Review: IRON MAN 2

Like its predecessor, Iron Man 2 delivers the finest form of entertainment within the confines of a very limiting genre. The first Iron Man was a strict superhero origin story that managed to stand out above the rest thanks to Robert Downey Jr.’s quirky acting. This time Iron Man 2 presents the superhero sequel formula with unprecedented elegance.

Ladies and Gentlemen...

... Iron Man 2.

Is Replacing Actors for Sequels a Good Idea?

It was reported last week that Terrence Howard would be replaced by Don Cheadle in the highly anticipated sequel to the summer blockbuster Iron Man. Reportedly, it was due to Howard's demand for higher pay for the role. Knowing how War Machine was teased in the film made it seem like there was going to be some more development in the Jim Rhodes character. It is unfortunate for a franchise that is destined to make a lot of money to not want to put out for a little bit of continuity in a film.

This goes for all sequels that get recast, and not just Iron Man. Several that come to mind immediately are Marvel, so that's convenient. As you may have heard, Thomas Jane is not returning for The Punisher: War Zone and Ed Norton doesn't want to reprise his role as the Incredible Hulk for a possible sequel or The Avengers. Jane didn't like waiting for the project to start shooting and Ed Norton hasn't given a reason, but it is most likely due to the changes he made to the script of The Incredible Hulk being edited out of the theatrical cut.

People making choices to compromise the quality/success of a film takes it away from the consumer and makes the imaginary world that a film creates a lot more realistic. When Iron Man II comes out and you see Tony Stark talking to Jim Rhodes, won't it be weird seeing him talk to a physically different person than the one he was talking to a day/week/month/year ago? Recasting makes the audience aware of the fourth wall and consequently, makes it easier for an audience to be taken out of a movie.

Also, don't get me wrong, the actors used to replace the leaving ones usually do a good enough job, but it's not the character from the previous films. A few months ago, Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor was released without Rachel Weiss. They did something kind of smart in the film to address it. At the beginning of the film, one of Maria Bello's first lines, referencing a character based on her the she wrote in books titled "The Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns", was, "Honestly I can say that she's a completely different person." Now that seemed to be the studio telling the audience about the change, but that didn't change that the new Mummy film was bad.

To any Hollywood types reading this blog, please listen to my plea. If you go the extra mile in keeping the original talent used, not only will the profits grow, but it will be more likely to maintain a franchise.

-Mark

Review: TRAITOR

Eh.

There's some spoilers here. Not major ones. You'll deal.

If this movie is about breaking down racial barriers, and presenting the idea that not all Muslims are terrorists, it pretty much fails. If anything, I feel like I am likely to start racially profiling more after seeing this movie.

Don Cheadle pays Samir Horn, a man born in Sudan, and trained in the United States as a Special Op. He has an American accent.

Also, is Muslim.

He spends his life as a terrorist helper, making bombs, delivering bombs, and overseeing flashy Islamic terrorist attacks. Right away, we get a sort of sympathetic feel from him, and it makes you wonder why our protagonist is a terrorist.

After escaping from a prison in Yemen, he decides to help his newfound friend Omar (Saïd Taghmaoui) in a complicated, but professional nation-wide terrorist attack. We spend half the movie watching him help Omar to recruit young kids from around the world to help in this impending attack. We get to see the terrorist point of view - Americans have spilled innocent Muslim blood for centuries, and now it is time to take back their honor. Attack and kill as many Americans as possible.

I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable for most of this movie. Really? Our protagonist is a terrorist? Just a guy who follows Allah and helps to kill Americans. For an American, it is odd to watch.

And all the while we have Detective Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) on the case, looking to stop Samir. Pearce is a personal favorite actor of mine, and I naturally thought he did a great job. His accent was spot on.

So here's the problem: we have no antagonist. The film sets it up so that we want to hate Clayton. But how can we really? He's an FBI agent, a good one, a guy that wants to stop innocent people from dying. Sure, his assistant Archer (Neal McDonough) is a douche, but that is not enough for us to label Clayton as the bad guy.

Then I began to think it must be Samir that is the "bad guy". After all, he is setting off bombs and killing people all around the world.

And then he became the good guy! That's right, we find out about half way through that he is not in fact working for the terrorists, but he is in on something secret with FBI agent Carter (Jeff Daniels). Samir Horn is a not a traitor of the US, but a traitor towards the terrorists.

So now we have Clayton hunting an innocent guy, and he has no idea.

This movie takes you through too many loops. You have no one to hate, and no one to root for. You never find out Samir's plan until the end, so you feel like you are just waiting on something to go off, kind of like a bomb.

It seems like they wanted to make a "Bourne" style movie, but about terrorists. The movie is shot like it, Samir fights like it, and the music is a straight up knock-off.

It has decent action and decent performances, but it leaves you with nothing. You don't have to see it. If you want to, rent it. Don't waste your ten bucks.