It: Chapter Two

(spoilers!)

It Chapter One premiered two years ago and was a massive success - it got positive reviews from critics, the audience fell in love with the film and it managed to become the highest grossing horror movie of all time. As entertaining as that movie was it had a lot of problems and now in Chapter Two the same problems return. But so does the fun, the emotions and of course, Pennywise.

The Imitation Game

The subject of greatness comes up during every Oscar season.  It's usually the story of someone who lived in turbulent time and had either a major love affair or contributed to the world in significant way. Those films are usually beautifully shot, scored with great music and feature well known actors who deliver good, often career best work. And they always get criticized for being filled with cliches and that huge Oscar bait sign they should have attached to them.

The Interview

The thing about me is that I have no problem with crude humor as long as it's funny. And I find Seth Rogen's comedies really funny. This is the End was my favorite comedy last year, while Neighbors tops the list in 2014. Yes, it's vulgar and stupid kind of humor but it works.

Interstellar

(SPOILERS!)

I remember when Inception was released among all that ridiculous praise it got. Then I remember watching the movie and thinking 'Really? That's it? That's the movie people give 10/10 to'? Interstellar is in comparison so boring, dumb and irritating I would have gladly see Inception three times instead of it.

Hell, I'd gladly make that damn spinning top my screen-saver.

Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3 was supposed to be the end of the trilogy ."Supposed to be" because now I hear they are planning on doing more movies. Whether it's true or not, the third part focusing on the adventures of Tony Stark is an entertaining summer blockbuster, but for me it was the weakest part of the trilogy. There was just a little too much silliness here and the villain weren't as menacing as he should be to provide the strong sense of danger.

The Impossible

On Sunday, 26 December 2004 for many the end of the world really happened. It was the day of Indian Ocean earthquake - the resulting tsunami is given various names, including the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, South Asian tsunami, Indonesian tsunami, and the Boxing Day tsunami.The earthquake was caused by subduction and triggered a series of devastating tsunamis along the coasts of most landmasses bordering the Indian Ocean, killing over 230,000 people in fourteen countries, and inundating coastal communities with waves up to 30 meters (98 ft) high. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters in recorded history. Indonesia was the hardest-hit country, followed by Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand.

Inglourious Basterds

95/100 (153 min, 2009)
Plot: In Nazi-occupied France during World War II, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis.
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Stars: Brad Pitt, Diane Kruger and Eli Roth

"We got a German here who wants to die for his country! Oblige him!"

Some say that the cinema is the true escapism. But for me the escapism only occurs when I'm watching a truly great movie, one that is able to pull the audience in its world so completely, you are not only forgetting you are watching a film, but also you don't question how far from actual reality the events portrayed in it are. "Inglourious Basterds" is one of those movies. It captures the true cinematic magic, that for few minutes alters the history, the real events and presents something incredibly satisfying. It is a movie where the evil is punished and when the actual events are changed in an extremely satisfying way.

Despite the movie's title, The Basterds, the group of soldiers who capture Nazis and scalp them is only a small part of the film. The Basters are lead by Aldo Raine, charismatic and capable leader and they are quite a diverse bunch - there is a psychopathic Nazi killer Hugo Stiglitz, Donny Donowitz who bashes Nazis heads and others, devoted to haunting down Nazis and bringing them justice. A very bloody justice.

The Iron Lady

25/100 (105 min, 2011)
Plot: A look at the life of Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, with a focus on the price she paid for power.
Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Writer: Abi Morgan (screenplay)
Stars: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent and Richard E. Grant

Blue lady and the high price of milk

I'm going to say this upfront - "The Iron Lady" is not only among the worst movies of the last year it has the script and editing so horrid, it's even worse than what was the worst part of last year so far - Keira Knightley's horrible performance in "A Dangerous Method" which was so bad it nullified everything decent she did in her career to this point. I can't watch "Atonement" anymore without fearing Knithley's jaw will start its freaky break dance any second.. Getting back to "The Iron Lady" - I'm not even sure what  I hated more - the awful script or the editing which prevented Meryl Streep to turn her acting efforts into actual performance.

I have never held a movie camera in my hands nor I ever edited a film but I believe even I would made "The Iron Lady" better. Instead of spending more than half of the movie on pointless Oscar-bait moments with older Thatcher which apparently worked since the movie's sole two nominations are for leading actress and make up. I would just keep the scene where she talks with her husband, who isn't there. If the director focused on linear narrative, showing first young Thatcher, then her time as Prime Minister and then just this one scene, where suddenly her husband is not there, making it the ending, the movie would not only be coherent, but also it would have a shot at being moving. Instead it's insufferable, dull, scattered and completely unengaging.

The Ides of March

95/100 (101 min, 2011)

Plot: An idealistic staffer for a newbie presidential candidate gets a crash course on dirty politics during his stint on the campaign trail.
Director: George Clooney
Writers: George Clooney (screenplay), Grant Heslov (screenplay)
Stars: Ryan Gosling, George Clooney and Philip Seymour Hoffman

The Death of Ideals

“The Ides of March” is a thrilling movie and the best film George Clooney has made so far. It is also the best portrayal of the cold and hopeless world of people playing the game of lies and power since "Michael Clayton" I love Clooney as an actor, not so much as a director – he did horrible “Leatherheads”, stylish but ultimately disappointing “Good Night and Good Luck” and messy “Confessions of a dangerous mind” which had some impressive scenes and an outstanding performance by Sam Rockwell, but was ultimately a deeply flawed film. “The Ides of March” is however beautifully executed and the story – co-written by Clooney is incredibly engaging, from start to finish.

In Bruges

(107 min, 2008)
Director: Martin McDonagh
Writer: Martin McDonagh
Stars: Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Elizabeth Berrington

Hell, Heaven and Purgatory...In Bruges.

(spoilers)

The mind is its own place,
and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell,
a Hell of Heaven.
- John Milton

Two hitmen are sent to Bruges. It's in Belgium. One of them, Ray, hates the place and calls it a 'shithole', the second, Ken is enchanted by its beauty and enjoys sightseeing. Lovely and simple isn't it?

No it isn't. Ray, whilst being on hist first 'mission' was supposed to kill a priest and he did. The problem is, the bullet reached a little boy and killed him aswell. Ray cannot live with his overwhelming feeling of guilt. He isn't a bad person, he's charming, a little bit shy and lost guy, simple person who is crashed emotionally by one tragic event. For Ray Bruges is hell - he is being hauned by the memory of that horrible event when he sees happy kids. He is bored out of his mind, he hates sightseeing, he has nothing to do with his thoughts and ultimately he can't stand this anymore. He decides to kill himself, on playground, but is stopped by Ken, who sents him away and tells him to keep a low profile. Ray would probably try commit suicide again, but because of chain of hilarious and unexpected events he gets back to Bruges and again meets the girl he went on a date once, Chloe. They walk around the town, they kiss and seem happy. And maybe it could stay like that. Maybe Ray's hell could have become heaven for him, once he delt with his guilt. But remorse and absolution came in different form. Ray's boss Harry kills him because of his conviction that the person who killed a little kid cannot live. Ray dies surrounded by people he met in bruges, on a film-set crowded with people in surreal masks, snowflakes falling from the sky. The movie's ending isn't ambigious as many think - Ray is dead and we as the audience see the last thing he sees.

Inception

(148 min, 2010)
Plot: In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a highly skilled thief is given a final chance at redemption which involves executing his toughest job to date: Inception.
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer: Christopher Nolan
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page
(spoilers)

Dream On.

“All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.”
-Edgar Allan Poe

Mr. Nolan, shame on you. Here I was reading all those amazing reviews that “Inception” is “mindlowing”, that it is better than “The Matrix”, that it's Nolan's best movie. Neither of which is true. Until I saw this movie I always defended Nolan, but I'm not so sure he is one of the best directors now anymore Here he was with a story with such a great potential, such a rich, complex concept and at one point of the movie I really didn't know how insane he must have been not to see that he is ruining his own movie. And believe I wanted to like this movie, so much. I love movies about dreams. I don't know what failed – that the dreams felt too ordinary? Too much action? The fact the movie was prolonged and boring? Maybe all of those at the same time?

Now, I'm sure everyone is familiar with the story, or at least with the plot - “Inception” is the idea planted in one's mind. Rich businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) hires Cobb (Dicaprio) and his team to do that to Robert Fischer (Murphy), heir of great fortune and the company of Saito's enemy. But Cobb has his own problems, with his wife Mal (Cotilliard) who haunts his dreams.

The story has incredible potential – it deals with technology that is very unique – going inside someone's mind and being in his dream. Nolan doesn't explain it fully, he gives us few details and it's enough to buy it. This is not a problem, at the beginning of the film I just sit back and enjoyed. As the movie progresses we find out that the whole thing is more complicated – there are trainings that can help someone fight with “Inception” built guards in subconsciousness. So the knowledge of dream manipulation is well known then, even if only to wealthy ones. We also see a scene with the people who no longer can dream normally – they are “addicted” to induced sleeping, in deep layers, where minutes are weeks and hours are years. Those where some of the most interesting aspects of the film, mercilessly abandoned by Nolan later on in the movie.

The characters are well developed, well, not for the movie of such a long run time, but Nolan had to show us the shootouts, why bother with characters, he must have thought. But still, by some miracle I call good acting, it works well – we have Arthur (Lewitt) who sort of manages the whole thing and gets information on the subject of the dream, Ariadne (Page), the architect, Yusuf, the chemist who induces the dream, Eames (Hardy), the forger. We care for the characters because comparing to other people in the movie they seem like the good guys, trying to help out Cobb who has good motivation. There are hints of attraction between Arthur and Ariadne, dropped by Nolan later on – again why bother? Action sequences in waiting, those explosions couldn't possibly be omitted, right? Eames brings in a little bit of comic relief and Yusuf is just a tool author of the script uses to get as from point A to B at times.

Cobb's motivation is that he comes back home to his kids. Why? That's what redeems “Inception” a little bit for me. Ladies and gentlemen, Christopher Nolan after years and years, finally managed to portray something a bit like “love story”. That was what's always been missing in his films – a bit of delicateness, a bit of noble emotions. He created emotional core of the movie, at last. Sure it's fragile and it's barely holding together and Nolan shouldn't be credited for the fact it exists at all. All the credit goes to Dicaprio and Cotilliard. But Nolan cast them, so I that idea was good.

Their story is really interesting – they both worked at dream project, how deep can you go, how far can you plunge yourself into dream state (there are dreams within dreams, in the movie we see 3 levels and limbo – the deepest part). There was only a little chemistry going on between them, but I'm ready to defend Nolan here and I'm gonna do this only once in the review. Perhaps it's because of the characters – strong, focused on dreamworld, building their own surroundings. I wouldn't call it love exactly – it's passion for the same things, life you share with someone a lot like you. Anyways, Mal, Cobb's wife commits suicide because she is convinced that reality (? - I'll return to that) is a dream. Cobb doesn't jump off the building like she does. Because of his wife smart ploy he is now accused of her murder and can't come back to USA to his kids. The reason she did it is because he performed inception on her. They were stuck in limbo for years, grew old together. But Mal couldn't quit that on her own, so he planted the idea, that it wasn't the real world. But the idea traveled with her to reality (?). And that ended up killing her.

Cobb's guilt is the main theme of the film. He can't handle it, Mal appears in his dreams, jeopardizes his work, is violent, evil, true femme fatale, nothing like she was in real life (Arthur said she was lovely). He can't cope with that. He can't sleep like a normal person anymore, so he sleeps chemically induced dreams, where he built a prison for his memories of Mal. The sequence where Ariadne follows him there and witnesses what's in Cobb's mind is one of the best in the movie. Ariadne, name borrowed from mythology. The girl who help Theseus get out of the labyrinth. Theseus is Cobb, the guilt is the labyrinth.

Now, that angle of the movie should be shown more, again - addiction to dreaming, inability to leave your dreams behind, confusion, care for another human being. There was enough potential in the story to show many more scenes. But Nolan chose to show us shootouts, skiing and explostions instead. But there is some charm in the fact Nolan didn't use Mal more – she appears as if from nowhere, just like Joker did in “The Dark Knight”. She manages to both gain our sympathy and frighten us in different scenes. Hell of a character, I didn't expect something like this from Nolan, he's not exactly master of creating interesting women in his films.

When I was watching the film I kept waiting for my mind to be blown away.. But at one point I felt as if Christopher Nolan stood behind me and kept bashing my head with the sledgehammer. Now I don't think, that is what people meant when they said it was a “mindblowing” movie. I'm talking about the 3rd dream layer with all the snow, shooting and explosions. First layer – the chase – ok, a little cliche, but given that my mind is supposedly about to be blown away I was cool with that, 2nd layer – hotel without gravity – awesome sequence and I started to expect what's gonna happen in 3rd layer and that it will surely beat that. 3rd layer. And what happened? SNOW happened. Yes. A lot of SNOW.

I was disappointed, but it wasn't the worst. Between the time the “kick” (waking up for the dream using the sensation of falling) starts to occur to when it actually happens it must have been about 20-25 minutes. Nolan keeps jumping from 1st layer where Yusef drives a van and then it starts falling with everyone except for him being asleep, 2nd layer where everyone is sleeping and Arthur watches them and fights the guards, 3rd layer where all the ridiculous shooting and exploding on the snow is going on and the limbo where Ariadne and Cobb try to deal with Mal. And it's all good. I don't mind long action scenes but when those scenes are completely unoriginal, shot without any finesse and they feel so heavy as if I was the one holding the big gun and breathing with trouble in the icy landscape, I mind, and I mind a lot. Layer 1st is just the picture of van falling in slow motion, layer 2 still manages to be impressive, layer 3 is a generic disaster and the limbo – after a little while and interesting walk through abandoned dream city, again - no finesse, all that build up leading to poorly made CGI building collapsing and despite Dicaprio's and Cotilliard's best efforts in delivering the dialogue, dramatic failure. I never pray on movies. But at one point I started to pray. I prayed for that freaking van to hit the water already. Every time it was closer to its surface I was happy. And then they showed the 3rd layer again and I thought I'm gonna fall asleep.

But when that goddamn kick finally does happen it is quite well done. Not mindblowing, but very well executed. But how much suspense can be left in the scene after 20 minutes? Barely any. The best images we got are in trailer.

In fact, I was so bored by this time that when the conversation occurs between Saito and Cobb in limbo I felt like I was in limbo. Stuck in a movie theater. For at least 10 years since that movie started.

Fortunately, then we get the ending scenes which redeem the movie again. Entire “Inception” after the 1st hour which is very good is the series of ups and downs. With the ending being the most important part of any movie, it is excellent here. First we see everyone wake up and then we see series of scenes that with “Time” by Zimmer beautifully playing in the background create the most powerful ending Nolan has done so far.

Now about it – it is seemingly ambiguous. Although my friend who saw the movie with me didn't think that – he thought that it was clear what happened. There is a long debate in internet – is a dream? Is it reality? I think it is reality for several reasons:
1.The whole point of the movie was for Cobb to get out of the labyrinth, to lose the feeling of guilt. What would be the message of the movie if he didn't win with that? “Sweet Dreams, Dom?”Besides he watches Mal die in Limbo.
2.Cobb says that the easiest way to see if you are dreaming is to see if you remember how you got to the point you are now. So in all the other sequences we don't see the beginning – Ariadne and Cobb are suddenly at cafe, Cobb's wakes up at the shore, but here we see wake up on the plane, go through security, meet with his dad. We see the beginning.
3.Kids's faces. Cobb doesn't see his kids faces in his dreams, but in the end he does. There are two things you can argue with, though – why are the kids wearing the same clothes as in his dream? Well, coincidence may be the answer. Another point – maybe Cobb's doesn't see them in dreams because of his guilt that they lost their mother because of him and he can't stand looking at them. Something to think about.
4.The totem (object that behaves differently in reality and differently in dream so you would know when you're dreaming). Cobb has a top, it spins perfectly in dreamworld, it stops and falls in reality. The totem here spins, spins, spins and then begins to wobble. And then Nolan ends the movie. But it wobbled. It didn't span perfectly.

So I believe the end was real. But there are many theories out there, two of which I really enjoyed – one is that Ariadne planted an idea in Cobb's mind to let go of the guilt. I have to see the movie again to determine at which point she might have done that, but it's only a sidetheory and even if it is true it doesn't change the outcome of the movie.

But another theory I heard is very interesting and almost impossible to check – that when Mal jumped she really was sleeping. And that entire movie is a dream. After she jumped she woke up in real world and now she waits for Cobb to wake up too. That story is backed by the fact Mal keeps saying to Cobb that he knows where to find her. Sure, she means limbo, but still I'm not sure how to check if the theory is correct and I must say it's sounds way more interesting than actual events in the movie.

When you saw the trailer you probably uttered “wow” few times. I did too, because I expected that I will see way more of that cool thing with the street rolling and covering the characters or hallway fight. But there is not much in the movie. The street thing is impressive, but what follows is not. Ariadne breaks two mirrors at once. So? The hallway fight and “flying” Arthur makes to give everyone a kick is more impressive, too bad it's interrupted by those awful “James Bond” inspired sequences. The chase was disappointing. But I liked the beginning of the movie, with water breaking in to the room Cobb was in. That's it – beginning, the moment that kick happens and few shots from corridor scene. That is all we've got. Oh and the exploding street around Ariadne and Cobb in Paris. But we saw that in nearly every tv spot that was released.

But fortunately for Nolan he got Zimmer to do the music. That man is amazing – the soundtrack is completely incredible – fast and exciting when the movie needs it to be, has clear theme, has those epic horns we heard in the trailer and beautiful moments (“Paradox”, “Old Souls”, Time”). I read somewhere that Zimmer composed the music without seeing the movie. He's genius. I shed few tears at the ending, only because of his brilliant music. If anything truly deserves Oscar here is “Time” - I can listen to that piece on repeat, over and over again, now that's minblowing masterpiece. The movie also features “Non, je ne regrette rien” by Edith Piaf – smart ironic choice, given how Cobb has almost nothing but regrets.

The acting is very good and Marion Cotillard shines as usual – she delivers very strong and memorable performance and she is easily the best in the cast. How refreshing, when in Nolan's movies it is always the guy who gets all the praise. Second best performance is by Cillian Murphy who was very good, despite the fact he didn't have too much to work with. Dicaprio must be very careful from now on, since in the last three movies I saw him in, he always had crazy wife and looked sad and angry. He's a good actor but he didn't show anything new here. I wish Bale starred instead, he has more depth in him than Leo. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, watch out because he is about to be a huge star, is very good as nice and likeable Arthur, whilst Ellen Page is incredibly bland as Ariadne – anyone else could have done as much as she did. People dare to complain about Stewart's open mouth – take a look at Ellen here. Watanabe doesn't do much, Caine is barely in the movie. Again, as with “The Dark Knight” Nolan uses the stars to impress everyone with cast and doesn't make a use of it.

The movie is great in that the story is fascinating enough for you to think about it. Create theories, look for tiny things, rewatch the film dozens of times. I surely will rewatch it, many times, but I will have to fast forward through pointless scenes, something that in case of masterpiece I wouldn't need to do. Two years ago I was fooled as many and praised “The Dark Knight” more than it deserved, but Nolan can't fool me twice. This movie doesn't even come close to dream themed masterpieces like “Vanilla Sky” or “Mulholland Drive”. “Inception” lacks heart and soul. It offers gun powder and explosions instead. It's a shame Nolan directed it. The man doesn't know when to stop, he didn't in “The Dark Knight” and here he fails worse because “Inception” is a superior movie. That's why disappointing, unnecessary sequences hurt more. Maybe Fincher, who never made boring movie or Arronofsky who always has so many emotions in his films would be better, I don't know. My point is, dear reader that if you're hoping for absolute and stunning masterpiece...dream on!

74/100

I Love You Phillip Morris

(102 min, 2009)
Plot: Steven Russell is happily married to Debbie, and a member of the local police force when a car accident provokes a dramatic reassessment of his life.
Directors: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Writers: John Requa, Glenn Ficarra
Stars: Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor and Leslie Mann

 

Gigantic waste of time

This movie is not only boring and uninteresting, but in the addition of being bad it's actually offensive. I support gay cause and I often say there should be more movies with homosexual couples, movies like “Brokeback Mountain”, “A Single Man”, “Milk”. So the more the better, here I was thinking, before I saw this movie. After all, love is always the same, no matter if it is between woman and man, woman and woman, man and man. The strength of it may be exactly the same, the emotions ARE the same. But “I love you Phillip Morris” proved to me that there is only one thing worse than few movies about gay people comparing to overwhelming amount of movies about straight people. The movie about gay love that is not only offensive to people in homosexual relationships and everyone supporting them, but worst of all – written by people who don't have any courage in them.

So here is the story - Phillip is married and has kids. He has a job, he has friends, he has a family. He lives modest life. He's not happy.
And then BANG! He decides to be gay but not just gay – the biggest stereotype of gay I've seen. And what's worse is that everyone in the movie who are also gay are just like him – shiny watches, glamor everywhere, pretentious restaurants, houses, yachts. The jokes are not funny and worse yet – even though it's 21th century it's still middle ages at certain places of the globe. Showing stereotypes like that, without even providing good laughs results in two things – one - we see writer's pathetic attempts in making movie funny and it's physically painful, two – people who are hostile towards gays aren't proven wrong. Because they think “hey it's not funny, why would that be in comedy then? It must be true!”. Dangerous, poorly written, just plain horrible. And to anyone who writes “oh, you took it too seriously”. Well, given that 99% of this film wasn't funny I assumed, after all, it's not comedy and only director and producers who are blind and deaf would still think it is.

And the ending is disgusting. Steven is sentenced for life in prison and he looks up to let God know he sensed he was punished. So the message of the movie is – live in the lie with your boring catholic family or you'll rot in jail. Again – horrible.

Why did he steal in the first place? He said because that's what he does. But somehow when he was with his wife he didn't? When he was unhappy? And after he found love and decided to be openly gay he suddenly became criminal? Please.

The only assets of the movie are Carrey's and McGregor's performances. The latter actually manages to be funny, which in the movie that awful is a miracle. I laughed few times during the whole movie, once when Carrey missed the dumpster (wow what an intelligent joke by the way, it's a good thing I laugh at anything) and when McGregor was delivering his lines, which weren't funny, but at least he has a talent. Oh, and the remarks Carrey made during golf game. That's it.

Not only are the writers lousy and not brave – it's years after tent love scene in “Brokeback Mountain” and they only include few light kisses and the camera operator is so awkward and shy, along with the director, they change the shot or the scene in insane hurry. People, where are your balls? I suspect some of you may know what I'll write – Shame on you! It's 21st century, gay people are rising kids, getting married and you move the camera away? You make the movie about two men who are in love and you don't even have the guts to carry on with the signs of affection on the screen? And if any of you, and I read a review where what's going on in this film is being called “explicit” (!) consider dance scene to be brave, then it only shows that some heterosexual people consider gay scenes to be as shocking as mini skirts worn by girls were decades ago. And any hints of sexual contact are either vulgar or make it seem like sex was something so insanely casual to homosexual people. Again – shame on you, writers of this “film”.

I suspect that in addition of being untalented, the director of this may also be schizophrenic. He seemed not to know whether he wanted to shoot comedy or drama. In the effect he didn't shoot either. He shot despicable piece of crap and wasted Carrey's and McGregor's talent and time. And mine for that matter, which is the worst. Some of the scenes felt as out of place as that godawful scene with Malkovich and his father in “Burn After Reading” which was completely pointless, not funny and awkward to watch. In case of “I love you Phillip Morris” it's not only one scene. It's almost an entire movie.

30/100 for Carrey, McGregor, golf and dumpster scene.

Iron Man 2

(124 min, 2010)
Director: Jon Favreau
Writers: Justin Theroux (screenplay), Stan Lee (Marvel comic book)
Stars: Robert Downey Jr., Mickey Rourke and Gwyneth Paltrow

 

Shoot to thrill

I didn't have high expectations – I just wanted to see Robert and redheaded Scarlett. I did not debate over the question whether this will be better than the original, I didn't spend a second of my time on thinking about the plot. I liked 'Iron Man' a lot and it was very entertaining, definitely better than most comic book based movies. It was around the level of „Batman Begins”. I have to say – this part is better. You know this rule that there are always more things in the sequel? Bigger, louder, with more impressive CGI? The rule applies here and I don't see why it's a bad thing. I was however shocked, how serious and not much fun original movie seems now comparing to this one. Dear reader, I have laughed more on „Iron Man 2” than on „The Big Lebowski” and please note that the dude story is my second all-time favorite comedy. „Iron Man 2” is hilarious – particularity the scene on the racetrack where Rourke is at one point unconscious, Paltrow is screaming like possessed and Downey is still capable of throwing in a killer line. Or Scarlett's entrance, or strawberry situation, or excellent ending scene....So much fun.

It is the second time in the history when I have to declare that Robert didn't give the best performance in the movie, it hurts me to write this, but it is the truth. The first time he „lost” to Michael Douglas in „Wonder boys” and now the winner is, hands down, Sam Rockwell. He always steals the show, no matter who is in the cast with him. He was unforgettable in „Green Mile” and „Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy”, he was incredibly funny and memorable in „Frost/Nixon” two years ago and let's not forget he almost got nominated for „Moon” last year, his exclusion caused riots all over internet boards. He was actually the original choice for Tony Stark, but studio went with Downey instead. Rockwell may not be as good looking as Robert but as Justin Hammer he totally rocks the screen. He is charismatic, funny, mischievous. The viewer waits for him to appear on screen. Brilliant work. He created fantastic duo with Rourke – they share a lot of awesome scenes.

Rockwell is not the only newcomer – we have Scarlett Johansson in this one. And she is another person you wait for – she never looked more glamorous – in the first scene we see her, when camera shows extreme close up of her face, there were gasps all over audience. She looks incredibly beautiful and she has many awesome scenes but the best one is definitely her fighting sequence near the end of the film, where she takes down around 15 guys in incredibly short time and very impressive manner. I read Scarlett was very individualistic on the set and her character is too, maybe it was intended. But she is not having as much fun as Downey and Paltrow and Rockwell and Rourke are having. She looks cold, calculating, serious. A real femme fatale and perfect Black Widow.


Mickey Rourke was perfect choice for the villain of the story – he is petrifying. On the racetrack I fought if he actually gets to Downey he may have the strength to rip him apart with his bare hands. His role is very humorous too, he has hilarious lines and his delivery is perfect, his russian accent sounded very convincing too.

Gwyneth Paltrow reprises her part of Pepper Potts, Tony Stark's lovely assistant. And here I was stunned – her character changed so much, for the better when it comes to viewer and for worse when you think what poor Tony needs to endure. In the first movie Pepper was like Tony's nanny, but she was always polite, sweet, charming, innocent. I don't think she even so much as rised her voice throughout the film. Dear viewer, up until yesterday, I had no idea Paltrow can yell that much and that loud. She is screaming a lot in the film and has something that can only be described as panic attack many times. And that is awesome, cause it makes for many fantastic scenes where she and Tony argue. Gwyneth and Robert have amazing chemistry and those scenes are easily the biggest highlight of the film, I loved how quick-paced and fiery the dialogues were and as I said I would not suspect Paltrow of such an ability. She totally rocked and her Pepper is one of the best superhyro's girlfriends ever.

The only thing I didn't like about the movie was that they change Terrence Howard for Don Cheadle in the role of Rhodey. Stark's friend. He seems bored, not committed to the whole thing, a bit in pain, like actual physical pain as if he was forced to be in the film against his will, at times. He has zero chemistry with Downey and now that's an achievement.

Robert puts so much of himself in the movie – I think Tony Stark's persona with all this wit, humor and undeniable charm is one of the most similar roles to his own self he ever played. There is a scene where drunk Tony is spinning out of control which is hilarious, but given Downey's past I was impressed by the presence of the scene in the movie, not that he ever avoided such scenes – clearly he is completely comfortable with this and let's face it – the boy knows how person acts when he is intoxicated beyond human comprehension. Robert gets to portray darker side of the hero here – Tony is dying from the very thing that is keeping him alive and each day he is closer to total poisoning and death. There is also more romance in this one – we finally get to see a kiss between him and Gwyneth and the looks he and Scarlett share are priceless. And the camera loves him – there is a moment were he sits inside gigantic hologram and they focus on him for a while – pure glory. He looks great, but because his character is so much alike him, I cannot praise his extraordinary acting ability here, because neither it was used nor it was necessary. He just had to be himself, when „playing” Tony Stark.

The CGI is incredibly impressive – the scene in Monaco were Rourke's Vanko appears for he first time is amazing. I was sitting in the theater with my jaw dropped. The final battle is also very well done, but the race track is definitely the best action sequence in the film. Contrary to popular belief, the movie contains only two AC/DC songs and as John Debney score was average at best, I thought the movie could have used more of their songs. The editing is terrific, but the cinematography wasn't exceptional. It's not something that I notice, though, when I'm that focused on the characters.

I was surprised so many scenes used in the trailer didn't appear in the movie, the scene where Pepper kisses the helmet and the “aiming” practice between Scarlett and Robert. Very good scenes, I cannot imagine why they didn't make it to the film. Maybe Favreu decided it would be a little too much fun, since near the end of the film Cheadle's embarrassing performance is killing the dialogue exchange.


I keep reading the reviews where people either bash the movie or call it mediocre. Their arguments are idiotic – one of them doesn't think the plot had much sense because Vanko is first in Russia and then he is suddenly in Monaco. „How did he get there?” lost and confused reviewer asks. Probably by flying a fucking plane, I respond.

The plot has many things happening - there is Vanko and his revenge plot, jealous Hammer, a bit of Tony Stark with the exception of nobility and Iron Man suit, the fall between Rhodey and Stark, lovely Natalie who turns out to be a double agent, „Shield” people, Tony's illness, his love to Pepper and a fantasy element since, I'm not sure how exactly possible that is, creating new element. Yes. It actually happens in the movie.

People says it's not there with „The Dark Knight”. I agree. It's above it. „The Dark Knight” was so grim and ridiculously morbid, not to mention it insulted the viewer with horrible, mind numbingly stupid ferry sequence where of course one luckily reformed prisoner saves the day. I liked TDK, I thought it was a good movie, but nowhere near the hype. It took itself too seriously and with the ferry situation and Two face's make up it didn't have the right to do that. „Iron Man 2” is lots of fun – handsome hero, beautiful, strong woman, fantastic special effects, engaging plot, terrific dialogue and what made the first movie so successful – vivid, fascinating characters. Go see the movie for all of that. And if you are a man and don't care – go see it for Scarlett and trust me – you won't regret it.

86/100

Intolerable Cruelty

(100 min, 2003)

Director: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Writers: Robert Ramsey (story), Matthew Stone (story), John Romano (story) Ethan Coen (screenplay), Joel Coen (screenplay)

Stars: George Clooney, Catherine Zeta Jones and Billy Bob Thorthon

Fool me once...

“One should always be in love. That is the reason one should never marry.“
- Oscar Wilde

“Intolerable Cruelty” is one of my favorite comedies and one of the most underrated movies ever. What's interesting it's that it's not underrated by the critics, but by the movie goers. And I happen to love this film and no matter how many times I see it I always laugh.

The film focuses on divorce attorney Miles Massey (Clooney), who is brilliant at his job – he can shift blame from unfaithful wife to innocent husband, he can undermine any evidence, he can charm the judge and find the witnesses no matter where they are. One day a client comes to him, worried about the fact his wife may want to take everything from him and he intends to give her nothing. The wife, whose sole purpose was to get married and then get rich in the divorce, Marylin (Catherine Zeta Jones) loses the case, because of Massey's skills. What's making matters worse is that they are both interested in each other.

The movie has brilliant script – the only scenes I didn't like were with Gus Petch, who catches people on infidelity for a living, it's seemed too silly compared to another jokes, frequently absurd, but very clever. The dialogues are incredibly smart and witty and the characters are very memorable, despite acting stupid at times, they are also very likeable. Some of the scenes – for example first deposition scene, Marylin's wedding and the phone call Miles makes to Wheezy Joe are pure gold. The movies makes fun of marriage, divorces, lawyers and their clients who are so easily manipulated. But it never makes fun of love.

Massey is played by George Clooney. That character is actually very close to the description of Michael Clayton – good at his job, slightly frustrated, looking for more. There are two differences – one is comedy, another is a serious drama and Clooney's acting. It is amazing that he can play such person so differently. He has great comedy skills and he truly was hilarious in this – the delivery of the lines, his maniacal laugh, his constant checking of his perfectly white teeth, (reference to “blood sucking lawyer”, I guess) and his bored repetition of other people's words. He is also insanely charming – the courtroom scenes, especially when he questions Marylin and for few seconds he just walks around staring at her. I was smitten. He won his Globe for another comedy role in another Coens' movie “O Brother Where Art Thou?” but this performance, in “Intolerable Cruelty” was so much better. He is the most charming and most funny in Coens' films.

Marylin is very clever and calculating – she comes up with elaborate plan to get back on Miles, never letting him know of her intentions and executing whole ploy beautiful. Her aim is independence, wealth and power. She is a true femme fatale, using men for her own benefit. But beneath the surface she starts to notice what Miles had already discovered – that money is not everything and without love and people around you nothing really matters. Cliche? Maybe. But the movie is everything but it.

The films features, as usual in Coen brothers' film, the whole spectrum of interesting characters – cheated husband who we meet in great prologue (Geoffrey Rush), Miles's attorney friend who always cries at weddings (Paul Adelstein), chatty husband of Marilyn (Billy Bob Thorton) and opposing counselor who is constantly humiliated by Miles (Richard Jenkins). The cast is impressive and everyone does great job. Zeta Jones and Clooney have fantastic chemistry and there is definitely a lot of heat going on between them – Clooney kisses a woman and things must happen – electricity goes off, steam is coming out of the tub or in this case – music gets louder and louder. And Zeta only needs to throw one look to fascinate both Miles and the audience.

The film has many inside jokes - Billy Bob Thornton speaks very fast because his character in “The Man Who Wasn't There” speaks slowly, in the scene where Miles is summoned to see his boss the same music is played as when the Dude was sent to Lebowski and so much more references to both Coens movies and another ones*. Oh – and there are heart shapes, hidden everywhere in the film And I'm not just talking about the adorable opening credits.

The movie is about the fight and games in which two sides are attractive, intelligent and determined. The trouble is that we root for both, because they are so likeable and we want them to be happy at last. This is a romantic comedy, unlike any romantic comedy I saw so far – the usually fragile heroine, here is strong and has rottweilers and the hero at one point of the movie hires a hit man to kill the woman he loves. Watching all of this is so much fun, because the movie never pretends to be serious, never loses its comedy tone. In “Fargo” it happened a lot, in “Burn After Reading” it happened few times. I'm not saying it's a bad thing – I'm saying I don't like when the movie breaks the pattern like that. I always liked “The Big Lebowski” and this movie the best because they stuck to the genre – sometimes it works and had the Coens insisted on putting something dead serious here it would kill the light charm and fun atmosphere of “Intolerable Cruelty” . Everyone seems to be so thrilled and in awe when somebody juggles with genres, but I was never a fan of that. There is still so much to invent withing the frames of drama, thriller and comedy – and the last one is proven by this movie.

* very interesting article concerning the movie - http://mulholland-drive.net/studies/intolerable.htm

87/100