No Country For Old Men Review

The world is a fickle thing. Constantly swayed and changed by its societies, always in flux, never settling for a single moment. It is in flux because of people and furthermore its people are always in flux. Some stick with “traditional values” others label themselves as “progressives,” most of them go forward with the best intentions. This ever-changing fabric is of coursed held loosely together with the sanity of time. After all, all things take time to build and all things take time to erode away. One generation follows the other, each one carrying on pieces of their predecessors while at the same time deconstructing the older status quos and building their own unique society. Because of time’s patience, most of us have the time to adapt to our world through reason but what about when we can’t? What about when things just seem to be zooming by us, leaving us in the dust. Leaving us helpless with our own devices to analyze and rationalize a world we never new existed, let alone understood. “No Country for Old Men” begs such questions. Desperately.

I fear to relay the mere premise of “No Country for Old Men” because it sounds like too much a conventional thriller: a man in West Texas stumbles upon the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong and discovers a satchel filled with millions of dollars. Drug dealers being the fiscal types that they are, send their most powerful weapon to retrieve their money from him: a cold blooded killer named Anton Chigurh. Meanwhile, the county sheriff also discovers the blood-bath and from that point trouble ensues. Oh! But “No Country for Old Men” is so much more than that. It’s about relationships, and greed and miscalculation and West Texas. Above all it’s about West Texas. From its characters, to cinematography to its tragic subtext it seeks to embody the culture it catalogues.

As I mentioned earlier, “No Country for Old Men” has the fixing of conventional thrillers. However, its premise and plot are merely a canvas for its artists to create. Take for example its characters. The closest thing to a protagonist the film has is Llewelyn Moss, a retired welder Vietnam War veteran. Now, the thing we must understand about Moss, about all the character in “No Country for Old Men” in fact, is that he isn’t stupid. He’s lived in that part of the country for years, he knows, or at least has a good idea about, how drug dealers would react if he took their money. If there is one thing he possess it is hubris. It’s not of the intellect of course; he just thinks he’s in shallower shit than he actually is.

Even if Moss isn’t the protagonist, Anton Chigurh is still the antagonist. Some may try to label Chigurh as psychotic or pure evil. Such a categorization is close but not quite true. Chigurh believes he is a prophet of destiny. He flips coins to determine people’s fate (though other times he doesn’t, which makes the process seem like a formality. Then again he is the prophet). One important thing to remember, though, is that he is still an evil psychotic person. So while he believes himself a mediator of pure destiny he is tinged with a bias, which is appropriate when we consider him in the context of the sheriff. The actor who plays Chigurh, Javier Bardem, deserved the Oscar he received for this role. With the little dialogue he is given, he is forced to flesh out the character with body language and subtle facial control. He squeezes every once of potential out of this character.

Last of the most central characters is the sheriff, Tom Bell. He is an old, desperate man played brilliantly by Tommy Lee Jones. Jones seems to know this sort of character too well. His face is always solemn but never melodramatic. He speaks frankly, in his own none frank sort of way, constantly enforcing into viewers’ minds the ludicrous bloodbath unfolding before him. He also always seems to be step behind Chigurh’s and Moss’ violent game of cat mouse: a protector marred by the fact that he can no longer protect. There is a quintessential line at the beginning of the film as we listen to Bell narrate as the camera pans over West Texas countryside: “I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job … A man would have to put his soul at hazard [now though.] He'd have to say, ‘O.K., I'll be part of this world.’” This line, perhaps more than any other, encapsulates Bell. He’s afraid of this world not because it might kill him. He’s afraid because he’s not sure that if he died trying to change it that it would actually make a difference. He wants to fight this world, not be digested by it.

The Coen Brothers were nominated for cinematography and editing for this film, in addition to Best Picture and directing of course. Their diligent craft can be seen throughout the film. They never waste a second of time, nor make a scene pass by too fast, they keep the pieces flowing naturally and powerfully. They end on a powerful, even if anticlimactic and subtle, note that truly brings all pieces of the film, in terms of subtext, together.

You may have noticed that I have spent much time going on about characters, directing, editing, and other such things much more than any actual events in the film. That’s because ultimately “No Country for Old Men” isn’t about its story. It’s about its characters in its world. Its violent, dark, and seemingly unintelligible world.

*edit: Roger Deakins was nominated for the cinematography Oscar, not the Coens.

The Road Warrior Review

(above, the leader of the gang attacking the refinery)

Pseudo futuristic films can have a haunting effect on us. Why? It is quite simple. More often than not, they give us haunting glances into the future of our societies. Whether its the grim chaos of “Children of Men,” the decrepit and over populated Los Angeles (suffocated by ever present clouds of smog) of “Bladerunner,” or the filthy, poverty stricken shanties of Neil Blomkamp's “District 9;” they all grant us a rather pessimistic, however not too unlikely, vision of our futures. They allow us to examine a more barbaric and darker side of our human condition. “The Road Warrior” seems like it's trying to do the things these films do. However, I think it got a little too caught up in its aesthetic and forgot about almost everything else.

In the beginning of “The Road Warrior,” we watch haunting imagery and listen to an old man that tells us of a great war that threw the world into a an oblivion, wiping out almost the entire population, leaving few alive. He then tells us of how gangs and other such people began to rise to power, repressing and taking advantage of the weak, finally then, he tells us of the legendary Road Warrior and how his wife and child were murdered by these viscous gangs. Of course, this leads to his becoming the road warrior but I think that's obvious here: it is Mel Gibson after all. Anyhow, years later he is now a driving about the Australian outback, presumably because he has some unsettled business with the major gang of that area, looking for some gas. A man he has captured tells him of a small refinery fighting off hoards of automobile loving gang members. Max is intrigued so he scouts out the refinery, looking at all the many, many gang members laying siege to the refinery he can already tell it will be no easy task retrieving gas from them.

The premise of “The Road Warrior” seems to be brimming with potential: limited resources under contention between two desperate groups of people and a morally lost man getting caught up in the chaos of it all. “The Road Warrior” could have taken itself in any number of haunting and pessimistic directions. Alas, though, as I mentioned earlier it gets caught up in its aesthetic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, right? Just take a look at “Bladerunner,” the film practically sold itself on its environment and aesthetic alone though. Here's the key difference though: “Bladerunner's” aesthetic made sense. “The Road Warrior's doesn't. In Bladerunner, the people of Los Angeles wore mismatched, oddly colored, and old clothing because that was all they had. In addition, they lived in or sought out refuge in the decaying lower buildings of Los Angeles, further emphasizing their poverty. Also we as an audience can see that they live in claustrophobic conditions, walking shoulder to shoulder in crowded public streets. All these elements, the art direction, costume design, and extras, worked in tandem to create an unforgettable world that became all the more haunting by its adherence to realism. “The Road Warrior” on the other hand: its antagonist all dressed like they were hardcore patrons attending a heavy-metal concert or weirdos that randomly selected costumes and trinkets out of a strange sex-shop. The leader of the gang wears a Jason-esque hockey mask, has an incredibly toned body, and wears nothing more than leather underwear resembling the spartan loin cloth from “300.” The main antagonist has a pink Mohawk, draws eyebrows onto his forehead with makeup, and has a loose pants flap over his butt. However, the gang does reflect its absurdness of style in their actions; though at this point I don't think its necessarily a good things. See, gas is a valuable commodity in the region, the gangs need it so they can properly rule over their wasteland, and the people in the refinery need it so they can make a break for the coast. The gang however, doesn't seem to manifest their need of gas besides attacking the refinery. They seem to be searching for reasons to just jump on their vehicles (which also reflect their absurdness in style) and chase things, do tricks, or just kick some dust up into the air. Though, I don't think I would have minded all of its absurdness if it wasn't for a few scenes and characters that made the film seem as if it was trying to be realistic.

There is a scene near the beginning where the people of the refinery send out a few vehicles to try and make it to the coast. They are all stopped and ransacked by the gang of course, but for one vehicle it takes and especially nasty turn: the car it overturned, its passengers are taken out, one is then discovered to be a woman, the other a man. The gang members pin the man to the car with crossbow bolts, then rape and kill the woman. It is without a doubt the most horrifying scene of the film, and it sets a serious tone that all the art direction, costume design, and extras defy. In addition, the man that Max finds and holds captive is dressed up like a true apocalypse survivor, he wears mismatched clothing (tight yellow pants, a big heavy trench coach, and I if I remember correctly pink converse), has ugly, rotting teeth, and looks like he hasn't bathed since running water stopped working, which in this world was a long, long, time ago. These two early, principle elements set a tone for the film that ultimately it cannot live up to.

I can bet there are some people out there that will say things like “give the movie a break, its just tryin' to have a some fun.” To such people, I say this: I am in no opposition to fun. I rejoice in my cinematic junk food. But watching “The Road Warrior” is like biting into a carrot that is secretly disguised as a snickers. It yields little in benefiting your health and only gets in the way of the snickers.

"Pi" Review

They say there is a fine line between brilliance and madness. Which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense. See, as a society we possess standards of thought, actions and social interactions. It is when something goes against these societal norms that we become defensive and start insulting it and attacking it because, whatever it is, it makes us feel inferior or uncomfortable. But once we label it as madness, it no longer is relevant. It devolves into the illogical thought of a lunatic and we feel secure once again in our routine of our lives. “Pi” is a film that is merely about madness and paranoia. It doesn't deal with the concept of an idea changing a person or society, but merely a man who can no longer find a logical answer in the place where beforehand could find only logical answers.

The film follows the story of a brilliant mathematician named Maximilian Cohen. Max believes in three things: (1) that mathematics is a universal language, (2) that nature can be expressed and explained in numbers, and (3) that if you graph the numbers of any system, patterns emerge and you can therefore predict anything. Including something like, say, the stock market? Yes, yes, indeed.

The “code” to predicting this pattern Max discovers, is a 216 digit code. However, Max isn't the only one searching for this elusive code. A group of Jewish scholars believe that the Torah is a complex text in which all the letters represent certain numbers. They also believe somewhere within the text is a 216 letter word which spells the true name of God. He is also be vigorously pursued by a powerful Wall Street firm that wants more than anything else that code he is trying to discover. This, coupled with an ever-advancing madness, drives Max to the brink.

What's interesting in Max as a character is that he doesn't desire the code for any material purposes. Throughout the film he narrates segments and in almost every segment in which he is narrating he restates his beliefs, as if he is trying to remind himself why he is doing what he's doing in the first place. So then, why is he doing this? To simply know. So that he can finally be at ease with the otherwise unpredictable world surrounding him. Max takes solace in the sanity of numbers because he himself cannot seem to find any.

What's so wonderful about most of “Pi” is that Max seems to be caught in a loop: He is afraid of the world because it is unpredictable, so he tries to find a code to make the world predictable, however, he cannot seem to find the code, so then the world is once again unpredictable. If the film would have kept on with the cyclic elusiveness of the code, Max's madness would have made sense. However, Max discovers the code, and at this point he seems to be furthest from reality. Why? If this code is supposed to ground him, why is his mind most scattered once he uncovers it? Perhaps “Pi” thought it would make itself a smarter or more artistic film by letting Max go off the deep end, all it really does though is confound the story. There seems to be some insinuation that Max is mentally sick and that he cures himself somehow. However, the film does not allow itself to develop this idea enough.

On the level of a film, “Pi” ultimately fails due to not allowing itself the room it required to develop its ideas to their best potential and randomly inserting madness where solace should have been found. However, it succeeds in the realm of an experience. Sure, the ending doesn't make sense when you start to think about it, but it terms of a process I sincerely doubt you'll find many other films like "Pi"

The White Ribbon Review

I remember clearly the beginning teachings of my government class last semester. Our professor spoke of the age long issue of “order vs. freedom.” We explored various philosophies and political parties, ranging from libertarianism to totalitarianism. Our teacher never sided with a single one, though he did greatly advise against the extremist philosophies and parties. “The White Ribbon” seems to be doing something similar. It gives no direct answer to the argument its making other than saying what it thinks shouldn’t be done.

“The White Ribbon” opens as a whodunit and closes in ambiguity. Such an approach may seem oxymoronic. However, it works to a certain extent. First presenting us with an accident with the local doctor (that seems more like a well planned and executed attempt at injuring him) and then working its way into more sinister events like the beating and blinding of a mentally retarded child “The White Ribbon” certainly has all the feel of a whodunit. It’s also urgently narrated by its central character, a school teacher. He is recalling events of his past as he is now an old man. He gives us dates and descriptions and recounting of facts and not much else. He narrates with detail and speaks of as many people and events as he can. The effect of this no doubt is a lateral spread of storylines. Things happen, people get hurt, some people get scared, some people feel guilty about some things, and we as an audience get closer to all the characters.

The film has several storylines that do intersect, however, they don’t all feel necessary to the point it’s attempting to convey. Take the perversion of the local doctor. He is secretive, cold, and utterly licentious old man. He takes advantage of a neighbor’s wife and then insults her and calls her “revolting” then terminating their affair and doesn’t even seem beyond sexually abusing his own daughter. However, all of this seems slightly irrelevant. It doesn’t eventually connect to the tragedies throughout the village and only establishes him as an independent monster with no real connection to the events at hand. Granted, most stories do in way convene because the tragedies are nucleus for the events surrounding them. However, there are ones like these that seem outright pointless.

The town in the film is yes, a very strict and very religious German town in the pre-WWI countryside. Its children all live under strict parents (most noticeable is the reverend who beats his children with the hope of instilling discipline) who create within them a fear of God and in turn force them into secrecy. Towards the end the children become one of the primary suspects and this is no doubt where the film could have drawn the most power; however it instead chooses to stop at this point. I find the best way to describe its end is anti-climactic. By the time we reach the conclusion, we as an audience are so eager for answers and motivations that when the film chooses to release us with its ambiguity we feel cheated and confused. Some may argue that “bad things just happen.” And yes, bad things do just happen, but a person doing bad things to other people doesn’t “just happen.” People have reasons for harming each other. Another answer that gets labeled onto this film is “an example of nascent fascism.” This is in a way true. However, by leaving us with no real answer at the end as to who committed the crimes the film in turn never shows the true result of the sort of lifestyle the town leads.

Immediately, what most viewers will notice about the film it that it’s filmed in black-and-white. This was a wise, wise choice by its director. The starkness of color further emphasizes the oppressive nature of the town and in scenes of suspense adds a certain quality that color can’t deliver. If ever it should be seen in color it would be wrong, this town seems too strict to allow for colors.

Inception Review

There are many types of “great films” in this world. Now, one thing all people must know is that no single film HAS to excel in all aspect of film-making in order to achieve greatness. Take for an example, Neil Blomkamp's “District 9” (a film that I seem to come to time and time again to point out what movies do right or wrong): its greatness stems from its utter originality, surprisingly relevant political allegory, and its central character's arch. However, “District 9” can hardly be considered “perfect”. Its subtext isn't rammed up your butt through every single second of screen-time and its shaky-cam cinematography doesn't always create the effect it was looking for. But then, there also films that can be classified as “perfect” and therefore achieve greatness. Case and point, “No Country for Old Men.” Its editing, acting, and cinematography are all used in tandem to create what is known as a “perfect film.” A film so meticulously crafted that every second feels (and is) relevant to its story and subtext. So then, where does “Inception” come into play here? “Inception” is the former film. A film that isn't flawless (however, whatever flaws it may have are not very major) but nevertheless achieves greatness through audacity and originality.

Explaining the premise of “Inception” is about all one can do when introducing a stranger to its plot and story. I say this because already with the beginning of the film there so many pieces of knowledge must be imparted so that it may be understood that trying to explain would be exhaustive and mostly futile effort. Suffice it to say, Leonardo DiCaprio plays a convict with the resources and ability to enter people's dreams and withdraw secrets and valuable information. Having fled from the U.S. Authorities he now does small jobs utilizing his illegal talents until a big-shot CEO named Saito (Ken Watanabe) offers him the chance of a lifetime: a cleared record and a flight back home to his children. However, getting will not be any simple task, as Saito is asking of DiCaprio's character something that never has been done before: he wants him to commence “inception” upon a business competitor of his. The implanting of an idea in one's mind through one's dreams and subconscious.

From the standpoint of understanding the film entirely, there are two ways to view “Inception's” mind-bending nature. The first is say that it blindsides us by not making sure we understand all the concept's involved in the process of inception. The other is to appreciate the fact that it is a thinking-man's piece of cinema. Now when I say this, I do not mean it in the sense of feeling smug and exclusive once we figure out how all the parts work, merely that it is a more thoughtful and though-provoking film than most. After-all, all one needs to do to understand the film is pay close attention to the second act (where they pretty much give the audience a crash-course on how to navigate a person's mind.) So then, what makes “Inception” so thoughtful? “Inception” deals with difficult concepts very well. Using DiCaprio's tragic character as the centerpiece, the film exhibits how emotions can often hinder calm logical thinking and in the worst cases, obscure our perception of reality.

Where many may find the film to fail most, is in engaging us emotionally with each character. Now it's not as if we do not care about the supporting cast, it's just that this causes DiCaprio to have to be the emotional conduit and anchor for the audience. There is a scene where one of the characters is at the brink of losing their grasp on reality, but Nolan does not acknowledge this enough to make us feel the risk. However, every second DiCaprio is on screen we feel some sort of emotion, whether is be suspense, stress, sadness, or whatever else DiCaprio is getting us to feel. He is a master manipulator of human emotion.

In addition to being a complex, mind-bending and emotionally satisfying story, “Inception” is also blockbuster and therefore must have action. However, its not standard so it doesn't need a “District 9” surprise to keep us watching. Cleverly using the world of a dream and the tenuous grasp on reality it is therefore allowed to have as well as correlating what happens to ones body in the dream world to what happens to one in reality during a dream “Inception” manages the make a one on one fight-scene in a hallway the second coolest thing I've seen in movie this year. And even when the action becomes standard, we're already so engaged that its riveting to observe.

A deft blend of emotion, action, and mind-bending complexity “Inception” manages to make itself the best film of summer 10' and quite possibly the best film all year. A truly original and important piece of cinema that must be seen. (and thumbs up on not buying into the 3-D trend)

Splice Review

The genre of “science-fiction/horror” was never one I really cared for let alone approved of. Why? Because, next to romantic comedies, it is probably the most cliched addled genre in terms of cinema. Take for an example, the “Doom” film (based upon the computer game Doom). Right from the start one can see its plot devices and where it's going to end up: in the beginning scene we watch as a scientist runs through an arbitrarily dark hall-way from a monster we only get glimpses of. Now, though this scene should instill a sense of mystery and fear as to what the monster is or where it came from. Instead, it just gives away the fact that the scientists were conducting top-secret (and most likely inhumane) experiments and it all went to hell and now Commando Joe must shoot his way to safety as all his comrades are one by one devoured by aforementioned failed-science experiment. “Splice” breaths new life into the genre with a cracker-jack story, nerve racking suspense and fully developed three dimensional characters: ladies and gentlemen, prepared to have the “horror” and “science” put back into the “science-fiction/horror” genre.

The premise of “Splice” is intriguing at the very least: Clive Nicoli (Adrien Brody) and Elsa Kast (Sarah Polley) are married scientists that are currently working on a substitute for conventional meats. After succeeding in creating the animal to provide the substitute, they are then ordered to isolate a the protein responsible for muscle tissue of the organism. However, they want to move on and begin experimenting with human DNA in order to begin research of diseases. The company, they work for however, wishes that they carry out their ordered task because the project's funds are quickly be drained, as well as the fear of the moral outrage that may be incurred if they mix human DNA with that of an animals. Knowing that they cannot continue research under the company's label, the couple secretly mixes human DNA with that of a few different animals. The result is Dren, a sort of all too human super-modelesque thing with dear-like legs and a tail with retractable spike.

Now, with a premise like this a film can easily devolve into a retarded flick filled with blood and guts and two dimensional, annoying as hell characters that don't have the mildest sense of survival. However, “Splice” chooses to be intelligent, instead rushing us to the monster it eases us in with characters. Another new idea it experiments with is making the monster a real character with emotions and motives. See, as opposed to a monster like “The Thing” from John Carpenter's “The Thing,” Dren doesn't run around killing people for no other reason than to excite the audience. She is a shy emotional, childish creature and like a child she doesn't quite understand her feelings but she definitely has them and will act on them. The scientists as well don't subject themselves to the idiocy of sci-fi/horror conventions. No doubt, the decisions they make are bad, but not stupid. Hiding Dren from the world in barn may seem like the wrong thing to do, but they have their reasons, they can't just give up their experiment because their boss may find it: it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for scientific study.

Now, a film like this will eventually need something to maintain momentum story, after all watching scientists take notes on an animal's behavior wouldn't wouldn't be entertaining at all. So, how does it implement its propellant? With Elsa. As the film goes one Elsa begins to treat Dren with more of a mother's demeanor than a scientist's, she dresses Dren up, teaches her how to spell and gives Dren her childhood memorabilia. This is undoubtedly where the film draws most its power, watching Dren long for a Barby's beauty as she looks at herself in a mirror is at the very least, heart-wrenching.

With a powerful mid sequence “Splice” sadly goes downhill at the end. I will not tell why but Dren begins to kill people for no real reason than to add a conclusion to the story. However, the end isn't all loss, there is a short and very disturbing sequence where the film adds to the “strangely human” aspect of Dren. Besides that however, the ending is one of contrivances.

In spite of all it's flaws however, “Splice” still manages grade-A science-fiction and is more than worth the eight to ten dollars you'll be spending on it. A brilliantly disturbing piece that if not for an uneven ending, is great and refreshing. Not too mention the best movie I've seen all year. 4.5/5

Iron Man II Review

I remember when saw the first “Iron Man” in theaters. It was before the advent of “The Dark Knight” so I was skeptical with “Spider Man II” being the only good super-hero movie I seen beforehand. Needless to say, back then I was under the impression that super hero movies did nothing but suck, and on rare occasions were utterly awesome. That, coupled with the flash and glam of “Iron Man’s” aesthetic really didn’t entertain my anticipatory-movie senses. I couldn’t have been more wrong. What I found beneath its glamorous exterior was a real human story about a sly, charming, weapons corporation CEO that has came to the haunting realization of how immoral his trade really is. So then, the question that we’re all begging for the answer to now is “does Iron Man II measure up to the emotional weight of its predecessor? Or does it take the safe-root with big explosions and hot women?” Okay, so maybe I was the only one asking that specific of a question, but you get the point.

“Iron Man II’s” story takes off not too far from where we left off in the previous “Iron Man,” in the first scenes we watch as a U.S. Senator harangues Tony Stark into trading over the Iron Man weapon in the name of “national security.” Needless to say, Tony is as reluctantly and charming as ever in refusing the senator’s offer. However, the senator is the least of Stark’s worries. It appears that the device that had made him into a superhero and kept him alive since the beginning of the first film is starting to infect his blood. Tony, being the impulsive fellow that he is, starts to act up and creates quite a bit of public outcry. Oh yeah, did I mention a vengeful Russian physicists (played by Mickey Rourke) is trying to kill him while at the same time a fellow arms CEO (Sam Rockwell) is attempting to ruin his business by making a better Iron Man suite. Yeah, there’s a lot going on in this sequel, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. You see, where “Iron Man II” fails isn’t in creating an emotionally rich story with multiple three dimensional characters, where does stumble however, is in its presentation of aforementioned story; allow me to explain.

You remember how in the first “Iron Man” you could see as the relationship between Tony and Pepper slowly grew more and more intimate with little, funny sequences like when she has to replace his arch reactor? Well, “Iron Man II” has one too many sequences like that, and gets pretty boring after we expect them to be together already. However, the biggest flaw of “Iron Man II” is its central villain. The sort of mad, vengeful antagonist Rourke creates out of Whiplash is incredible, however that most likely has less to do with Rourke as much as it has to do with the character Whiplash. See, Whiplash is the perfect villain: he questions the use of the hero. Take Heather Ledger’s Joker from “The Dark Knight,” the primary reason he worked as such a great nemesis for Batman was because he found Batman’s weakness and exploited it. He took the very people Batman was trying to save, and began killing them in order to force Batman to reveal his identity. Whiplash questions the morality of the Stark family and their legacy, calling them “thieves and butchers.” Alas, Rourke is not given nearly enough screen-time to flesh out the character to his best potential, making the appearance of the character more disappointing than exciting. Now, mistakes such as this one can be forgiven if there is hope for the reappearance of the character. However, the film seems to want to get rid of him in order to make room “The Avenger’s” storyline. Now, I am in no opposition to catering to the fans of franchises; that is unless the product placement interferes with the quality of the film; which in this case it does.

Now, when you put its other flaws aside “Iron Ma II” still has cool, story driven action right? Well, yes and no. The part when we watch as Whiplash slices and dices Tony’s race car in order to kill him was probably the highlight of the films action sequences; and that’s mostly due to the incredibly badass briefcase suit. Now, if “Iron Man II” were a lesser film, I would have forgiven for its drawn-out third act of pure action but I know it knew better than to do that to us. Looking at “District 9” one could make the same argument about its third act, but you see, its action pertained DIRECTLY to the story, whereas “Iron Man II’s” felt a bit contrived. The climax of the film is an action finale where Tony and Rhodey face off against a bunch of robots (a sequence which is by the way addled with one liner’s) created by Whiplash. Sounds like it pertains directly to story, right? Well no, you see Whiplash created the robots for Hammer corp. (Stark Industries business nemesis) so that they may be unveiled at an important technology convention. Tony finds out the robots were created by Whiplash and goes to …. save the people at the convention from the robots? Why would Whiplash want to harm the people at the convention? Didn’t he accuse the Stark family of being “thieves and butchers?” In addition to this, his robots harming innocent civilians would only help Stark industries. It just didn't make any sense to me.

“Iron Man II” is less than flawless; however it still manages to be a delightful cinematic treat. While at times the action is contrived, it still possesses a strong enough story to keep the audience engaged, not to mention the infamous charm of Robert Downey Jr. If only it had a bit more disciplined direction and a less sprawling storyline it really could have been the breath of fresh air its predecessor was. Let’s just hope all this “Avenger’s” product placement pays off. 4/5