainly promises what it delivers - a stylized, sharp-edge movie. Too bad the actual product is critically flawed. It is the epitome of style over substance and is best viewed within the confines of a few minutes like we have below.

Labels: Bruce Willis, Christopher Walkin, film, Harvey Keitel, John Travolta, movie trailer, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L Jackson, Tim Roth, Uma Thurman

Screenwriter: Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs)
Director: Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction)
Actors: Brad Pitt (12 Monkeys), Diane Kruger (National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets), Eli Roth (Death Proof), Mike Myers (The Cat in the Hat) and Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane)

Labels: Brad Pitt, Eli Roth, film, Mike Myers, movie trailer, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L Jackson, World War II

François Girard (Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould) directs this artsy piece that follows the “life” of a particular violin through the years. Utilizing the scene from a high stakes auction as the anchor, this film freely bounces across centuries and continents. Each of the stories about the various owners of the violin throughout time is interesting and well done.

This is not a film for those who simply love fire and explosions. If you can get into a calm, yet well-constructed film that speaks to your mind instead of your eyes, this is a good movie for you.


Related Reviews:
Samuel L. Jackson movies
Caveman's Valentine (2001)
Eve's Bayou (1997)

Other Critic's Reviews:
Three Black Chicks Reviewing Movies
Sight & Sound

Labels: film, movie review, Samuel L Jackson

This is one of the more annoying movie trailers ever released. The editing, the music, the tone of the whole ad is vomit inducing.

At least it sets you up for what its like to try to sit through the actual film.

Labels: film, movie trailer, Nathan Phillips, Samuel L Jackson

Quentin Tarantino is a talented guy there is no doubt. He has a sharp eye, a masterful control of language and knows how to wield his encyclopedic knowledge of cinema and pop culture. For all of his gifts however, he is also a master at squandering them on pap nonsense. This film,a twisting collection of underworld tales of mobsters, hit men and a wayward boxer, is a marvel. It is brisk, catchy and wonderfully shot. The acting is inspired and the dialog is poetic. There is no denying the lure of the production. It is unique. It is also the biggest example of style over substance. Tarantino paints a brilliant picture but fails to infuse it with any purpose. The movie was made simply to be watched, consumed and that's all. There's no over riding reason to see the film other than it's "cool". This is fine if you're a simpleton who has no expectation out of cinema other than to be titillated. If you expect more out of film, when you break this thing down and look at it, it is hollow.

The lack of a point wouldn't be that big of an issue, there's plenty of content-free movies out there, but this is such an ugly movie that it makes me pause. The characters are hideous people doing horrendous things to each other. Everyone is an amoral monster carelessly drifting through the world causing mayhem and bloodshed. Instead of pulling the various plots together into a decisive moral point, Tarantino is comfortable letting the loose ends float in the wind without either resolution or any deeper meaning. Someone dies, it's no different than if they live. A man is shot in the back of hit man Vince Vega's (John Travolta) car he's the referred to as a "dead nigger" for the remainder of the scene. He's not a man, he not an individual, he's not respected, just a "dead nigger" who needs to be mopped up. If it were clear that Tarantino were trying to show the world as an amoral jungle it would be passable but he never feels the need to explain things that far. Things just happen and the things that happen are simply ugly. I am certain the reason for this is because of how the script was written. The script, with all of it's fast dialog and broken time lines, is actually very simple. Reading it, it seems apparent to me that Tarantino sat down and thought of some scenes he thought would be cool to produce. The needle in the heart, the hillbilly male rape, the standoff in the diner, etc. These scenes are anchors me established and then wrote wandering threads to each of them. There are five or six solid scenes with riveting action the rest of the film are meandering paths to these scenes.

It is clear actors thrive when given Tarantino's dialog. He offers them, not so much deep characters, but interesting ones and with the popping dialog there is plenty for trained actors to dig their teeth into. In particular Samuel L. Jackson finds a rich role in hit man Jules, who is transformed after surviving an ambush that should have taken his life. Jules sees God's hand in the event and feels that he's been spared to do greater things. This redemptive element could have been drawn out and held meaning but Tarantino doesn't seem to know what he has on his hands. In the end, Jules' epiphany is explained and his explanation falls flat, weighed down by irrational pop culture references and a lack of direction. I found myself wanting Jules to pull himself out of this criminal life and his choice to wander the Earth, doing good deeds, sounds wonderful, but this brief respite from the amoral morass Tarantino creates has as much impact as spitting in the ocean.

Ultimately, this is not the brilliant work of art it has been portrayed to be. It is a lively, invigorating piece of cinema, to be sure, but it's not a masterwork. I understand why so many claim this to be brilliant. It is a vivid work and there's no ignoring it. As I said, it is unique. But when you stop to really look at it, there is actually very little going on other than a lot of flash and bang. I give credit for some great dialog, but the overall film is just a vile trip through the imagination of a man who is stuck in his corrupted adolescence. as I've said before, Tarantino is a legitimate talent but he has the instincts and mentality of an abused twelve-year-old boy with a box of frogs and firecrackers.


Related Reviews:
Quintin Tarantino movies
Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2 (2003 - 2004)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Roger Ebert
ScreenIt!

Labels: Bruce Willis, film, JohnTravolta, movie review, Quentin Tarantino, Samuel L Jackson, Uma Thurman

Related Reviews:
Another Kasi Lemmons movie
Eve's Bayou (1997)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Goatdog's Reviews

Labels: film, Kasi Lemmons, movie review, Samuel L Jackson

The more I see of this film the dumber it looks. I can't think of the last time I have been this underwhelmed with an upcoming release. It just looks embarrassing. They all but have Samuel L Jackson wearing a chicken suit.




Screenwriters: Frank Miller (300) and Will Eisner
Director: Frank Mille (Sin City)
Actors: Scarlett Johansson (Match Point), Eva Mendez (We Own the Night), and Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane)

Labels: adaptation, Eva Mendes, Frank Miller, movie trailer, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson

Screenwriter: Matthew Stone (Intolerable Cruelty) and Robert Ramsey (Man of the House)
Director: Malcolm D. Lee (Undercover Brother)
Actors: Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction), Bernie Mac (Guess Who), Jennifer Coolidge (Best in Show), Sean Hayes (The Cat in the Hat) and Isaac Hayes (Hustle & Flow)

Labels: Bernie Mac, film, Isaac Hayes, Jennifer Coolidge, movie trailer, Samuel L Jackson

Screenwriters: David Loughery (The Money Train) and Howard Korder
Director: Neil LaBute (The Wicker Man)
Actors: Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane), Patrick Wilson (The Alamo), and Kerry Washington (The Last King of Scotland)

Labels: film, Kerry Washington, movie trailer, Patrick Wilson, Samuel L Jackson

Screenwriter: George Lucas (American Graffiti)
Director: George Lucas (Willow)
Actors: Ewan MacGregor (Robots), Hayden Christensen (Life as a House), Natalie Portman (Garden State), Samuel L. Jackson (The Incredibles), Christopher Lee (Crimson Rivers 2: Angels of the Apocalypse) and Ian McDiarmid (Dragonslayer)

Labels: Ewan McGregor, film, George Lucas, Hayden Christensen, movie trailer, Natalie Portman, Samuel L Jackson, Star Wars

Screenwriter: George Lucas (American Graffiti) and Jonathan Hales (The Scorpion King)
Director: George Lucas (Willow)
Actors: Ewan MacGregor (The Island), Hayden Christensen (Shattered Glass), Natalie Portman (V for Vendetta), Samuel L. Jackson (1408), Christopher Lee (The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring) and Ian McDiarmid (Dirty Rotten Scoundrels)

Labels: Ewan McGregor, film, Hayden Christensen, movie trailer, Natalie Portman, Samuel L Jackson, Star Wars

Screenwriter: George Lucas (American Graffiti)
Director: George Lucas (Willow)
Actors: Liam Neeson (Kinsey), Ewan MacGregor (Trainspotting), Natalie Portman (Leon: The Professional), Terence Stamp (The Limey), Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane), and Ian McDiarmid (Sleepy Hollow)

Labels: Ewan McGregor, film, George Lucas, Liam Neeson, movie trailer, Natalie Portman, Samuel L Jackson, Star Wars

Short Review: One of the cleverest films in years. A must see if you have kids.



I loved it. My son loved it. Even my long-suffering wife loved it.

Pixar is making the best movies out there right now. This is sad but true. I wish we didn’t have cartoons beating out live-action pieces, but I have to come to that conclusion. It is stunning when one looks at this film along with the structurally perfect Finding Nemo and Monster’s Inc. and the charming Ratatouille and Cars, in comparison to what the other production companies have been submitting for public consumption. The bulk of Hollywood is being beaten a fat superhero a talking fish.

Disney, who has become the funny uncle of the American cultural family over the past few decades, has their fingers in this pie. Luckily, Pixar was been able to keep the creeping immorality of Disney out of their work. The agendized goons at Disney have turn Wonderland into Sodom and Gomorrah while Pixar has kept their eyes on what truly matters – the family and the stories they want.

It’s just wonderful to see family fare that is actually family friendly. In a time when Robin Williams and Mike Myers doing butt and erection jokes is fair game in kid’s movies, a film such as this is a relief.

The best recommendation I can give to this movie is that when it was done I actually hoped that they had plans for a sequel.


Related Reviews:
Animated movies
The Polar Express (2005)
Cars (2006)
Finding Nemo (2003)


Other Critic's Reviews:
A Nutshell Review
Cinema Blend

Labels: animated, Holly Hunter, Pixar, Samuel L Jackson

Well meaning doesn't mean well done. Based on Stephen King's short story, the film centers around Mike Enslin (John Cusack), an author who investigates the paranormal. Enslin arrives at the Dolphin Hotel where room 1408 is rumored to be bristling with supernatural activity. In fact, a number of people who have stayed in the room have gone mad and committed suicide. Despite the ominous warnings from the hotel manager Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), Enslin demands to stay the night in the haunted room.

The first act does a great job of setting up the film and shows great promise. The whole production stumbles off the path as it goes along. This is due, in part, to the ghostly figure not being properly explained and since Enslin is the only character in a single hotel room in danger, his torment becomes somewhat tedious. Essentially, we're asked to watch a man go crazy for an hour and a half. As dramatic as this sounds, it doesn't make for good viewing. The movie has to go to great lengths to keep itself viable and in this it loses its credibility. By the end, the out of control script, which should have been creepy and symbolic (the hotel room becomes his personal Hell), is simply exhausted and leaves an empty finale that doesn't satisfy.




Related Reviews:
John Cusack movies
Eight Men Out (1988)
The Thin Red Line (1998)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
A Nutshell Review

Labels: film, John Cusack, movie review, Samuel L Jackson

Screenwriters: Frank Miller (300) and Will Eisner
Director: Frank Mille (Sin City)
Actors: Scarlett Johansson (Match Point), Eva Mendez (We Own the Night), and Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes on a Plane)

Labels: adaptation, Eva Mendes, Frank Miller, movie trailer, Samuel L Jackson, Scarlett Johansson